#in prison for ten years because of a crime committed in their senior year of college and when they get out they want to find their best

[fire-faerie-nineteen]

In my head, Oliver Marks and Victor Vale were in the same prison

[munsonsduchess]

To Hell With the Devil

summary: you end up being eddie's babysitter while you're hiding out at rick's place, the only problem is you cannot stand eddie munson w/c: 1,776 warnings: fluff, swearing, eddie is a flirty menace, mentions of body horror and what happened to chrissy a/n: this was another sleepover request and when i saw it my brain immediately jumped to fake dating but then the wonderful @pillow-titties suggested enemies to lovers and how could i refuse?

any mistakes or typos you notice should be written down on a piece of paper, folded eight times, placed in an acorn and thrown into lovers lake. thank you.

(moodboard by me)

You'd been having breakfast when you saw the news. A murder at the trailer park, one of the cheerleaders from the high school had been found dead in a trailer but the police weren't saying any more at this time. 

You called Steve immediately knowing he was the only one who'd be watching the news at that moment in time as well, Robin too if she was working alongside him,

"Yeah we've seen it, the police don't have any suspects but I don't think this is anything to do with us" by 'us' he meant interdimensional monsters and the upside down, both of which you'd been introduced to last summer while working at Starcourt Mall and you'd gotten mixed up with Robin, Steve, Dustin and a very bossy ten year old called Erica. Not to mention the secret russian lab underneath the mall and everything that went along with it,

"Well I'll come by anyway, I have some tapes to return" you told him, your parents had rented some movies the night before and had left it to you to return the tapes on your day off work. You said your goodbyes before gathering what you needed for the drive to Family Video.

When you got to the store on the other side of town you hadn't expected both Dustin and Max to be there as well, apparently making nuisances of themselves behind the counter, 

"Just in time!" Robin called as you walked through the door, "Steve is about to commit a double child murder!" 

"Hey!" Max protested, "I didn't do shit!"

"Do I want to know?" you asked Steve who sighed loudly, 

"Henderson and Mayfield say the trailer that Cheerleader was found in was Eddie Munson's place" 

"He's also totally innocent!" Dustin interrupted, "whatever is going on Eddie didn't do it!" 

Max explained how her mother had seen Eddie leave the trailer park in the middle of the night and hadn't seen him since. She'd woken up that morning to the crime scene opposite her own trailer and so here they were searching for Eddie's friends phone numbers in the family video system to try and locate the man's whereabouts,

"Ok so any luck with that?" you'd asked, "or are we just gonna leave it alone because it's for the police to deal with" 

"You don't get it! You hate Eddie!" Dustin thrust an accusatory finger in your face and you shrugged. You couldn't disagree with him, you certainly weren't Eddie Munson's number one fan. He'd been a blip on your peripheral vision throughout high school and now that you were two years post graduation you really didn't care what he was up to. You'd heard from Steve that the younger set of kids i.e. Lucas, Dustin and Mike worshiped the ground Eddie walked on since they'd been inducted into his club, something about a dragon game, and that it really got under Steve's skin that Dustin had so many nice things to say about the super senior whenever he and Dustin saw each other.

➽───────────────❥

In the end Dustin had found the address of one of Eddie's lesser known friends, his drug dealer as a matter of fact, Reefer Rick and you'd been roped into going along with everyone else to the boathouse by Lovers Lake to find the missing man since Dustin was still convinced of his innocence. 

You'd all pulled up to the house and found it deadly quiet. Rick himself was in prison or so you'd heard and if Eddie was here then he wasn't letting anyone know. At least until Steve started banging things with an oar and ended up pushed against a wall with a broken bottle to his neck. Not you imagined how he thought his day would go, nor did you imagine the former King of Hawkin's High would have wanted Dustin Henderson to beg for him not to be harmed for his sake. 

Eddie finally put the bottle down and sunk to the ground, his usual dark eyes held distress and fear as he recounted his story of what had happened to the cheerleader the police had found dead in his trailer that morning. Chrissy Cunningham, you didn't know her personally but you remembered her from pep rallies and things, she was a couple of years younger than you but the same age as Nancy and Robin who would probably know her better. 

By the end of the story it became clear, this was a group problem and not something the police could handle. The account of Chrissy's milky white eyes, her levitation onto the ceiling before all the bones in her body snapped and her jaw broke and her eyes had burst, pouring blood all over the trailer. This was definitely not something Hawkins PD could deal with, especially without Chief Hopper, 

"Don't worry, we've done this before" Dustin said and put a hand on Eddie's shoulder, "you should stay here in case anyone starts looking for you" 

"Yeah that's a good idea" Steve agreed, "someone should stay with you while we try and figure out what we're dealing with" 

As Steve spoke he looked at you and you could only shake your head violently, using your arms to gesture no way but Steve chose to ignore you and so while you watched everyone else leave you crossed your arms and scowled. Why did it have to be you? This was bullshit,

"Looks like it's just you and me now honey" Eddie grinned at you, "what should we do?" 

"I'm not doing anything with you" you spat, "I don't see why I have to be the babysitter, this is bullshit" 

Eddie just laughed. Asshole. He probably thought this was hilarious, that you were stuck looking after him with nothing but a walkie talkie and whatever passed for entertainment in a boathouse belonging to a convicted drug dealer. 

➽───────────────❥

You'd turned your back on Eddie for two seconds and he'd gone from throwing rocks into a can to breaking into Rick's actual house,

"What being wanted for murder wasn't enough? Now it's breaking and entering!" you hissed at him, "come back here Munson" 

"Relax would you, Rick told me I could use the place whenever I wanted. I'm looking for his spare key" Eddie shot back at you, another grin on his face like he found the whole thing endlessly amusing, "got it" 

"Great, now get inside before someone sees you!" 

"Ladies first" he made a mock bow and gestured into the open doorway, you rolled your eyes and quickly ran into the house with Eddie following. 

"This is definitely not what Steve had in mind when he said to stay put and lay low, if we get caught I will throw you under the bus" 

Eddie's face fell for a fraction of a second and his shit eating grin was replaced with a frown. It happened so quickly you almost missed it,

"Oh wow well we wouldn't want to disappoint King Steve now would we?" Eddie invaded your personal space, "wouldn't want him to be mad at you" 

"Ugh!" you pushed him away, "Can you go sit in another room or something? It's hard to concentrate with you around!"

"Do I distract you honey?"

"You're jumping around like a five year old on skittles, it's distracting when I'm trying to keep you from getting lynched or something" 

"Why don't you like me?" Eddie asked after a few moments of precious silence, "you were about ready to kick Stevie where the sun doesn't shine for suggesting you be the one to stay" 

"Well lets see, you're annoying, you look like that" you gestured to his ripped jeans, leather jacket and denim vest combo, "you still haven't graduated high school, you're the leader of a nerd club full of fifteen year olds, you're obnoxious as hell, your music is shit, you stink of weed, do I need to go on?" 

"Wow, that's a long list. You probably could have stopped after 'annoying' but you just kept going" 

"Don't get your panties in a wad" 

"Sweetheart if anyone's got their panties in a wad I think it's you" 

"Uh huh sure" you scoffed, Eddie was invading your personal space again but when you tried to push him away he grabbed your wrists and pushed you against one of the walls inside the house, "let go of me Munson" 

"I think, you secretly like me but you don't want Steeeeve to know about it" Eddie leaned in until you were almost cheek to cheek, "so you put on this big show about hating my guts but that's all it is … a show" 

"In your dreams Munson" 

Eddie's tongue darted out quickly to wet his lips and you couldn't help your eyes being drawn to the motion, something he found endlessly funny,

"What's the matter baby? Scared you'll like being stuck here with me?" 

"Oh bite me asshole" 

"Only if you ask nicely" 

"Go fuck yourself" 

"I'd rather fuck you if i'm honest sweetheart" 

You opened your mouth to protest and to tell him exactly what you thought of him but Eddie chose that moment to crash his lips into yours and steal the breath from your lungs in what was honestly the best kiss you'd ever had in your entire life. So much so that when Eddie finally pulled away to let you breathe he was smirking at you like a cheshire cat, 

"Wow, that's really all it took to shut you up? Just one little kiss?" he teased, one of his hands coming up to play with the ends of your hair, "if I'd known that I would have done it sooner, to hell with Steve" 

"Why the hell do you keep bringing up Steve?" you asked, still slightly breathless. You couldn't understand why Eddie saw fit to keep talking about the other man,

"Well you obviously have a thing for him, like every other girl in this godforsaken town" 

"You're a fucking idiot. Steve's practically my brother, I do not have a thing for him" 

"Is that so? Cause I think you're just trying to cover your hide now that I know all about your secret little crush"

There was clearly no stopping Eddie now that he thought he had you all figured out so you did the only thing you could think of. You grabbed the lapels of his denim jacket and crushed your lips together again effectively shutting him up,

"Really Munson? One little kiss is all it takes?" you taunted, mirroring his words from earlier,

"Oh sweetheart, you've done it now. You don't know what you've started" 

"Just shut up and kiss me again you asshole"

Taglist: @jobean12-blog @prettyboyeddiemunson @eddiesmutson @eddiemvnsonss @that-lame-ghoul9000 @slytherinintj13 @inluvweddiemunson @likedovesinthewnd @boomhauer @flashyourgreeneyesatme @wheaty-melon @ches-86 @xbreezymeadowsx @hellfireeddiemunson @hoppershoe @shenanigans-and-imagines @lucciaa9 (if you're stricken out it means tumblr won't let me tag you properly) let me know if you want to be added!

[captainmdhridoyhossain-blog]

[ad_1] Thus spoke two survivors of Operation Priboi, the code identify for the compelled deportation by way of the Soviet government of greater than 40,000 Latvian males, ladies and kids on March 25, 1949.The ones nightmarish reminiscences may additionally have issued from the tens of 1000's of Estonians and Lithuanians who had been likewise swept up that day by way of flying squadrons of Soviet troops and dispatched to Siberia. A complete of half-a-million citizens of the 3 Baltic states had been deported between 1941 and 1952.Tale continues beneath commercialNow, in gentle of stories of an identical habits by way of Russian troops within the newly occupied territories of Ukraine, the peoples of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, together with the surviving deportees and their households, are reliving that nightmare.“It's unconscionable for Russia to power Ukrainian electorate into Russia and put them in what's going to principally be focus and prisoner camps,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the United Countries, informed CNN, noting that she may now not verify the common studies of 1000's of other folks being taken in opposition to their will from the besieged port town of Mariupol.Assuming the studies are true, Russia could be in violation of world regulation, specifically the Geneva Conventions governing the remedy of civilians in wartime. Survivors of the sooner Baltic abductions don't have any hassle believing the studies.Tale continues beneath commercialThe truth that they coincide with remaining week’s regionwide commemoration of the mass deportations of March 25, 1949, makes the scoop the entire extra haunting.“Lately, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are commemorating the sufferers of mass deportations effected by way of the Communists,” Latvian International Minister Edgars Rinkevics mentioned remaining week, prior to becoming a member of the yearly commemoration of the March genocide, because it is named right here, by way of laying a wreath on the Freedom Monument in Riga. “Provide-day Russia commits crimes in opposition to humanity in Ukraine.”“We Baltic persons are neatly conscious about what Chekists are in a position to,” Rinkevics persisted, the usage of the identify of the unique Soviet secret provider, which performed the primary wave of deportations within the Forties, along side their indigenous communist collaborators.“The process and the mentality” of the Russian profession troops “are the similar,” agreed Karen Jagodin, director of the Museum of Occupations and Freedom in Tallinn, Estonia.Tale continues beneath commercial“I don’t assume any individual who hasn’t lived via the similar factor of their nation’s historical past can perceive what the present occasions in Ukraine unsleeping in us,” she added.“It is extremely unhappy,” concurred Milda Jarusaitine, senior museologist on the Museum of Occupations and Freedom Opponents in Vilnius, Lithuania, “however we will be able to see many parallels between what is occurring then and now.”Actually, the Soviets undertook two mass deportations from the Baltics, one in 1941, after the usS.R. occupied the area in the beginning of International Struggle II, however in 1949, 5 years after Moscow reoccupied the 3 neighboring international locations after defeating the Germans, who had occupied the 3 nations in the meanwhile. The target of the primary expulsion, which came about at the evening of June 14, 1941 — not up to a 12 months after Moscow first occupied the Baltics and per week prior to Nazi Germany attacked the usS.R. — used to be mainly political, aimed toward purging the area of anti-Soviet forces.Tale continues beneath commercialLots of the estimated 60,000 Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian “enemies of the folks” who had been swept up in that lightning operation and herded aboard Siberia-bound railway wagons had been the lads of the Baltic elite, together with educators, writers, legal professionals and different pros, along side their households.

