Perp Walking Myself?
by Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Introduction: The Perp Walk
The “Perp Walk” is a classic institution in American culture. Actually, given the presumption of innocence prior to trial and verdict, it should be called “The Alleged Perp Walk” [DSK?]. This occurs when law enforcement tips off the mainstream media, often their favored reporters, the ones who know how the “Access Game” is played, that they will be transporting a prisoner, an alleged “Perp” or perpetrator of a crime, in handcuffs of course, for some photo-ops. Of course “The Perp” is mainly a stage prop for those who caught him [“Yes, ‘Your’ law enforcement is on the job”] and those covering the “Perp Walk” [“Yes, ‘Your’ mainstream media is on the scoop”]. Bernie Madoff got pushed around a bit when he was “Perp Walked”; and Lee Harvey Oswald, well his Perp Walk did not turn out well for him or for Jack Ruby who shot him on prime-time; but it did boost a whole “Conspiracy Theory” industry on the JFK assassination.
NORRIS: How did this come to be such standard practice in New York City in particular?
Mr. KRAJICEK: There’s some dispute, but it’s been happening in New York City for most of a hundred years or so. And it’s probably actually J. Edgar Hoover who’s responsible. Hoover knew that it was great PR for citizens of America to see one his public enemies in handcuffs. You put somebody in handcuffs and surround them by cops, they look guilty. I mean, Gandhi would look guilty in shackles and chains.
TERRORISM AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND WHAT/WHO IS A TERRORIST?: FBI SAYS I MIGHT BE ONE
DECONSTRUCTING THIS FBI FLYER:
Well I am a law-abiding citizen. Am I capable of breaking an unjust law? Yes, but in the same spirit as Mahatma Gandhi I would do so openly, as an act of conscience, and accept the punishment that goes with it. It would be to show, with solid documentation, facts and higher law, open protest and refusal to obey and thus be complicit in what I regard as injustice; and even sometimes to show breach of the spirit and intent of the very law I am charged with breaking by those who are the real lawbreakers playing games with words.
But as I read this FBI Flyer urging me to report potential terrorists, well I am wondering if I should do my duty and report or whistle-blow on, and then “Perp Walk”, myself. And what would happen if others who also found themselves potentially on this FBI Flyer did so also.
Now I do not think I am any kind of “extremist” and certainly not “Right-wing”. But I am a defender of the U.S. Constitution although I do not know what “defender” in quotes in the FBI flyer is supposed to mean or imply except that those who call themselves defenders of the U.S. Constitution may well not be the real deal and even subverting and trashing it.
. But yes I have taken, twice, an oath to uphold, support, protect, defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And Yes, I do not believe that I can invoke the U.S. Constitution or any law for the protection of myself and loved ones and yet turn around and break or breach those very same laws I invoke for myself and loved ones. And yes, those enemies of the U.S. Constitution may well be elements within the U.S. Federal Government, or in State Government or in the UN (are there not former government employees now in jail convicted of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors?) but I also know people in government I have the highest respect for.
I am not involved in paramilitary or survivalist training but I fail to see what is illegal in it, or what gives indication of potential for terrorism per se. Go to any Barnes and Noble and they have whole sections of books and magazines on these subjects with many people interested in them. Shall we turn in all bookstores that carry their literature? What about the Boy Scouts were they not set up to provide, in addition to being the inspiration for Hitler Youth, survivalist and para-military training? What about the Police Explorers? What about Civil Air Patrol? Are these not all paramilitary?
Nothing here fits with me. Not guilty. Never been to any meetings of any of the groups listed nor knowingly met any of their members. But again, is the holding of certain ideas, even offensive to the “mainstream”, some kind of basis, “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” that a person may be a terrorist or harbor both the intention as well as propensity for terrorism?
Nothing here fits with me except: a) I will, as a matter of basic rights, request reason and authority for a stop by law enforcement or anyone; b) I do make references to the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, but I do not know how “numerous” they are or what constitutes (how many? in what time period?) “numerous” references to the U.S.Constitution; c) As for “policing the police”, not only am I for it, but apparently the Federal and State Governments Offices of Inspectors General and departments of Internal Affairs of various law enforcement agencies are supposed to believe in it also. Are they “terrorists”?