Greater than 10 p.c had been Jewish; that expulsion might be thought to be the primary section of the Baltic Holocaust, which in the long run noticed the digital extermination of the Jewish inhabitants within the Baltics after the Germans kicked the Soviets out.All through the operation, the lads had been separated from ladies and kids and despatched to laborious hard work or jail camps, the place an estimated 50 p.c had been shot or died on account of the horrific prerequisites, whilst the ladies and kids had been despatched to farms.Operation Priboi, the 1949 deportation, used to be even broader in scope. Its fundamental goal used to be to conquer the local farmers’ resistance to incorporating their homesteads into jointly managed farms.In the meantime, a parallel, regionwide armed revolt referred to as the Wooded area Brothers had additionally sprung up. Operation Priboi aimed to do away with enhance for the ones rural guerrillas by way of uprooting the populace the place they operated, together with their households and doable recruits.Tale continues beneath commercialAn estimated 150,000 other folks had been deported in Operation Priboi, or 2 p.c of the inhabitants of the 3 Baltic republics. However in contrast to in 1941, 70 p.c of the ones deportees had been ladies and kids, who had been despatched to farms to paintings, and a way smaller proportion of the deported died. The majority of the deportees had been sooner or later in a position to go back house within the past due Nineteen Fifties underneath the de-Stalinization program initiated by way of Nikita Khrushchev.Efforts to commemorate the sufferers of the 2 deportations had been noticed by way of Moscow as a danger, and with excellent reason why: They changed into sure up with the Baltic peoples’ want to reclaim their independence.“It's no twist of fate that the primary anti-Soviet public demonstrations within the Baltic States came about in Riga with a wreath-laying on the Freedom Monument on June 14, 1987, the anniversary of the 1941 genocide,” mentioned Pauls Raudseps, an American-born journalist who has been operating in Riga because the Nineteen Nineties.Tale continues beneath commercial“In 1987, this demonstration used to be extraordinarily dangerous — glasnost used to be nonetheless now not very complicated and public discussions of the deportations and the Soviet profession truly handiest began a 12 months later,” mentioned Raudseps, whose great-uncle and his spouse and 1-year-old daughter had been a few of the first wave of deportees. (They survived.)However the stunned Soviet government allowed the demonstration to continue. 4 years later, the usS.R. dissolved. The yearly observances of the 2 deportations at the moment are nationwide days of commemoration within the 3 Baltic international locations.“The concern, anger, destruction of lives, households, houses and careers have at all times stayed in our cultural reminiscence,” mentioned Jagodin, the director of the Museum of Occupations and Freedom, which opened in 2003 to maintain the reminiscence of the 2 Soviet occupations of 1940-41 and 1944-1990, in addition to the intervening German one.Tale continues beneath commercialNow, with the scoop of the reported abductions 1,200 miles away in Mauripol, the ones preserved reminiscences were stirred up as soon as once more for lots of Estonians, in addition to their Latvian and Lithuanian neighbors, Jagodin mentioned.“I don’t know if lately in Ukraine they're settling on deported other folks by way of ethnicity, language, schooling or social standing,” mentioned Jagodin, “however in each 1941 and 1949, one of the most Soviets’ major targets used to be to execute the elite and those who would stay Estonian tradition, language and id alive.”Each deportations had been “focused assaults in opposition to the Estonian country,” she mentioned, which seems like what the Russians are reportedly doing in Ukraine.Tale continues beneath commercialThus the added fervor and

emotion that accompanied remaining week’s commemorations of the March deportations in Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, in addition to across the Baltics. Within the shadow of Ukraine, the ones deportations now not appear see you later in the past or up to now away.“Commemorations like the only remaining week advertise the concept nationwide independence is an existential subject,” mentioned Gints Apals, director of public historical past on the Latvian Museum of Career in Riga, “in addition to a ensure in opposition to the repetition of an identical occasions one day.”Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based totally in Riga. He's Nordic/Baltic correspondent for the Christian Science Track. He's additionally a visiting lecturer in historical past on the Latvian Academy of Tradition. [ad_2] #Russia #deported #Ukrainians #Soviets #kidnapped #Baltic #electorate

[gvbejvmesmichaels]

Task 14: Genderbent

Legal Name: Gabriella Antonia James-Michaels Usually Goes By: Ella Michaels Why: She only kept the James-Michaels because she didn’t want the James name to end with her. She’s never felt as though she was a James or a Conrad. Michaels is the only last name that’s ever felt like hers. Former Names: Gabriella Antonia James (maiden), Gabriella Antonia Conrad (first marriage) Nicknames: Ella (everyone), Briella (Jocelyn) Relationship Status: Married to Jocelyn James-Michaels Past Relationships: Nathan Conrad (ex-husband) Children: Andrew Conrad, Constance Conrad, Arabella James-Michaels (by adoption) Occupation: Professional Tattoo Artist and amateur sculptor. She co-owns a tattoo shop called The Collective with Kaia Johnson where they specialize in Skin Artistry. Higher Education: B.A. in Art History from California State University Los Angeles (prisoner education program), the required certifications to become a professional tattoo artist Tattoos: She honestly doesn’t know how many tattoos she has. She can tell you that all of her tattoos have been done by herself, by Kaia, or by one of the apprentices at The Collective. Her two prized tattoos are 1) her first tattoo she ever did: a crude rendering of her brother’s name on her inner left arm done by stick and poke, 2) the tattoo on her ring finger she talked Joss into giving her. Her wife had been uncomfortable with the idea, and she definitely went too deep in places, but Ella is beyond proud of the shaky Joss printed on her finger. Quirks: Growing up Ella wasn’t allowed to wear pants, which of course means that now she lives in pants and shorts. Ella refuses to wear dresses or skirts. She even wore a fitted pantsuit to her wedding.

Ella James was born and raised in Roswell, New Mexico to extremely conservative parents. Her father was incredibly religious and forced his religious beliefs on his family. He had very strict rules about how Ella was to dress and behave. Her mother was one of those women that wanted nothing more than to be a homemaker. She was more than happy to go along with all her husband’s strict rules because she liked the idea of rules and structure. That was also probably why Ella’s parents only had two children: Ella and her younger brother, George. On the outside, the family appeared to be the American ideal: Husband, wife, and a pair of kids. On the inside, it was hell.

Life in the James household for Ella meant that she was supposed to dress modestly, speak only when spoken to, and only engage in activities that were becoming of women. If her father had it his way, Ella wouldn’t have even gone to school. The only places she was able to go to were school, the family antique shop, and church. So, she took advantage of every opportunity to get out of the house. She signed up for extra art classes, extra home economic classes, and even multiple bible study classes -- anything to get out of the house. Her only saving grace was her little brother, George.

George and Ella were attached at the hip. While Ella’s world outside of the house was art, her brother’s world was aliens. He lived in his own extraterrestrial world, which often brought bullies his way. The worst of the bullies was a boy in Ella’s grade: Nathan Conrad. As much as Nathan harassed George, all it took was a smile from Ella for Nathan to completely forget any bad feelings towards George. It didn’t take long for Ella to figure out that if she dated Nathan, George wouldn’t get picked on any more. As an added perk, her father loved Nathan, which meant Ella was allowed out of the house if she was out on a date with Nathan. So she went with it.

For as long as she could remember, she knew she was a lesbian. She has a very distinct memory of watching Smokey and the Bandit, seeing Sally Fields changing out of her wedding dress in the car and being very jealous of Burt Reynolds. She knew right then and there that she liked girls. The problem was that her family would never accept her sexuality, and she knew it. She’d sat through enough bible study classes to know that her parents believed homosexuality was a sin. So, she knew she needed to play straight until George was out of high school, and they could get out of town. Of course, life had different plans. 

When Ella got pregnant her senior year of high school, she knew she was screwed. Lesbian or not, she knew the only option that didn’t end with her losing custody of her child to her parents would be to marry Nathan. Having a kid at 18 and marrying her high school sweetheart, wasn’t the life she wanted for herself, but it was the life she’d been given. Nathan was very similar to her father so she knew what was expected of her. She was supposed to stay at home and raise their son. It was a miserable life, but it gave her the opportunity to build sculptures as much as she wanted. Besides, as soon as she realized that she was pregnant, she knew there wasn’t anything she wouldn’t do for her son. She’d never loved anyone as much as she loved George, until she gave birth to Drew. 

As much as she hated being a housewife, she absolutely adored being Drew’s mom. She took to motherhood like a duck to water. Being a mom was the only thing that made life worth living. So when she gave birth to her daughter, Connie, her whole life revolved around her kids. Motherhood gave her purpose, but there was still something missing in her life. So, she started going to parties that the women in the neighborhood used to host: Tupperware, Mary Kay, Avon - housewife parties. Or at least, that was the cover. In reality, they were hook-ups for women needing more attention than what they were getting from their husbands. They would mess around with each other, and go back home to their husbands like nothing happened.

Ella’s life went on like that until 2002. It was just any other normal Thursday. She’d been at a party, and wound up falling asleep. It was two in the morning by the time she stumbled home to a horror show. Her ten year old son, Drew, was sitting in the corner, covered in blood. She followed the trail outside where her brother, George, lay in a pool of his own blood. Immediately, she dropped to her knees and checked for a pulse, but he was long gone. By the time she looked around to see what had happened, it was too late. Nathan had called the police, and Ella was sitting there covered in her brother’s blood. No matter what she said, the police refused to believe her, and she was arrested for her brother’s murder.

The truth was that George was helping her get enough money together to leave Nathan. Her husband was just as terrible as her father had been. All Ella wanted was to escape with her children and start over somewhere she could be herself: like San Francisco or New York. Somehow Nathan had found out, and well… staged George’s murder to frame Ella for a crime she didn’t commit. He could have given a shit about the kids; it was controlling Ella’s life that he wanted, and he got his way and then some.

Her trial ended just as quickly as it started. All the evidence pointed to her, and no matter what she said or what her public defender tried to sell, the jury was primarily made up of men -- and all they saw when they looked at her was a killer. She never had a chance.

Once she was in prison, life got worse -- Nathan filed for divorce and full custody of the kids. As soon as it hit her that she was never going to see her kids again, she sort of gave up. She let herself slip away in prison. She took classes to get a degree in art history, and did tattoos on the girls for cigarettes and juicy romance novels. Ella didn’t exactly take life seriously. As far as she was concerned, she was a lost cause that had nothing to live for once she got out of prison. So, she fucked around where she could and lived in her own world.

Then her stupid cousin, Annie, had to get involved. Annie didn’t believe for one second that Ella would have killed her brother. So she did what she did best: she meddled and needled until 1) Ella was transferred from New Mexico to a prison in Los Angeles County closer to Annie, and 2) she found a lawyer who was willing to reopen Ella’s case -- and that was how Ella met Jocelyn Michaels.

Meeting Jocelyn was the last thing Ella had wanted to do, but hell, was she glad that she’d taken the meeting. Jocelyn was hot as hell, the smartest person she’d ever met, and stubborn as all fuck. Once she heard Ella’s story, she was invested and Ella found herself invested in Joss.

Somewhere between working on the case, they fell in love. If Ella was honest with herself, she never stood a chance with Joss; she’d fallen for her that first time they met. Ella was handling her feelings well enough. It wasn’t like she was acting on her feelings towards the other woman. She’d never actually been in love with anyone before; it was all new for her. And then… she managed to piss someone off in prison. She wasn’t sure what she did, but she’d always been real good at running her mouth, especially back then. One minute she was fine, and the next minute, there was a sharpened spoon sticking out of her side.

There’s not much she remembers about getting stabbed, but when she woke up in the hospital, Jocelyn was there. She knew right then and there that she was going to marry that woman one day. In fact, she must have said that part out loud because then Joss was kissing her, and not even two weeks later, they were married. 

The new trial was probably the most terrifying month of Ella’s life. If they lost the trial, if she lost Joss… She didn’t know what she’d do with herself. But by some miracle, Jocelyn was able to win the case and after serving 8 years for a crime she didn’t commit, she was found innocent, and for the first time in her life, she was free. 

Once she was out of prison, there were still a lot of things that needed to be handled and taken care of. As far as she was concerned, the most important thing was getting back custody of her kids. Drew was 18 by the time she was out of prison, but he was a senior in high school -- it didn’t make sense to have him leave New Mexico when he was so close to graduating. And Connie… She was 14 and wanted nothing to do with her mother. Even if Ella had tried for custody, Connie wouldn’t have gone with her. So, she gave both her kids her number and moved to New York with her wife.

Life in New York took getting used to. It was the first time that Ella had the freedom to figure out who she was, and what she wanted to do with her life. The first thing she knew for sure was that she didn’t want to be a housewife again -- that had been awful. So, while her wife settled back into New York like she had never left, Ella took it upon herself to figure out what she wanted to do. At first she was so overwhelmed that everything seemed like it was too much. So, she started taking long walks around Central Park, just enjoying naturing and exploring. That was how she met Zak. 

Zak was going to Central Park for the same reasons as Ella - he was trying to figure out his life. The difference between them, however, was that Zak had recently transitioned from having HIV to AIDS. He was dying, and he was trying to figure out a way to ensure his partner, Kaia, wouldn’t lose their self in his death. Throughout their short friendship, they figured out a solution. Kaia was a tattoo artist who loved creating pieces of artwork that took over their client’s backs. With Ella’s self-taught tattoo skills from prison, it made sense for the two of them to open a tattoo shop together. Sure, Ella still needed certification and training in styles other than stick and poke, but it gave both herself and Kaia a purpose and something to focus on.

Once Ella and Kaia officially opened the Collective, it was like the second half of her life had begun. For the first time, Ella was making friends she wasn’t related to or sharing a cell with. It had taken her a long time, but she’d found herself. She had a career, she had her wife, and she had multiple dogs. Her life was finally coming together, but there was something missing -- something that had been missing from the beginning: her kids.

When he was twenty, Drew moved to New York. He wasn’t sure what he wanted to do in terms of school, but he wanted to be near his mom. Ella was, of course, thrilled. Jocelyn was a little standoffish about the whole thing, but having Drew staying in the guestroom made Ella happy so Joss warmed up to the idea of having at least one of Ella’s kids around. Or so she thought. 

It was around 2013 when Ella’s biological clock started ticking out of control. She wanted a baby, and more importantly, she wanted to have a baby with Joss. If they wanted to have kids with their DNA (in Ella’s head she wanted Drew’s sperm and Joss’s egg), they needed to have a baby now. As much as she begged, and begged, Joss was in the middle of running for DA so it wasn’t a good time to add a baby to their life, but they were 39 so… after many discussions, they froze Ella’s eggs at least. It helped soothe Ella’s ticking clock, but the desire never fully went away.

Instead of a baby, Ella put all her effort into her career and her marriage, but Joss’s career had taken off and her wife typically was swamped with work. Her wife must have realized how unhappy Ella was becoming because when Ella brought up having a baby again in 2017, her wife said they could make an appointment to potentially begin the process of surrogacy. Except… the meeting never happened; not really. Sure, they went, but Joss was so busy with work that nothing ever came of the appointment. So, Ella stewed and flashed back to her first marriage and then, after a particularly bad fight about Joss never being home, Ella left her wife and moved in with Kaia.

As much as she still loved her wife, she’d been unhappy, and if she was honest, she’d jumped from one marriage right into the next, so she did some soul searching. It was during their separation, that Ella refound her first love: clay. There had been a time where she thought she was going to be a world famous artist instead of a tattoo artist that people booked appointments for 6 months in advance. And she’d loved working with clay. So, now that she had free time, she found a local studio and began sculpting again.

After filing for divorce in 2018, Ella got a surprise. Her daughter, Connie, had been living in New York for about a year and had been convicted on a distribution charge. As her daughter’s closest relative and blood relation, she was given custody of her granddaughter, Arabella. Once Bella was put in her arms, Ella knew she was meant to raise Bella -- this was the baby she’d been yearning for. Much like the first time, she took quickly to motherhood, even though it had been decades between children. Unlike the first time, she was a single parent, which was a totally different experience.

By late 2019/early 2020, Ella more or less had her life together. She knew who she was, the shop was flourishing, she had an insane amount of YouTube followers who liked to watch her sculpt, and she finally had the single (grand)mom thing down. It was then that she realized that the one thing that was missing from her life was her ex-wife. The problem was that it looked like Joss had moved on, and yet, Ella still found herself trying to reconnect with her ex-wife. 

Falling back into a relationship with the other woman had almost been too easy. It was like going home again. Working on their relationship and getting back together had been great and fine until they were quarantined together with a two year old, and Ella found out they were still technically married. Joss had never filed the signed petition for divorce. If there was anything that could have fouled up their reunion - it was that. But somehow (and with the help of an annoying marriage counselor via Zoom), they were able to reclaim their marriage.

October 13, 2021 will mark one year of being remarried (okay, vow renewal). Ella has no idea where the time has gone, but she knows two things for absolute certain: one - she’s the person she was always meant to be, and two - she’s married to the  absolute love of her life. Things in her life may have been rough, but those things led her to where she was meant to be, and she wouldn’t have it any other way. She hadn’t suffered through the bad, she never would have been able to appreciate the good.

[fuckallthegood0nesweretaken]

The Dove and Her Hound - CH. TwentyNine

Title: A New King

Words: 2,040

Warnings: Slight language

A/N: It’s almost over! Just one more chapter and the series is done, I can’t believe it! Also, if you’d like to request something, send me an ask. I’d love to write something for you! 

Taglist:  @tonbluemchen @affection-rabbit @art-flirt @10morgan10 @thatting @iwontdance-dontaskme @simsvetements