Yes my views are commonly viewed as “Left-wing” and “radical” (as in the root of the word in Latin “Radix” or “root” as in getting to the “radix” or root of an issue). Yes I have read both Marx and Lenin extensively and think they both, flawed human beings as I am and we all are, offered penetrating insights on many issues. But I do not know even one real Marxist or Leninist who is a terrorist or in favor of any kind of terrorism. Marxists and Leninists believe that capitalism, as a system, is an historical system (with pluses and minuses; and with minuses increasingly outweighing pluses as capitalism ripens at oligopoly and monopoly stages) and not the end of history. They believe that the system ultimately ends under the weight of its own internal contradictions, vicissitudes and crises, when its Mr. Hyde side becomes more and more evident relative to its Dr. Jekyll side. Just as Slavery emerged out of the contradictions and dissolution of primitive communalism, just as feudalism emerged out of the contradictions and dissolution of slavery, just as capitalism emerged out of the contradictions and dissolution of feudalism, the imperatives of human survival and threats to the planet from the logic and trajectories of capitalism will force some kind of new system not necessarily through force or insurrection but possibly.
Marx and Lenin both vigorously denounced terrorism on various levels: it is unjust and hurts innocents; it makes more enemies than friends; it represents petit-bourgeois infantilism and the need for a few theatrical results over the substance of patient and protracted mass work with the masses who are the real makers of history; it gives credibility and power to those claiming to be anti-terrorists who are often terrorists themselves under the banner of counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency;
So I am confused because I have never known any “left-wing” terrorists nor have I ever read anything from Marx or Lenin that would sanction or encourage any forms of terrorism: which can be defined as any set of tactics that direct, impose, or are indifferent to any forms of, violence or coercion imposed upon non-combatants lacking the intent, training and means to defend themselves.
Although I am concerned with some of the “single-issues” mentioned on the list, I am on record as against single-issue “moments” in lieu of multi-dimensional/issue movements that focus on how and why all these “single-issues are not “single-issues” at all.
I do not know what “targeting law enforcement” means. If it means causing any harm to a law enforcement officer I am against it. If it means holding especially law enforcement accountable to obeying the same laws they are supposed to enforce, I am all for it. If it means “policing the police” and holding them accountable to the same laws we are all accountable to then I am for it. What a novel concept: that those who carry guns and are charged with law enforcement, law creation or adjudication should obey the law themselves in the course of their duties and not be exempt from the very laws they are charged with enforcing, evolving or adjudicating. That idea makes one a “potential terrorist”?
From what is given on this FBI Flyer, I am wondering if I should call the media and tell them when I am presenting (“Perp Walking”) myself to FBI as a possible “terrorist” or perhaps “thought criminal” according to their flyer and very “loosey-goosey” definitions and non-definitions of a who is a terrorist or potential terrorist. Of course Maybe that would be better than a drone over my house because someone “FEELS” I may be a threat to someone or “potential Terrorist” and thus no “need” for a warrant, an indictment, an arraignment, a trial, a judicial verdict, a sentence, or any appeals prior to execution.
If Senator Ted Kennedy could wind-up on a terrorist “no-fly list” imagine what they might think of some of my views of the world.
If I turn myself in or report myself, would that make me a snitch or a whistle-blower or both?
Given all the screw-ups of FBI and other law enforcement relative to stopping 9-11, given the legacy of J Edgar Hoover and his soul mate Clyde Tolson of lawlessness and contempt for the U.S. Constitution (J. Edgar was no “terrorist” who made “numerous references” to the U.S. Constitution or tried to “police the police”), how can I be sure the FBI will handle my whistle-blowing or snitching on myself? I mean when the former Director of the NSA, Lt. General William Odem, certainly no “Left-wing Terrorist”, no “single-issue Terrorist”, no “Common-law Proponent”, no member of any “Hate Group”, right-wing for sure [but “extremist”?] blows the whistle on terrorism and nothing is done about it well…
FBI does have some games online to practice the Perp Walk as a gimmick for recruitment and public relations.
Duty Under Law:
The basic predicate of all Law is that it must be clear, understandable, not vague so that an average reasonable prudent person can understand it so as to be able to comport himself to it. No one can claim in Court either ignorance of the Law nor lack of ability to understand it because of not being a trained lawyer. Another predicate of the law is it must be universally applied without fear or favor not only to encourage mass respect for and obedience to the Law as law enforcement resources are always stretched thin, but also because only a psychopath or sociopath believes they are immune from and not accountable to the very same Law they invoke for their own interests and protection of themselves and any loved ones [that is if psychopaths and sociopaths would be capable of loving anyone but themselves].
Here is the Law and it is Clear:
Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
OK, What if I have a basis to believe crimes may have been committed and/or are being committed?
OK, now if I have a good-faith-basis to believe that one or more felonies have been committed or are about to be committed, and especially if I am a public employee bound by another set of laws that private-sector employees are not bound by, and especially if I am seeing real harm or the potential of real harm to real people, where do I go?
The Law has an answer:
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
OK, What if I have been to various Courts and Law Enforcement Agencies and with supporting evidence of crimes causing real harm to real people? https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/category/clark-college/
Then There is this:
Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.