Previous Chapter - Next Chapter

Sandor Masterlist

Game of Thrones Masterlist

Masterlist

~~~~~~~

It had been a week since your son had been born and many things had happened. You learned that one of Daenerys’ dragons had been killed, most of the fleet destroyed, and Missandei captured. Brienne had come to visit you and the child as well. She apologized for the way she handled things when she encountered your trio years ago. She did not know the significance Sandor had in your life and never knew how to approach you about it. You accepted her apology immediately and you apologized to her as well for your naïve attitude and your hate towards her.

The same night Brienne apologized to you, Jaime Lannister fled Winterfell to go back to Cersei. You had known that Brienne and Jaime were together and when you found out he left, you went to console her.

 “He doesn’t deserve you,” you said. “If he leaves you for another woman when he had you then he’s not worth your tears.”

 You wiped away the tears running down her cheeks and looked her in the eyes.

 “You are strong. You are beautiful. You deserve better. Don’t let one man ruin things for you forever. It’s okay to still love him, but don’t let that take over everything.”

 Brienne gave you a watery smile and sat up a little straighter.

 “Thank you, Lady [y/n],” Brienne said. You stood up and kissed her forehead.

 “You should get some rest. I have a feeling that we’re going to do some traveling soon.”

 ---

 Turns out that you were right. A raven arrived from King’s Landing a week later and before you knew it, you were traveling down the Kingsroad. Brienne and Sansa hadn’t wanted you go with them because of the baby, but you went anyways. It took little less than a month to get to the Capital and it looked nothing like you remembered.

 Buildings and houses were charred and crumbling. Ash was still on the streets, swept away into corners. The Red Keep was almost all burnt down. The people of King’s Landing were trying their best to rebuild their homes and lives but it would take years to get things back to the way they were.

 The raven had told you where to go and once more, you found yourself in the Dragonpit. You were seated between Sansa and Brienne, your babe on your lap. Bran and Arya were next to Sansa. You were the first ones there. Ser Davos and Gendry were the next ones to arrive, with Yara, Robin, Yhon Royce, and the rest to follow. Another person showed up with the last group and you couldn’t breathe. It was Sandor, alive and well. The two of you locked eyes and your chest hurt. He looked like he was going to approach you when Greyworm brought out Tyrion before you in chains. Jon was nowhere to be seen.

 “Where’s Jon?” Sansa asked Greyworm.

 “He is our prisoner.”

 “So is Lord Tyrion,” you said. “They were both supposed to be here.”

 “We will decide the fate of our prisoners. This is our city now.”

 “If you look outside the walls of your city, you’ll find thousands of Northmen who will explain to you why harming Jon Snow is not in your interest.”

 “And you will find thousands of Unsullied who believe that it is.”

 “Some of you are quick to forgive. The Ironborn are not. I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow put a knife through her heart. Let them give him what he deserves,” Yara said, venom spewing from her words.

 “Say one more word about killing my brother and I’ll slit your throat.” Arya’s face was ruthless and cold. Yara made to stand up but Ser Davos beat her to it.

 “Friends, please. We’ve been killing each other for too long.” He turned to face Greyworm. “Torgo Nudho. Am I saying that properly? If it weren’t for you and your men, we would have lost the fight with the dead. This country owes you a debt that can never be repaid. But let us try. There is land in the Reach. Good land. The people that used to live there are gone. Make it your own, start your own house with the Unsullied as your bannermen.”

 “I agree. We’ve had enough war. Thousands of you, thousands of us. You know how it ends. There has to be another way,” you said.

 “We do not need payment. We need justice,” Greyworm spat. “Jon Snow cannot go free.”

 Ser Davos sat back down and Tyrion let out a small breath.

 “It’s not for you to decide,” Tyrion said.

 “You are not here to speak!” Greyworm shouted. “Everyone has heard enough words from you.”

 “You’re right. And no one’s any better for it. But it’s not for you to decide.” Tyrion looked up at everyone. “Jon Snow committed his crime here. It is for our King to decide. Or our Queen.”

 “But we don’t have a King or Queen,” Royce said.

 “You’re the most powerful people in Westeros. Choose one.”

 “Make your choice. Quickly.”

 Everyone was silent for once and was looking around at the other people. Nobody spoke until your uncle stood up. He started a little speech talking about him being one of the senior lords in the country and that he knew a little bit about statecraft. It was then that Sansa intervened.

 “Uncle. Please sit,” she said. He kind of spluttered a bit and only sat down when Sansa gestured to his seat with her head. He backed into a pole and it took all your willpower not to laugh.

 “Well, we have to choose someone,” Royce said. That’s when Sam got up and suggested that the people help pick a monarch. Everyone did laugh at that and Sam sat back down, more than slightly embarrassed. It was a funny notion, but you didn’t laugh at your friend.

 “I suppose you want the crown,” your uncle said to Tyrion.

 “Me? No. Half the people hate me for serving Daenerys and the other half hate me for betraying her. Can’t think of a worse choice.”

 “Who then?” You asked.

 “What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags?” Tyrion shook his head. “Stories. There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. And who has a better story than Bran the Broken?”

 You sat up a little straighter and looked at your siblings in confusion. When you looked back at Tyrion, he kept speaking.

 “The boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he would never walk again, so he learned how to fly. He went beyond the wall. A crippled boy. And he became the Three-Eyed-Raven. He is our memory, our history. All the wars, weddings, births, massacres, and famines. Our triumphs and our defeats. Our past. Who better to lead us into the future?”

 “Bran has no interest in ruling and he can’t father children,” Sansa said.

 “Good. Sons of Kings can be cruel and stupid, as you well know. His will never torment us,” Tyrion said to Sansa. To Greyworm he said, “That is the wheel our Queen wanted to break.”

 “From now on rulers will not be born. They will be chosen on this spot by the Lords and Ladies of Westeros to serve the realm.” He turned to Bran. “I know you don’t want it. I know you don’t care about power. But I ask you now, if we choose you, would you wear the crown?”

 “Why do you think I came all this way?” Bran said after a moment. Tyrion looked a little shocked that Bran had actually said yes and you knew that the other people in this meeting were feeling the same way.

 “To Brandon of House Stark, I say aye,” Tyrion said. Everyone was quiet until you and Sam said ‘aye’ at the same time. Tyrion sent the both of you a grateful look. Your uncle was next followed by the men from the Vale. Yara and the new Prince of Dorne agreed as well along with Gendry and Ser Davos. Brienne agreed as well, but you saw that Sansa was trying to pick out words again.

 “You know I love you, little brother. I always will. You’ll be a good King. But tens of thousands of Northmen fell defending Westeros. And those who survived have fought too hard and too much to ever kneel again,” Sansa said. “The North will remain an independent country, as it was for thousands of years.”

 Bran nodded in consent and you could see the relief flood through Sansa’s body.

 “All hail Bran the Broken,” Tyrion said. Everyone stood up and repeated those words. When everyone sat back down, Tyrion bowed to the new King and started to make his way out of the Pit.

 “Tyrion,” Bran called. “You will be my hand.”

 “N-No, your grace. I don’t want it.”

 “I know. And I don’t want to be King.” Tyrion shook his head.

 “I don’t deserve it. I thought I was wise but it turns out I’m not. I thought that I knew what was right, but I did not. Choose Ser Davos. Choose anyone else.”

 “I choose you.”

 “You cannot,” Greyworm said angrily.

 “Yes I can. I’m King.”

 “This man is a criminal. He deserves justice.”

 “He just got it. He’s made a lot of terrible mistakes. He’s going to spend the rest of his days fixing them.”

 Greyworm was angry and he spat out, “That’s not enough!”

 ---

 After about an hour of talking, a decision was made. Jon would go back to Castle Black as a member of the Night’s Watch. You and your sisters wanted him freed completely, but you recognized that this was the only way for your brother to keep his head. You would miss seeing him every day, but you’d lived with this before so it shouldn’t be too hard. Jon was to leave that evening and you had a few hours before you had to say goodbye. Everyone was slowly trickling out of the Dragonpit when Sandor came up to you.

 “Dove,” Sandor said quietly. You froze and slowly turned around.

 “I thought I told you not to call me that.”

 “You did.”

 “Why are you here, Sandor?” Your voice sounded tired and Sandor could see it in your eyes.

 “I heard you were here and I wanted to talk to you.”

 “Talk about what? How you left me for some petty revenge? How I gave birth with you not by my side? How I have been raising our son without you?”

 “I-I have a son?” Sandor’s heart skipped a beat and your chest tightened at the sound of his voice breaking.

 “Yes.”

 “What’s his name?”

 “Eddard. Eddard Stark.”

 “Are you going by Stark too?”

 “Ever since you left me.” Sandor was silent for a moment. He stepped closer to you tentatively.

 “Would you ever take me back?” You sucked in a breath, eyes wide.

 “I know I fucked up and I know it will take a lot to fix it. If you’ll even take me back, that is. But even if you decide not to, I want you to know that I still love you. I always have. I’ll always love our babe and I will do anything for the two of you.”

 His voice was so quiet you could barely hear it, but it was also so loud that it was ringing in your ears. Your eyes filled with tears and you gestured to Sansa to take Eddard from your arms. When your arms were free, you wrapped them around Sandor tightly. It took him a few seconds to respond, but soon you were being spun around. You let out a giggle that was cut short by Sandor kissing you. It was a sweet kiss that you broke shortly after it began.

 “While I love kissing you, I think you’d like to officially meet your son, yes?”

 Sandor’s eyes lit up and Sansa brought over your son. You took him from her and gently placed him in his father’s arms. You showed Sandor how to hold him properly and the sight made you melt. Finally, your family was complete.

[dabistits]

To talk about Twice and villainy is to talk about class and criminality (II)

(Masterlist)

Poverty and crime in Japan

Despite Japan’s perception as a country with relatively low inequality, that reputation has somewhat suffered as capitalism advanced and the country faced economic downturns in the 1990s and 2000s. Japan still claims a high life expectancy, universal healthcare, and low infant mortality, but conversations about wealth have been ongoing: academic Sugimoto Yoshio records the changing discursive landscape that transformed Japan “from a uniquely homogeneous and uniform society to one of domestic diversity, class differentiation and other multidimensional forms.” Sugimoto describes the increasing discussion of a kakusa shakai, a disparity society, and the emergence of a karyu shakai—the underclass. Since Sugimoto’s article was published in 2010, [source] many issues of this kakusa shakai identified by him and academics from ten-plus years ago have persisted, such as the proliferation of non-regular workers (now comprising 15% of the labor force), [source] the growing wealth inequality being reflected in Japan’s aging population, and the increasing numbers of elderly poor. More recently, increasing attention has been devoted to the issue of child poverty, usually connected to the low incomes of single, working-class mothers. [source] In 2017, Japan’s relative rate of poverty rose to 16.3% (for comparison, the relative rate of poverty in the U.S. declined to 17.3%), and many non-regular workers expressed fears of getting sick and losing their jobs, remarking on their total lack of stability. [source] [source]

Reflecting working-class desperations worldwide, the most common crime in Japan throughout the Heisei era (1989-2019) was theft. Theft, particularly of material goods, should be thought of as a crime of need, arising out of a lack of a particular good and the money to pay for it. It’s a crime that points to a society with unmet needs, and an effort to criminalize those who try to have their needs met through their own power when social institutions refuse to help. It has long been asserted that the “concepts of "crime" are not eternal,” and that “the very nature of crime is social, and is defined by time and by place and by those who have the power to make the definitions.” The contested legality of abortion is a simple illustration of how definitions of “crime” are constantly in flux, constantly debated, and not at all intuitive or self-explanatory. Being able to label an action, a behavior, or a group of people “criminal” or “illegal” is an act of power, and people doing the labeling have a vested interest in determining what “crime” is. Activist Sabina Virgo, source of the previous quotes, elaborates: “The power to define is [...] the power of propaganda. [...] Most of us accept the images and definitions that we have been taught as true, neutral, self-evident, and for always; so the power [...] to define what is right and wrong, what is lawful and what is criminal, is really the power to win the battle for our minds. And to win it without ever having to fight it.” [source]

The choice to inscribe theft as a crime, as an act to be punished, is part of that propaganda. It’s the decision to criminalize poverty and to protect profit over people, rather than rightfully interpreting theft as a symptom of a dysfunctional system. In Japan, this looks like a large percentage of crimes getting committed by the elderly, particularly theft (90% of shoplifting offenders were elderly women), and a large percentage of incarcerated seniors, who by 2018 made up 12% of the prison population; on the other hand, the law is just beginning to address unethical workplace practices like overwork and power harassment, while facing a rising number of reports on domestic and sexual violence—the raw numbers of which are likely even higher than reported. [source] The difference between which acts are ruled criminal, and who gets criminalized for acting, lays stark the difference between the unethical actions undertaken by the powerful, and the criminalized actions undertaken by the powerless; the more an unethical act abides by and benefits entrenched systems of power, the more we are compelled to see it as normal and acceptable, whereas actions, however minuscule, that resist the hegemony of the capitalist class and reject its propaganda end overwhelmingly with more debt and prison time.

Family and class.

The socioeconomic forces that shift our societies are no less felt within the family structure, and family may be one of the first social units to see destabilization. In a world of increasing economic strife, it isn’t uncommon for parents to spend more hours working than at home, or even to travel abroad to provide for their family in their native country, to see traditional norms rewritten as children either move away or continue to live with their parents, as marriage and birth rates rise or fall, and as the elderly are either embraced back into the family structure or left to fend for themselves. Due to generational wealth, family is also often the determining factor for whether or not someone succeeds, to what degree, and with how much effort. Needless to say, when it comes to “class,” the topic of family receives much scrutiny as academics, journalists, and creators delve into the ways our notions of “family” shift according to time, class, and economics.

Consider that in Japan, and de facto in most countries in the world, the first and most important safety net in modern society is the family. “Public social protection schemes are based on the assumption that everyone is supported by family first,” [source] and this includes the assumption of financial assistance, and duties like procuring care for the family’s elderly. The Japanese family registry—the koseki—is a family tree that records births, deaths, and marriages, and is in many ways a codification of the centrality of family, bloodline, and inheritance. [source] When a character like Jin says that he’s “someone without roots,” perhaps our first impulse is to imagine it as a description of emotional relationships, a difficulty he experiences because others can’t relate to him, but it’s not purely an intangible feeling; there are very tangible repercussions to being “unrooted.” Without a stable family, “unrooted” people miss the safety net that family is supposed to be—they miss its protection. Under a system that expects the worst scourges of modernity to be alleviated by the family, this leaves the “unrooted” out in the cold.

These failures on the part of the traditional family structure to account for prosperity, whether it be through generational poverty, through abuse, or through instability and absence, often leads to a restructuring of these bonds. In Japan, “when the economic bubble burst and the recession exposed the illusion of permanent and stable employment for the diligent workforce, the children found that attaining a better living than their parents through hard work and better education was no longer guaranteed,” and once economic success was no longer guaranteed through traditional paths, children’s bonds “shifted to more individualized, voluntary ties.” [source] Of course, shifting economic conditions aren’t the only reason for non-blood-related individuals to come together—many also come from backgrounds of loss or rejection. As a columnist wrote: “Tragedy and suffering have pushed people together in a way that goes deeper than just a convenient living arrangement. They become, as the anthropologists say, “fictive kin.””

BNHA poignantly embodies these dynamics as Jin tearfully declares that the LOV gave him a “place to belong.” In Japanese, the term used is 居場所 (ibasho), a phrasing which contains the 居 kanji for “residing” or “residence,” as well as “to exist” (it reprises in “I was happy to be (居られて) here” in Jin’s final thoughts). A literal reading could render ibasho as a “place to reside,” or a “place to exist”—something offered only by the friends Jin made, who are a sanctuary from the public that overlooked his alienation, rendering him invisible and denying him existence. For their parts, the other villains are also marked by an ambiguous relationship to their biological family, if not an absence altogether. Himiko and Tomura, whose backstories were touched upon in the same arc, led contentious family lives: Himiko’s parents appeared to regularly condemn their child, and the repeated rebukes that Tomura (Tenko) endured from his father—including an incident of physical assault—resulted in the awakening of Decay and the deaths of his family.

These three were remnants of broken traditional families, scattered and largely isolated across the country. Originally united as a villain group bound loosely by similar goals, they eventually came to rely on each other for survival once the stability of All For One’s hideout and resources were stripped away, leaving them to face a hostile world saturated by incessant policing and villain power struggles. Mutual protection became not only necessary for survival, but necessary for triumph—the League of Villains are consistently shown to be at their best when working as a team, operating on a mixture of communication and even blind trust. Ironically, it’s only when they try to bring outsiders into the fold that the situation goes awry, suggesting that their strength isn’t in numbers or recruitment, but in the relationships they’ve built between one another, relationships that ultimately coalesced under the unpopular worldview that maybe there is nothing wrong with them, but something very wrong with the world. What the readers come to understand is that the LOV are no longer only convenient allies: they can best be understood as a residence for a group of outcasted people with similar experiences and outlooks, who finally found in each other the shelter that traditional family had failed to provide.

[luci-in-trenchcoats]

Dazed and Confused (Part 9)

Summary: Dean Winchester grew up wanting to be a cop. When he gets kicked out of the police academy on a fluke though, he turns to a life of crime. After breaking up with Dean and seeing him committing a crime in the act, the reader becomes an officer herself and eventually a detective. Four years after that day, the reader is sent undercover to figure out what Dean is up to. Only she has no idea how far Dean is willing to go to keep her from finding out the truth…

Pairing: AU!Dean x reader

Masterlist

Word Count: 2,000ish

Warnings: language, scary situations, violence, murder, etc.

A/N: This series has been on Ao3 only for awhile now and I am finally reposting here as well. It’s not new but it may be new to you. Please enjoy!...

______

“Y/N. I said to take a seat,” said John. He nodded at the empty chair beside Dean, Dean’s fists clenched as he tried to break free of the zip ties around his wrists and ankles, panting as he struggled.

“No thanks,” you said, pointing your weapon at John.

“I told you, he’s a killer,” said John. “I’m taking care of this one way or the other.”

“Y/N, I didn’t-” said Dean, coughing when he got a hit to the face.

“Don’t lie to her! You tried to kill her!” shouted John.

“You tried to kill Sam. You almost killed her,” said Dean, spitting out blood, glancing to you. “Y/N, I didn’t...I wouldn’t…”

“Why’d you stab your little brother?” asked John, pointing his gun at Dean. “Why’d you sneak in her apartment and try to kill him? Why didn’t you try to kill her too?”

“Y/N, help me,” said Dean, turning his head away when John brought the gun closer.

“You thought you were going to run off with her and everything would be alright again? You thought you could run away from me? You thought you could cuddle up with this one and pretend you were the good guy? Pretend you wanted to start over, huh?” asked John.

“He is the good guy,” you said. “Put the gun down John.”

“He tried to kill Sam and Jack and you and-”

“And how the hell would you know we were starting over unless you were listening in on us,” you said.

“Ah, fuck,” said John, rolling his eyes. “Always with the fucking technicalities. Shit. If you were a little bit dumber you could have lived through this you know.”

“Sorry. It’s a good thing you’re dumb enough for both of us,” you said.

“Get in the chair, Y/N, before I blow his fucking head off,” said John, Dean looking his father up and down, swallowing hard. “Don’t act surprised. You’ve known this was coming for years.”

“Why?” asked Dean. “What did we ever do to you?”

“Nothing,” said John. “By the time I realized your mother and I had our problems that I wanted to resolve a certain way, I realized I had to set up a fall guy. And you existed so there was that issue to deal with as well. You were always a little jealous I gave Sam more attention, done purposefully of course to piss you off, but you just...you were still a good kid. I had to set you up for them both, wait until you were old enough to be angry and strong. I was so damn careful to set it all up and then Sam just had to go to a friend’s after school. The one fucking time the kid didn’t ask permission. The little prick. When he didn’t show up and I heard you coming home, I had to improvise. The plan was always to pin it your way but until I could find a way to get Sam too I had to wait. Unfortunately, I had too many eyes my way and Sam got bigger and it was more of a problem. A federal investigation was way more complicated but I could keep my hands off it and let you fall into it easy once Sammy was taken care of. Sucks about that Jack kid. Good cop. At least he isn’t going to pull through.”

“Actually, he’s going to be just fine,” you said, John glaring at you. “Did I forget to tell you about that?”

“You got three seconds before I-Ow!” shouted John, dropping his gun as you hit his shoulder once and then his leg, John growling as you kicked his gun away.

“You okay?” you asked, pulling out a knife, sliding through Dean’s ties.

“Not really,” he said. “Sammy going to be okay?”

“Yeah,” you said, looking Dean over, noticing the marks all over him. “We’ll see if we can get you bunked up with him.”

“You had to know it was a trap, right?” asked Dean, looking over as you secured John, pulling out your phone to call for backup. “You didn’t think…”

“He tried to make me think it was you but he sort of messed up there,” you said.

“How? I mean the way I woke you up...I wouldn’t blame you if the thought crossed your mind,” said Dean, rubbing his wrists, glancing down.

“You’d die before you ever hurt Sam. Or me,” you said. “Then that text message. I mean, it was like he wasn’t even trying. All direct. No code to decipher. Slacker.”

“A stupid fucking text message!” shouted John. “That’s what-”

“Yup. Let’s get you out of here, Dean.”

“Hey, Bobby,” you said, grabbing a cup of coffee from the hospital vending machine. Bobby looked like he’d aged about five years in the span of as many hours. You handed the cup over to him, grabbing another for yourself.

“I always knew something was up…” said Bobby. “How those boys doing?”

“Well,” you said, leaning back against the machine. “Jack woke up. Doc said he’s going to be okay. Sam and Dean were arguing over who got to have the cherry jello last time I saw them. They’ll all be alright after some rest.”

“I heard from a Castiel at the FBI. Those boys’ case is wrapped up. I’m pretty sure Dean’s getting fired for going off the grid though,” said Bobby.

“I’m pretty sure none of them really want to stay on. Sam was talking about preparing for law school and Jack was wondering if he could get a street cop job around here. If the new chief would be down for that,” you said.

“If the runt brings in donuts and not those stupid bagels you did he can be senior fucking detective,” said Bobby, a smile tugging it’s way onto your face. “Yeah. He’s got a job here. What about you and Dean?”

“We’ll figure it out. I talked to the Doc about a nursing gig. I was supposed to join a few years back but...shit happened,” you said.

“That’s a word for it,” said Bobby, sipping on his coffee. “Black.”

“Like your stone cold heart,” you said with a grin.

“I’m going to miss you around the station,” he said with a smile. “Don’t be a stranger.”

“Oh, I hear anything from Jack I’ll come down there and personally kick your ass,” you said.

“Yup. You’re going to be alright,” said Bobby, his phone going off. “Oh great, it’s the guinea pig guy again.”

“Later Bobby,” you said, heading back down the hall towards the boys room, poking your head in to find it empty. You walked towards the other wing of the floor to ICU, giggling when you heard Dean giving flirting tips to Jack.

“That nurse with the blonde ponytail? She’s totally into you,” said Dean. “Work up that injured puppy dog thing.”

“Dude, let the poor boy relax,” you said with a smile, wrapping your arms around Dean’s shoulders. “And it’s so the redhead that’s into you, Jack.”

“How you doing?” asked Sam, picking at a bandage while you scowled. “You try being wrapped up like a mummy and see how much fun it is.”

“Uh, I win that fight,” said Jack, waving down at his body.

“Boys,” you said, pulling over a chair, sitting beside Dean, his head resting on your shoulder. “I’m okay. So when can I start breaking you mutts out of this joint?”

“I can go home today,” said Dean with a snicker. “Suckers.”

“Who knows how long,” said Jack, glancing around.

“Forget about that. How about you guys tell me what kind of food you want me to sneak in here for you. Pizza?” you asked, a room full of smiles popping up. “Pizza it is.”

Two Months Later

“Officer,” you said, Jack stepping into your new condo with a smirk. “Shoes!”

“I’m on duty,” he said, slipping off his boots, padding through your living room past Dean, going straight to your kitchen.

“That steak sandwich is mine and I will destroy you if you even think about touching it,” said Dean, giving Jack a wave.

“You want me to eat Y/N’s crappy salad instead?” he asked.

“How about you go to your own damn house and insult the contents of your fridge,” you said, Jack pulling out a package of deli meat with a smile.

“But your house is in my patrol area,” he said with a smile, starting to fix himself a sandwich, your front door opening as Sam burst in. “Sam, you want a sandwich?”

“Starving,” said Sam, walking right into your kitchen, Dean holding up his hands.

“I told you we shouldn’t have given them extra keys,” said Dean.

“Your condo is closer to school than my place,” said Sam, Jack sliding over condiments to Sam while he worked. “Speaking of which, what’s lazy ass doing over there?”

“I came home for a quiet lunch with my girlfriend when the two stooges showed up,” said Dean, hopping up off the couch.

“That must make you the other stooge,” said Sam with a cocky smile.

“Shut up,” said Dean, reaching into the fridge for his sandwich.

“Can I have some?” you asked, Dean holding out half to you. “Thank you baby.”

“Why’s she get some?” asked Jack. “We help saved your life too.”

“Oh I rode that gravy train into the ground,” you said. “It’s just because I’m cute, isn’t it?”

“You’re all such dorks,” said Dean, grabbing your salad and tossing part of it on a plate. Sam’s jaw was nearly dropped. “It’s for you, dumbass.”

“Oh thank god. I thought we might have to have your head looked at for a second there,” said Sam, grabbing a spot at the table, Jack grabbing a soda, sliding into his normal spot, all three chowing down, talking about work and Sam’s classes.

“Hey, you’re zoning,” said Dean, waving a hand in front of your face. “You alright?”

“Yup,” you said, sitting beside him, nibbling at your lunch. “I’m perfect.”

Ten minutes later Jack was off, Sam saying he’d be back for dinner, Dean chuckling when they were gone.

“I’m really glad those two didn’t die,” said Dean.

“You want me to go with you today?” you asked, Dean shaking his head.

“You ask that everyday, you know,” he said. “It’s therapy, not prison.”

“Any day you ever want me to go, I will,” you said, Dean kissing your cheek. “I know you don’t really like going.”

“It’s growing on me,” he said with a shrug. “He’s the guy you went to as a kid and you turned out to be not too much of a weirdo.”

“Go,” you said, smacking him on the chest, earning a chuckle. “And thanks.”

“I used to go for you. Now I go for both of us,” he said, stretching as he stood up with a smirk. “And thank you.”

“For not eating most of your sandwich?” you teased, grabbing your uneaten slice and putting it back in the fridge.

“For everything,” he said. “I’ll see you soon sweetheart.”

“See you soon baby.”

_______

[go-redgirl]

Biden’s Missteps on Gun Policies

In outlining steps his administration would take on gun regulations, President Joe Biden misstated the facts on three existing policies:

Biden falsely said that “you can buy whatever you want” at a gun show with “no background check.” Federal firearm dealers at gun shows must run background checks. Private sales between nondealers are exempt from federal law.

He said states with “red flag laws” have seen reductions in suicides. But a review of research on whether the policies caused a reduction in total suicides found the evidence is inconclusive.

The president said gun manufacturers were “exempt” from being sued. They do have protections from civil lawsuits, but there are exceptions.

Biden made his remarks on April 8 from the White House Rose Garden, announcing actions he would take in an effort to reduce gun violence.

Gun Show ‘Loophole’

The president misstated the facts about background checks at gun shows.

Biden, April 8: Most people don’t know, you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.

That’s wrong. In fact, federal firearm dealers must run a background check on a potential buyer at a gun show using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or a similar state system.

Biden was referring to intrastate (same-state) private sales between nondealers, which are exempt from background checks under federal law, although such checks are required in some states, as explained in a 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia require background checks for all gun sales, even those between private parties, according to the Giffords Center, a pro-gun-control group.

In addition to the federal and state background check requirements, federal law requires private dealers to obtain a firearms license and conduct background checks if they engage “in the business of dealing firearms,” which is “defined as repeatedly devoting time and attention to purchasing and reselling guns for monetary gain,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in a 2020 press release that announced three men had pleaded guilty to “unlicensed dealing” at gun shows in Texas.

“Hobbyists who sell weapons in one-off private transactions are not required to be licensed or to run background checks,” the ATF said in its release.

It is also worth noting that the CRS, in its 2019 report, said “private firearms sales at gun shows … did not appear to be a significant source of guns” for federal and state prisoners convicted of crimes involving firearms.

CRS said it reached that conclusion based on two surveys:

A 2015 survey that found about 22% of firearms transfers are “conducted privately between unlicensed persons.” 

A 2016 survey that found 56% of prisoners convicted of crimes involving firearms “had either stolen the firearm (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%).” The survey found that 25% “had obtained the firearm from a family member or friend, or as a gift” and 7% from a licensed dealer.

Effect of Red Flag Laws on Suicide

Advocating so-called “red flag laws” that seek to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, Biden said states that have enacted such laws “have seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.”

There is some evidence of reduced suicides by firearm in states with red flag laws — also called extreme risk protection orders. But a RAND review of gun studies in 2020 concluded that while a study of the effect of Indiana’s red flag law is “suggestive” that it contributed to a drop in firearm suicides, there is “inconclusive evidence for the effect of extreme risk protection orders on total and firearm suicides.”

In his remarks, Biden called on Congress to pass a federal red flag law and ordered the Justice Department to publish model red flag legislation for states to pass.

As of Jan. 1, 2020, 16 states and the District of Columbia had some form of red flag laws, according to RAND. But there is wide disparity in how those states implement the law. For example, only law enforcement officials in some states can petition for an ERPO, while other states allow family members or medical professionals to do so. In addition, some states permit ex parte ERPOs, meaning that guns can be confiscated before a person has an opportunity to challenge the order in court. There is also wide disparity between states with regard to how long the orders last. All of those factors can influence how effective those laws are, researchers told us.

“These laws allow police or a family member to petition a court in their jurisdiction and say, ‘I want you to temporarily remove from the following people any firearm they may possess because they’re a danger and a crisis. They’re presenting a danger to themselves and to others.’ And the court makes a ruling,” Biden said. “To put this in perspective more than half of all suicides, for example, involve the use of a firearm. But when a gun is not available an attempt at suicide, the death rate drops precipitously. States that have red flag laws have seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.”

Research published in 2018 found that Indiana’s red flag law “was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides in the ten years following its enactment.” There was a far smaller reduction in firearm suicides (1.6%) in the immediate years after Connecticut passed its own red flag law in 1999, though the reduction increased significantly (to 13.7%) after the state upped its enforcement of the law in the wake of the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007.

Aaron J. Kivisto, an associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Indianapolis and co-author of the study, told us via email, “We have sufficient data from Indiana and Connecticut to make valid inferences, although there are now many states with red flag laws where we need time to measure their effects. In IN and CT, multiple research groups using distinct methodologies have found consistent support showing that red flag laws are associated with reductions in firearm suicide. In Indiana, where firearms are involved in over 60% of all suicides, this decrease in firearm suicide was linked to an overall decrease in suicide. In Connecticut, where firearms are involved in less than 50% of suicides, the decrease in firearm suicides appears to have been generally offset by other means, resulting in no significant changes in overall suicide rates.”

In its review of gun studies and the effect of state ERPO’s on suicide, RAND said the Kivisto study was “suggestive” of a reduction in firearm suicide rates in Indiana, but cautioned against generalizing national results based on the laws in just two states.

“Although the findings for Indiana’s law are suggestive, considering the strength of this evidence and potential issues of generalizability, we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of extreme risk protection orders on total and firearm suicides,” the RAND report states.

Andrew Morral, a RAND senior behavioral scientist who led the RAND project, told us Biden is correct that in some states, suicides went down after red flag laws were introduced.

“We, on the other hand, tried to assess whether they went down because of the law,” Morral said. “That we don’t think is yet proven in a way that even skeptics should have to agree is persuasive.”

Kivisto said that while his study showed no effect following Connecticut’s enactment of red flag laws in 1999, that was “unsurprising” because the law was not being enforced in “any meaningful way” until after the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007. The fact that the data “showed no effect of the law until meaningful numbers of firearms were seized supports the causal role of the law in reducing suicides,” he said.

Kivisto noted that other independent studies of the Indiana and Connecticut laws also concluded that more suicides by firearm would have occurred if not for the red flag laws.

“Regarding the strength of the evidence … there have been two independent studies of the laws in IN and CT that have used distinct methodologies and arrived at the same general conclusions,” Kivisto said. “Although perhaps a randomized trial would provide stronger evidence, such designs are simply not feasible. Observational evidence using rigorous statistical procedures is often the best evidence available in evaluating the effects of policy, and in this case such evidence supports red flag laws as a means of reducing firearm suicide.”

While further studies are warranted on the effect of new red flag laws passed in other states, he said, given the results of the studies to date, “I anticipate that these laws will be linked to reduced total suicide in most states, where firearms account for a majority of suicides. But there hasn’t been sufficient time to evaluate these questions in states that have adopted these laws more recently.”

Legal Immunity

The president said that “gun manufacturers” were “the only industry in America … that can’t be sued” because they’re “exempt.” Gun manufacturers do have protections from civil lawsuits but there are exceptions.

As we wrote last year, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, as described in a 2012 CRS report, “generally shields licensed manufacturers, dealers, and sellers of firearms or ammunition, as well as trade associations, from any civil action ‘resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse’ of a firearm or ammunition.” But there are six exceptions.

They include cases in which a firearm seller was negligent, the transfer of a gun was made knowing it would be used to commit a crime, and manufacturers or sellers violated state or federal law in marketing or selling a gun.

For example, the Supreme Court declined to dismiss a 2014 lawsuit the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting filed against Remington Arms Co. for the way it marketed the assault-style rifle used to kill 26 people.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post Biden’s Missteps on Gun Policies appeared first on FactCheck.org.

[sarcasticcynic]

YAFS

Image credit: Zach Gross, via The New Yorker

In September of 2009, a police officer reported seeing 16-year-old African-American Kalief Browder take a delivery truck for a joyride and crash into a parked car. He was charged with grand larceny. Browder said his friends drove the truck and he had only watched, but he figured that he had no defense so he pleaded guilty. The judge gave him probation and “youthful offender” status, which ensured that he wouldn’t have a criminal record.

Eight months later, in May of 2010, Browder and a friend were walking home from a party when police vehicles suddenly surrounded them. An officer told them a man had just reported they robbed him. They denied it, and Browder offered to let the officers search him. The police searched them both, and found nothing. Instead of releasing the youths, however, the police told the alleged victim, a man named Roberto Bautista, who then claimed that they had robbed him not that night but two weeks earlier. The police promptly arrested the pair and tossed them in jail.

The teens were charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault. Browder’s friend was released without bail; because Browder was on probation, however, the judge set his bail at $3,000. His family couldn’t raise the money, so Browder was sent to Rikers Island. He remained there for the next 74 days, missing his seventeenth birthday, the end of his sophomore year, and half the summer.

In July, Browder was taken to a courtroom and informed that a grand jury had indicted him for robbing Bautista. Bautista claimed that Browder and his friend had chased him, pushed him against a fence, and taken his backpack, which he said contained a credit card, a debit card, a digital camera, an iPod Touch, and seven hundred dollars. Bautista also accused Browder of punching him in the face. Browder pleaded “Not guilty.” But in the meantime, the Department of Probation had filed a “violation of probation” against him--standard procedure when someone on probation is indicted on a new violent felony--so the judge remanded him without bail and he was sent back to Rikers.

Not long after arriving on Rikers, Browder got into a scuffle with another inmate and was sent to solitary confinement in the Central Punitive Segregation Unit. It lasted about two weeks. Near the end of 2010, Browder got into another fight and was sent to solitary confinement again. He stayed there for about ten months, through the summer of 2011. He got out in the fall, but by the end of the year they returned him to solitary for another fight.

In early 2011, after about ten months in Rikers, Browder made his first attempt to end his life. He was in solitary, and he tore up his bedsheet, looped it through a vent above his sink, stood on the sink, and knotted the sheet around his neck. Officers observed him through the cell window, but instead of intervening they goaded him to kill himself:

“Go ahead and jump, you got it ready, right, go ahead and jump. ... If you don’t jump, we’re going to go in there anyway, so you might as well go ahead and jump, go ahead and jump. You want to commit suicide, so go ahead.”

Meanwhile, Browder’s case had been put on the calendar for trial on December 10, 2010, but it didn’t start that day. On January 28, 2011--after Browder had spent 258 days at Rikers--he was brought back to the courthouse again, where the prosecutor told the judge, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” Unfortunately, courts are so clogged that when a lawyer asks for a one-week adjournment the next court date usually doesn’t happen for six weeks or more. The judge set the next court date for March 9. This happened repeatedly for over two years:

June 23, 2011: People not ready, request 1 week.

August 24, 2011: People not ready, request 1 day.

November 4, 2011: People not ready, prosecutor on trial, request 2 weeks.

December 2, 2011: Prosecutor on trial, request January 3rd.

On February 8, 2012, after 634 days on Rikers, Browder tore his bedsheet into strips, tied them together to make a noose, attached it to the light fixture, and tried to hang himself. Two officers entered his cell and cut him down; then one grabbed him and started punching him. Surveillance footage confirms the two going into his cell; their official report makes no mention of Browder’s suicide attempt, but instead claims he was lying on his bed, then jumped up and attacked them for no reason.

When Browder was returned to solitary confinement, they removed everything from his cell: sheets, magazines, clothes, everything except a white plastic bucket. Ten days later, Browder stomped on the bucket to shatter it, then picked up a piece, sharpened it, and began sawing his wrist. He was stopped when an officer saw him through the cell window.

The court delays continued:

February 17, 2012: People not ready, assigned assistant is currently on vacation, request five days.

June 29, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

September 28, 2012: People not ready, request two weeks.

November 2, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

December 14, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

In early 2012, prosecutors had offered Browder a deal: three and a half years in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. He refused, maintaining his innocence. In June, they offered him two and a half years in prison, which meant that, with time served, he could go home soon. He refused again. By the end of 2012, Browder had been at Rikers Island for 961 days, and had appeared before eight different judges.

On March 13, 2013, Browder appeared before a new judge, who told him he could get up to 15 years if convicted and offered this plea deal: plead guilty to two misdemeanors--the equivalent of sixteen months in jail--and go home right then, on the time he had already served. Browder declined, still maintaining his innocence and insisting, “I want to go to trial.” He went back to Rikers. On May 29, Browder appeared before the same judge, who had some news for him: the District Attorney intended to dismiss the entire case.

Browder had spent over three years on Rikers Island, without trial or conviction for any crime. He had spent most of the last 17 months in solitary confinement. He had tried to kill himself five times. He had missed his junior year of high school, his senior year, college applications, the prom, graduation. And he was no longer a teenager: he had turned 20 four days earlier.

All for supposedly stealing a backpack.

In November, six months after his release, Browder tried to slit his wrists. A friend happened to stop by and grabbed the knife, but when the friend left the house to find Browder’s mother Browder tried to hang himself from a banister. Finally, on June 13, 2015, Browder made a cord from his bedsheets, went into another bedroom, pulled out the air conditioner, wrapped the cord around his neck, and pushed himself out through the hole in the wall feet first. This time no one got to him in time. He was just 22 years old.

[thuisingh21ahsgov]

media assessment of criminal law

right leaning article- https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/criminal-justice-reform-bipartisan-issue/

moderate article- https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/criminal-justice-reform-turns-list-problem-officers-65325697

left leaning article- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/15/who-belongs-in-prison

Although these articles are from different political news sources. They all address the fact that we need criminal law reformation. In the National Review they focused more on things Trump has done well, and bashed Biden. ABC news was very moderate, and didn’t include opinions or facts on either of the presidential candidates. This news source mostly included reformations needed to be made in the police departments. Finally, in the New Yorker, this article had a strong opinion saying the system must protect both the innocent and the guilt. While many conservative news sources would disagree with that statement.

I identify with ABC news source the most. Because it has views from both sides of the political spectrum, and it is very important to be educated on both views. I also liked how there was no bashing of the other presidential candidate. And liked how this article covered mostly the injustice in police departments, which I believe needs the most reform as of right now. 

SACAPS -- FIRST ARTICLE (right leaning)https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/criminal-justice-reform-bipartisan-issue/S

SUBJECT—what is the main point the source is trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?       The main point of this source is bashing how Biden has not done as much as he has to do for criminal reform, and Trump has done more. Saying that Biden supported the 1994 violent crime control and Law Enforcement Act, as well as Kamala Harris enforcing the three-strikes law. And Trump apparently helped more with the Criminal Justice Reform by signing the FIRST STEP Act. A

AUTHOR—who authored the source? Google search the author if needed.  What are their credentials? What social, economic, or political affiliations does the author have which may have an impact on their argument or objectivity? Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner heads research into a variety of domestic policies, with an emphasis on poverty and social welfare policy, health care, and Social Security and entitlement reform. He doesn’t seem like an extremely biased author overall, but in this article you could definitely tell that he was bashing the democratic party more so than the republican. C

CONTEXT—where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning or reliability of the source?This source was produced on May 29, 2019. Which was a pretty long time ago, and does not take into account the recent events. Which might affect the reliability of the article. A

AUDIENCE— who published the source and for whom was the source created? How might this affect the reliability and objectivity of the source?  National Review published this article, and it is a very right leaning news site. So it could be biased, and affect reliability on true and honest facts. P

PERSPECTIVE—is the text objective (neutral or fair point of view) or is it subjective (biased or one-sided)? This text is biased because it only shows what Trump is doing right, and what Biden has done wrong for Criminal Justice Reform. 

If the article is objective, identify the competing perspectives presented in the article. Which perspective do you agree with and why?left wing part vs right wing. I do not agree with either side. Both parties and candidates have honestly done good and bad things for criminal justice reform. 

If the article is subjective, identify the author’s claim.  Do you agree or disagree and why?Article claims that Trump has done more for criminal justice reform than Biden, which I disagree with, especially in recent events. S

SIGNIFICANCE—what is the evidence used to support the author’s claim or verifiable facts used in an objective source?The evidence used is that Biden supported the 1994 violent crime control and Law Enforcement Act, as well as Kamala Harris enforcing the three-strikes law. And Trump apparently helped more with the Criminal Justice Reform by signing the FIRST STEP Act. 

SECOND ARTICLE (MODERATE ARTICLE)https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/criminal-justice-reform-turns-list-problem-officers-65325697S

SUBJECT—what is the main point the source is trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?       Pushing to bring greater transparency to the process of highlighting police officers who have committed misconduct.A

AUTHOR—who authored the source? Google search the author if needed.  What are their credentials? What social, economic, or political affiliations does the author have which may have an impact on their argument or objectivity? The author of this article is Micheal Casey. Michael J. Casey is CoinDesk's chief content officer. Previously, Casey was the CEO of Streambed Media, a company he co founded to develop provenance data for digital content. He was also a senior advisor at MIT Media Labs's Digital Currency Initiative and a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management. He is a very talented and moderate news writer. C

CONTEXT—where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning or reliability of the source?source produced on September 1, 2019. This was a while ago so it might affect the reliability. A

AUDIENCE— who published the source and for whom was the source created? How might this affect the reliability and objectivity of the source?  This source was published by ABC news, which is a very moderate news source. So it’s a good place for ALL people to get their news, both right and left. Allows readers to read more reliable and honest facts and statements. P

PERSPECTIVE—is the text objective (neutral or fair point of view) or is it subjective (biased or one-sided)? neutral

If the article is objective, identify the competing perspectives presented in the article. Which perspective do you agree with and why?The article is not objective because it's a very moderate news source.

If the article is subjective, identify the author’s claim.  Do you agree or disagree and why?The authors claim, is that the police officers, and courts who have committed misconduct need to be held accountable. S

SIGNIFICANCE—what is the evidence used to support the author’s claim or verifiable facts used in an objective source?“It would take years of digging and scores of public information requests from his attorneys to uncover evidence that several officers investigating the 1993 murder case were involved in criminal activity — information that wasn't shared with the defense.” 

THIRD ARTICLE (LEFT LEANING) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/15/who-belongs-in-prisonS

SUBJECT—what is the main point the source is trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?       That must protect the innocent, as well as the humanity of the guilty. And proving how minorities and people of color are receiving more jail time and harsher prosecutions than white people. AAUTHOR—who authored the source? Google search the author if needed.  What are their credentials? What social, economic, or political affiliations does the author have which may have an impact on their argument or objectivity? Adam Gopnik, a staff writer, has been contributing to The New Yorker since 1986. During his tenure at the magazine, he has written fiction, humor, book reviews, profiles, and reported pieces from abroad. Gopnik seems to be unbiased, just stating facts. He does not even bash candidates of the right wing in these articles. Simply, stating the facts of how minorities are discriminated against in the justice system. CCONTEXT—where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning or reliability of the source?April 8, 2019, which was last year which might be less reliable. AAUDIENCE— who published the source and for whom was the source created? How might this affect the reliability and objectivity of the source?  The New Yorker published this article, which is mostly a left leaning source. Which might scare some people, and affect the reliability. PPERSPECTIVE—is the text objective (neutral or fair point of view) or is it subjective (biased or one-sided)? subjective towards the leftIf the article is objective, identify the competing perspectives presented in the article. Which perspective do you agree with and why?Give you the point of view of a black man who was incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, where there wasn’t enough evidence against him. And I think it was necessary to include this POV in the article.  If the article is subjective, identify the author’s claim.  Do you agree or disagree and why?the author's claim was that we need to protect the humanity of the guilty. SSIGNIFICANCE—what is the evidence used to support the author’s claim or verifiable facts used in an objective source?“ It wouldn’t be hard to find, among the tens of thousands of cases that are plea-bargained in New York City alone every year, one in which a poor kid is penalized by a law that’s out of all proportion to the offense—there are kids who get locked up for drug offenses that in nearby states are no longer even misdemeanors”. 

[alexsmitposts]

“Warrior” Steve Bannon Arrested as Trump’s America is Crumbling It often happens this way: extreme right-wingers, or call them ‘ultra-conservatives,’ either in the United States or Europe, suddenly fall from grace, after committing the most heinous crimes. Sometimes it is child abuse or sexual harassment, but most of the time, it is a corruption of tremendous proportions. In theory, in their own theory, it is not supposed to be this way. Listen to the conservatives, and they will tell you that they are there in order to uphold law and order, as well as the traditional culture of their countries. But the reality is often very far from the theory. Steve Bannon has fallen. He has fallen hard, flat on his face. But definitely not as hard, as others would fall, would they commit crimes of similar magnitude. Steve Bannon was actually not caught and charged with trying to ignite the WWIII or conspiring to overthrow the left-wing governments all over the world. He was not charged with an attempt to destroy China. He was arrested ‘only’ on charges of ‘defrauding investors,’ together with his cohort Brian Kolfage. On 28 August, CNN reported: “Kolfage was arrested last week, along with Bannon and two others, and charged by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York with defrauding investors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars a project pledging to construct a wall along the southern US border. He is due to be arraigned on the charges on Monday in a video court appearance.” In February 2020, I wrote for NEO: “Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and Breitbart editor, was finally kicked out of an Italian monastery, which even Newsweek wittily described as a “far-right boot camp.” Or, as even some of the Western mainstream media outlets defined it – a modern ‘gladiator’s school.’ The monastery was supposed to offer “classes,” which Bannon described as “the kind of underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West.” That, for already quite some time, means ‘insulting and antagonizing China,’ as well as several other nations which the Western extremist and often openly racist ideologues have been depicting as hostile to the US and European hegemonic interests. Some of those who oppose Bannon’s radical political stands are now bringing vast charges against him, but legal and moral, and such charges are ranging from pushing the United States towards the war with the People’s Republic of China to interfering with internal affairs of other countries, including those in Europe. There are other, unsavory accusations against the former White House strategist and a close ally of President Donald Trump: child abuse and enormous corruption. The question is: how could the individual against whom so many accusative fingers are pointed at, survive at the top of the establishment for so many years, in so many different roles and positions? Yes, he gets kicked out from places: first from the White House, then from the “gladiator booth camp,” and finally from the luxury yacht belonging to an anti-Beijing apostate. But somehow, he always manages to bounce back. Until now. Hopefully, for not much longer. *** Alarms should have been ringing for so many years. But were they? If yes, no one has been paying much attention. As early as in 2016, even an extreme right-wing FOX News picked up Associated Press report which was accusing Bannon of anti-Semitism: “In a sworn court declaration following their divorce, Piccard said her ex-husband had objected to sending their twin daughters to an elite Los Angeles academy because he “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews.” “He said he doesn’t like Jews…” In August 2019, Mail Online raised an alarming issue, connecting Mr. Bannon with an accused child sex trafficker George Nader: “A convicted pedophile visited Donald Trump’s White House on at least 13 different occasions in 2017 to meet with then-chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to leaked visitor logs. George Nader, who has been convicted of sexually abusing young boys and is now in federal prison awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges, first visited Bannon in the White House in February 2017, the month after Trump’s inauguration, the Washington Examiner reported. After that, he kept visiting Bannon, who had a West Wing office yards from the Oval Office, the leaked visitor logs revealed, but it isn’t clear if he entertained Nader in his office or somewhere else in the White House. The revelation raises serious questions about how a convicted pedophile could be allowed entry repeatedly to the White House. The Secret Service is responsible for carrying out background checks of all visitors.”   The “revelation” also raises questions about whether there have been two tiers of justice: one for the common US citizens, and another one for those who are levitating in the highest spheres of, mainly right-wing, power. Steve Bannon was also apparently giving false testimonies under oath, related to the Wikileaks and Julian Assange. And if one would think that Steve Bannon is ‘only’ anti-Semitic, then what about his deep allergy towards the Muslims; and the support for the Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” and keeping out from the United States all those “bad people” (meaning non-whites and non-Christians)? His obsession with the wall between the US and Mexico is, of course, related to the “topic.” *** But who would be Steve Bannon without China? He is hatred impersonated against China. As for his fellow right-wing crusaders, like Peter Navarro, Marco Rubio, and Mike Pompeo, China is always ‘there,’ in the middle of vile speeches, dragged through the dirt, belittled. Steeper and faster is a decline of the American Eagle, more confident is an ascend of the Chinese Dragon, louder, more desperate, and bizarre is the anti-Chinese rhetoric of the pro-Western warriors, led by Steve Bannon and his mates. On 08 June 2020, AntiWar.com described something that would be unimaginable just several years ago, but what is turning into a norm, under the present White House administration: “New Yorkers looked to the sky in puzzlement the night of 03 June as a fleet of airplanes circled New York Harbor with banners that read “Congratulations New Federal State of China.” Behind the bizarre stunt was exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. The duo deemed the Chinese Communist Party illegitimate and declared a new state of China from a boat floating in front of the Statue of Liberty. In a live stream, Guo and Bannon read the Chinese and English versions of “A Declaration of the New Federal State of China,” a document that lays out their fantastical plan to take out the CCP and form a Western-style democracy in China. The live stream aired in China on 04 June, which marked the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown in Beijing. “The Chinese Communist Party is a terrorist organization funded by the Communist International which has subverted the legitimate Chinese government in the past,” the document declares.” Would this be done the other way around, like if the People’s Republic of China declared the United States of America a terrorist genocidal and illegitimate state, because it exterminated most of its native population, forced slaves from Africa onto its territory, and then massacred tens of millions of people on all continents of the world, that would be surely considered a declaration of war. But obviously, the US and its leadership are truly ‘spoiled’; they are used to getting away, literally, with a murder. Or with a war. Steve Bannon has been twisting the narrative on basically everything that is related to China, from Xinjiang to the South China Sea, an extremist religious cult such as Falun Gong, recent historical events, Chinese Revolution, and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He and his cohorts are fanatically anti-Communist, as they are outrageously racist. The danger of Bannon lies in the fact that he is an integral part of the extreme right-wing network, which is now spreading from Europe to India, from North and South America to Asia. He is its product, as well as its maker. Whoever is confronting China is his ally: from India’s Modi to Donald Trump. Or all those West-backed rioters and the anti-Beijing individuals like Elmer Yuen Gong Yi. In fact, the Hong Kong riots are direct results of the activities of Steve Bannon and his mates. If they are not stopped, there really may be a war. But that does not frighten Steve Bannon. He has nothing against a war. He desired a war. He is igniting it. Like the crusaders of the middle ages, he thrives on expansions and the conflicts. Forbes reported, somehow sarcastically, on 20 August 2020: “The yacht former white house senior advisor Steve Bannon was arrested on recently is the 152-foot-long Feadship Lady May that’s reportedly owned by Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese billionaire who has business ties with Bannon. And it’s for sale.” It is all very symbolic. It is shocking. But at least the man who did so much harm to the world, and who has been pushing his country towards direct confrontation with the most populous nation on earth, is under arrest, although presently released on $5 million bail. Associated Press reported on 24 August 2020: “US District Judge Analisa Torres said President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist can appear in her court along with three co-defendants on a video screen because of the health threat posed by the coronavirus.” A lenient treatment. But logical; shockingly, Mr. Bannon is not seen as a delinquent by the US establishment. To many, he is just a pro-Western, pro-Christian, pro-right-wing warrior. As he himself so proudly declares he is.

[grootpoepjeplasjehoofd]

Our outfit grew rapidly and we moved again from Berlin-Pankow to a bigger building on the Rolandufer in the center of East Berlin. I was soon promoted as deputy in the newly founded foreign intelligence service to Gustav Szinda, a man with many decades of experience in covert operations in Spain and elsewhere for Soviet intelligence.

Unfortunately, neither Szinda nor I had much idea of where to start against a West German service that had emerged, practically unscathed, from the collapse of the Nazi Reich. Leading intelligence figures who had served Hitler were now working for their new masters in a small, mystery shrouded Bavarian village called Pullach. We had to look it up on the map when its name first started appearing in the press. This was an unknown world to us and seemed quite beyond our reach, although with time, we would become very familiar indeed with its workings.

I initially came across the name of General Reinhard Gehlen, the first leader of West German intelligence, in a headline in the London Daily Express that read HITLER’S GENERAL SPIES AGAIN - FOR DOLLARS. The byline was that of Sefton Delmer, a journalist known for his connections with British intelligence; during the war he had been in charge of the British counterintelligence radio station Soldatensender Calais. Delmer’s report caused a furor. It revealed not only that the Nazi intelligence old boy network remained intact, but that the new espionage services in the Federal Republic contained numerous former SS men and military intelligence experts who had operated under Hitler in France and elsewhere. Gehlen himself had been head of the Nazis’ military espionage unit against the Red Army. Through the Gehlen Service, as it came to be known, the Americans, who were giving the orders in West Germany’s intelligence sphere pretty much as the Russians were in the Eastern bloc, had access to the old Nazi connections.

There were also rumors about the role of General George S. Patton, Jr., who was said to be extending his protection to certain high-ranking German officers. Worriedly, I realized that the postwar goal of a Europe at unified peace was no longer tenable. The muzzles had been loaded on both sides. The peace won at such sacrifice now appeared very fragile. Europe was divided, and the fault line ran right through Germany.

West Germany’s chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, threw in his lot with the American “policy of strength” and the strategy of rolling back communism professed by John Foster Dulles, whose brother, Allen, was the chief of the U.S. intelligence service, the Central Intelligence Agency. Soviet power had pushed west at the end of the war; now Washington was prepared to summon up all the political, intelligence, economic, and, if necessary, even military strength of the United States and its allies to counterattack. Gehlen recognized the opportunity the new clash provided for him to exert a direct influence on policy. He met with Adenauer before the West Germans took over his intelligence service from the CIA and was given extraordinary powers and support. That included the control of files against domestic political enemies, including Social Democrats who were in parliamentary opposition to the Christian Democratic government. In the West German armed forces and its state bureaucracy, loyal servants of the Third Reich once again held top positions, and former Nazi officers ran Gehlen’s organization.

The name of Hans Globke, one of Adenauer’s closest advisers and ultimately a secretary of state in the chancellors office, became a synonym for this kind of infiltration. A former high-ranking official in Hitler’s Interior Ministry, Globke had been the author of an authoritative commentary on the Nuremberg racial laws that legitimized violent discrimination and eventually led to the Nazis’ Final Solution. Globke would serve as Adenauer’s state secretary for ten years.

In this frantic atmosphere, Berlin in the 1950s succeeded Vienna as the heart of espionage operations in Europe. As many as eighty secret service agencies with their various branches and front organizations were operating in the city. In the Americans’ and Russians’ covert offices, masquerading as everything from plumbing companies and jam exporters to academic and research bureaus, sat whole groups of case officers recruiting and running their respective agents who could easily travel between the sectors of Berlin and the two halves of Germany in the days before the Wall dividing the city and the nation was erected in 1961.

It was also before the West German economic miracle began, and therefore was a time of shortages and economic desperation. Offers of food or advancement lured people into spying. But while the West Germans could resort more easily to financial offers, we were still operating on a shoestring and had to pursue a more ideological approach. Many of our moles in West Germany, particularly in politics and industry, were not Communists but worked with us because they wanted to overcome the division of Germany and believed the policies of the Western Allies were only reinforcing it. We lost some of these later when the Wall went up and presented them with the symbol of a divided Germany literally set in concrete.

The minutiae of setting up the brand-new espionage service took up most of my time. My attention was focused on the West, and I worked hard to familiarize myself with the political shifts in the United States and Western Europe and to keep up with the development of their postwar intelligence services.

We had to acquire new sources in the political, military, economic, and scientific and technical centers on the other side. This was easier said than done, since the security requirements in our own apparatus imposed by the Soviets were extremely strict. Thousands of recommended candidates had to be screened in order to come up with a handful who were acceptable. Those with Western relatives were ruled out, as were most who had spent the war years as refugees or prisoners of war in the West. Contrary to rumors that still persist, we did not knowingly employ former Nazis inside our apparat and regarded ourselves as morally superior in this regard to the West Germans.

We had access to some of the Nazi files on party membership in the Third Reich, which we would use to persuade those in the West who had suppressed their past collaboration with the Nazis to cooperate with us. Many others volunteered to work with us, claiming that they regarded it as a kind of moral reparation for the harm they had done in the past. That was looking at it kindly. The real reason was more likely that they wanted to insure themselves and their new careers in the West against unwelcome revelations from our side at a later date. In German, we called this Ruckversicherung, literally a kind of “backward insurance” for the past. Through the West German Communist Party we inherited the services of a politician in the Free Democratic Party named  Lothar Weihrauch (who later served in West Germany’s Ministry for Common German Affairs) who supplied a great deal of political information until we discovered that he had committed war crimes when he held a high position during the German occupation of Poland. We then cut him off. We also recruited another former Nazi, an ex-storm trooper code-named Moritz, who was helpful during our political battle against the European Defense Community (which was finally blocked by the nationalism of the French rather than anything our intelligence service did to discredit the project).

The past was a powerful weapon among the spy services, and both sides were unashamed to use blackmail. Just as we sought to bring down politicians or senior figures hostile to us by revealing their Nazi complicity, the West Berlin Committee of Free Jurists, an anti-Communist organization made up of lawyers who had fled the East, produced their own booklet of Eastern functionaries who had managed to conceal Nazi Party membership. But since almost all of our senior intelligence officers and the political elite had been in exile or in the underground during the Third Reich, we in the East won that particular propaganda battle hands down.

Some Nazis tried to make the switch to our side by hiding their past. Soon after I started work, a junior member of the staff came to me in a great state of embarrassment to say that he had noticed a man working in the interrogation department who bore the telltale SS tattoo on his arm. Interrogation was the roughest department within the ministry, and I would not have liked to be exposed to some of the thugs who worked there. I could well imagine how someone who had a taste for such work from the previous regime might have felt at home there. We removed him quietly from the post.

The blackmail that went on was a dirty and compromising game and was played by both sides. Some former Nazis in the West offered their services to us out of a kind o f contrition, others for money, or to prevent their unmasking as former collaborators with the Nazi regime. The Soviets had more blackmail opportunities because they held the captured Nazi files, and they took in such people as the former SS-man Heinz Felfe, who had held the rank of Obersturmfuhrer in the Nazi intelligence organization, the Reich Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt), and had found postwar employment with the Gehlen Service. Felfe became a Soviet double agent, betraying all the main achievements of the West German service to Moscow and doing damage on a scale accomplished only by such double agents as Kim Philby, George Blake, and Aldrich Ames.

Markus Wolf, Memoirs of a Spymaster

[bountyofbeads]

'The War Machine Is Run on Contracts'

America's wars wouldn’t be possible without contractors, but presidents usually ignore the thousands who have died.

By KATHY GILSINAN | Published January 17, 2020 7:00 AM ET | The Atlantic | Posted January 17, 2020 |

Mike Jabbar never met his replacement. But when Nawres Hamid died in a rocket attack on a military base in Iraq after Christmas, Jabbar saw photos of the wreckage and recognized the American flag he himself had helped paint on the door of a room now mangled. That was his old room, on his old base. It could have been him.

“Imagine something like that happens, knowing that you were supposed to be there and you weren’t there, and the person that replaced you is gone,” Jabbar, who like Hamid served as a translator for the U.S. military, told me in an interview. “It absolutely feels horrible.”

Jabbar was one of the lucky ones. He left his home country of Iraq last fall, at age 23, for the United States, where he’s now a permanent resident living with a friend in North Carolina.

The U.S. has relied on thousands of contractors like him and Hamid to help conduct its wars, in roles handling translation, logistics, security, and even laundry. America cannot go to war without its contractors, but presidents usually ignore the thousands who have died, including U.S. citizens. They are ubiquitous but largely unseen by the American public, obscuring the real size, and the real cost, of America’s wars. This also means that a president can selectively seize on one contractor’s death in the service of other goals.

Senior U.S. officials invoked Hamid, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen, repeatedly to explain why they brought America to the brink of an all-out conflict with Iran—days before the public knew his name. Donald Trump, who has vowed to end wars in the Middle East, was willing to risk a new one to avenge an American contractor’s death—including by killing the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, a step previous presidents worried could unleash a violent backlash. Yet when a terrorist attack killed two more American contractors and one U.S. soldier in Kenya about a week later, Trump barely reacted. “We lost a good person, just a great person,” he said of the soldier. He didn’t mention the contractors.

As America's interventions abroad have become more complex and open-ended, the country has relied on contractors more and more for essential jobs like guarding diplomats and feeding the troops. Even as the U.S. tries to end those wars and bring more troops home, contractors can stay behind in large numbers to manage the aftermath—especially since many of them are local hires in the first place.

The government has no data on exactly how many American contractors have died in the post-9/11 wars; in fact, it’s hard to get a full picture of how many contractors have been involved in those wars at all. The Defense Department publishes quarterly reports on how many it employs in the Middle East—close to 50,000 in the region as of last October, with about 30,000 spread through Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Americans make up less than half the total, in a region where U.S. troop numbers fluctuate between 60,000 and 80,000. The contractor numbers fluctuate too, and the military’s data don’t include contractors working for other agencies, such as the CIA or the State Department.

The death toll is murkier still, though Brown University’s Costs of War Project gives a figure close to 8,000, counting Americans and non-Americans. “They are,” in the words of Ori Swed and Thomas Crosbie, researchers who have studied contractor deaths, “the corporate war dead.”

Jabbar told me he was happy to take on that risk. Like Hamid, he was born in Iraq; from his middle-school years, he said, he wanted to become an American, and taught himself English in part by listening to Eminem and watching Prison Break. He dropped out of college at 19 to serve as a translator in the U.S. fight against the Islamic State, and wound up alongside U.S. troops as they pushed toward the group’s Iraqi capital of Mosul in 2016. Instead of studying English and earning an information-technology degree, he was in the middle of a fight to wrest back territory from insurgents, translating battlefield instructions for the Americans’ Iraqi partners.  

He later ended up with a Navy SEAL unit in Kirkuk, near where he grew up, and became all but officially part of the team; he lived with them, ate with them, patrolled with them, went to the front lines with them. Jabbar even once got beaten up and arrested while getting groceries for them—a case, he said, of mistaken identity, resolved only after he’d spent the night in jail.

“It is hard for me [to] emphasize enough how critical these dedicated people were to our military mission,” Joseph Votel, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, who retired last March after three years helping direct the anti-ISIS fight, wrote to me in an email. Interpreters on contract with the U.S. military were more than just language translators. “They helped with our understanding; they provided cultural context to the events playing out on the ground; and, they came to us with networks of their own that [were] always very useful in navigating complex situations … They did all this at their own personal risk.”

America’s reliance on private contractors in war didn’t start with 9/11, but it exploded in the wars that followed those attacks. The political imperative to keep troop numbers limited, and the need to rebuild amid conflict, meant that contractors filled gaps where there weren’t enough troops or the right skills in the military to do the job. They could often work more cheaply than U.S. troops. They might get limited compensation for death or injury, compared with a lifetime of Veterans Affairs benefits; they could deploy to places where the U.S. didn’t want to or couldn’t legally send the military, Steven Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at George Washington University, told me.

Even before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Leslie Wayne documented the rise of contractors in The New York Times, noting their roles in training U.S. troops in Kuwait and guarding Hamid Karzai, then Afghanistan’s president. “The Pentagon cannot go to war without them,” she wrote. “During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, one of every 50 people on the battlefield was an American civilian under contract; by the time of the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 1996, the figure was one in 10.” In Afghanistan, according to the latest U.S. military figures from last fall, the ratio of American contractors to U.S. troops is almost 1 to 1; including local and third-country contractors, it’s about 2 to 1.

Iraq contributed further to the trend. “At the beginning of the Iraq War, expectations, foolish as they may have been in retrospect, were that this would be a pretty easy thing,” Deborah Avant, a professor at the University of Denver who has researched the industry, told me. But as the situation deteriorated, it would have been difficult to mobilize tens of thousands of additional troops to provide security. So contractors filled the gap—and not just for the Defense Department. “If ABC News was there, they needed to have security,” Avant said.

They weren’t just providing security, though, and they weren’t just American. They came from a range of countries in addition to the U.S. and did a range of jobs that in prior years the military had handled. “When I went into the Army … everybody was trained as a soldier, and then after you were qualified as a soldier, you might have trained to be a cook, or a laundry specialist, or a postal specialist, or a transportation specialist,” Schooner said. “Today, we train trigger-pullers, and we’ve outsourced all support services.” Because many U.S. missions overseas now involve reconstruction, contractors can also provide thousands of local jobs in struggling economies.   

With contractor support, Schooner said, “We can send innumerable troops anywhere in the world, any distance, any weather, any geography, and we have them taken care of better than any army has ever cared for its people, for as long as you need.”

But the biggest benefit of all may be political. “Americans really don’t care what war costs,” Schooner said. “All they really care about is win or lose, and how many of our boys and girls come home in bags and boxes. So if you can, intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, artificially deflate the number of body bags or boxes, you’re winning.”

This doesn’t always work, however—and Iraq in particular has shown how contractor deaths or missteps can have severe political consequences, or even escalate conflict. Contractors have committed crimes that have hurt U.S. prestige and destroyed lives in Iraq—including the torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003, and the 2007 massacre of 17 civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. In 2004, four armed contractors were ambushed in Fallujah, their burned and mutilated bodies hung from a bridge. An “angry and emotional” President George W. Bush then directed the Marines to seize the city, the historian Bing West told a BBC reporter. The result was a vicious urban battle that left 27 American troops dead, along with roughly 200 insurgents and 600 civilians.

In Hamid’s case, Jabbar thinks Trump got some justice in having Soleimani killed. “[Hamid’s] gone now,” Jabbar said, “but if he knows somehow that all this happened because of him, he would be so happy. And I’m so glad that at this point interpreters are being looked at as very valuable.” Jabbar himself left Kirkuk as soon as he could, because he said he was facing threats. He received a rare visa to come to the U.S. through a program for interpreters that the Trump administration had slashed. He believes that the visa saved his life, and he wants to serve again—this time in the Air Force.

As for Soleimani, Jabbar is glad he’s dead. “He’s the guy who orders others to go and kill ‘traitors’ and interpreters.”

*********

Donald Trump Stumbles Into a Foreign-Policy Triumph

The president, however inadvertently, may be reminding the world of the reality of international relations.

By TOM MCTAGUE | Published January 17, 2020 1:00 AM ET | The Atlantic | Posted January 17, 2020 |

A year and a half into Donald Trump’s presidency, Henry Kissinger set out a theory. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences,” he told the Financial Times. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.”

A term has been coined to describe this notion: Ryan Evans of War on the Rocks calls them “Trumportunities.” It is the idea that, whether by accident or design, Trump creates chances to solve long-running international problems that a conventional leader would not. His bellicose isolationist agenda, for instance, might already be forcing Europe to confront its geopolitical weakness; China, its need for a lasting economic settlement with the U.S.; and countries throughout the Middle East, the limits of their power.

The president’s erratic behavior might be doing something else as well, something even more fundamental. Through a combination of instinct, temperament, and capriciousness, Trump may be reminding the world of the reality of international relations: Raw military and economic power still matter more than anything else—so long as those who hold them are prepared to use them. The air strike that killed Qassem Soleimani was a reminder that the U.S. remains the one indispensable global superpower. Iran, or indeed anyone else, simply cannot respond in kind.

While it is clearly too early to judge the long-term ramifications of the president’s decision to order the killing (my colleague Uri Friedman has set out the dangers of accidental escalation), the initial assessment among many in the foreign-policy establishment here in London is not quite what you might expect. The attack—in the view of analysts and British officials I spoke with (the latter of whom requested anonymity to discuss government discussions)—has, at a stroke, reasserted American military dominance and revealed the constraints of Iranian power.

Although Trump’s foreign-policy strategy (if one even accepts that there is such a thing) has many limits, his unpredictability and, most critically, his willingness to escalate a crisis using the United States’ military and economic strength has turned the tables on Iran in a way few thought possible. What is more, the strike has exposed the gaping irrelevance of Europe’s leading powers—Britain, France, and Germany—in this whole crisis. The “E3,” which have long sought to keep the Iranian nuclear deal alive by undermining the U.S. policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, have so far failed to do so. This week, they were finally forced to admit the apparently terminal collapse of the Obama-era nuclear deal, releasing a joint statement to announce that they were triggering its “dispute resolution” clause because of Tehran’s failure to abide by the terms of the agreement. The reality of the situation is startling: Europe’s attempts to keep the deal alive have achieved little in Tehran because of the Continent’s powerlessness. And European opposition to Trump’s Iran policy has achieved even less in Washington. In an interview, Boris Johnson all but admitted defeat in keeping the nuclear deal alive, calling instead for a new “Trump deal.”

To some extent, one British diplomat told me, the air strike that killed Soleimani was an extreme snapback to the hyperrealist, Kissingerian principles that largely guided American foreign policy after the Second World War. In this view, Barack Obama and his cautious multilateralism were the break with the norm, not Trump.

While Obama showed the possibilities of this approach—the Paris climate accord and Iran nuclear deal being prime examples (both of which have since been dumped by Trump)—he failed to adequately address its weaknesses, those who spoke with me said. Principal among them, according to a British government official, was that under Obama, the West had forgotten the power of escalatory dominance. In other words, he who carries the biggest stick retains his dominance, so long as he is prepared to use it.

The argument for escalation is simple: If the response to any aggressive act by a foreign adversary is always to de-escalate in order to avoid a spiral of violence, then the advantage borne by military and economic dominance is lost, creating more chaos, not less. A logic has been allowed to develop among countries such as Iran and Russia, the British diplomat said, that the West will not escalate a crisis and will remain boxed into its cautious, multilateralist view. Trump has changed this.

Take Russia, for instance. The Western response to its incursion into Ukrainian territory was always proportionate and almost entirely economic. While there were very good reasons for this, that response meant that Moscow could escalate the crisis by moving more assets into territory it sought to control, safe in the knowledge that, having tested Western resolve, it would not be challenged militarily. In effect, the United States’ failure to enforce red lines empowered its adversaries.

With Iran, according to analysts at the Royal United Services Institute, Britain’s leading military think tank, Trump’s seemingly disproportionate response to Tehran’s aggression has left the Iranian regime shocked and unsure how to respond. At a briefing in London on Monday, I asked a panel of RUSI staffers whether, given that assessment, they considered the air strike a triumph for the president. No one on the panel demurred. Michael Stephens, a former British diplomat who is now a research fellow at RUSI, told me later that it was clear how badly the Iranians had been hurt, both in practical military terms and in pure national pride. “This has fundamentally changed the game and opens up the space for de-escalation,” he said. “It was a sucker punch which has scrambled their understanding of how the Americans might react in future. In the short term, it’s a triumph for Trump.”

Every option available to Iran now comes with huge risks, and the lack of serious response—so far—has damaged the Iranian regime’s reputation. The recent accidental downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 has also hit it hard, revealing a frightening incompetence as well as a limited retaliatory power.

But while the air strike itself might be a limited foreign-policy success for Trump now, the geopolitical gains he has won through escalatory tactics might yet dissipate if the killing turns out to be little more than an isolated incident, signalling nothing but the president’s capacity for shock. He has history in this area, after all. In 2017, Trump dropped the “mother of all bombs,” the largest conventional bomb the U.S. has ever deployed, to kill more than 90 militants in eastern Afghanistan, and the following year, he authorized, alongside France and Britain, air strikes on Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. On neither occasion was the action followed up in any long-term fashion.

The lessons of the Soleimani killing also do not fit neatly into Trump’s worldview, suggesting the need for clear and consistent red lines, as well as the willingness to commit U.S. military resources to enforce them. It’s America back as global policeman.

At the moment, in the assessment of the British diplomat I spoke with, the only clear strength of Trump’s foreign policy is his unpredictability, which has the power to unsettle the United States’ adversaries. The diplomat said that Trump appears to understand American strength more instinctively than Obama but, unlike his predecessor, doesn’t seem to have anything close to a strategy to go alongside this insight.

So while there are “Trumportunities,” there are also “Trumptastrophes.” The president, accidentally or otherwise, has identified real problems, including Iran’s ability to act with relative impunity and China’s disrespect for the rules of global trade. With regard to Iran, Trump appears to have stumbled upon an effective mechanism to advance U.S. interests. But he has yet to show himself to be any better than his forerunners at solving the long-term problems he has identified—and may yet make them worse.

*********

We Can’t Afford to Ignore Lev Parnas’s Explosive Claims

We can’t afford to accept them at face value either.

By David A. Graham | Published January 16, 2020 | The Atlantic | Posted January 17, 2020 |

Irony is thriving in the Trump administration. Consider this: The president spent months, and was ultimately impeached for, badgering the Ukrainian government to announce a probe into the natural-gas company Burisma. Yet all it took was the release of some text messages by Lev Parnas, an accused criminal with a checkered past, for Ukraine to quickly announce it is investigating alleged illegal surveillance of former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

The supposed surveillance, which is described in documents that Parnas turned over to the House Intelligence Committee, is one of several explosive claims to emerge this week. In the messages, Robert Hyde—who had contacts with the Trump family and is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House—described surveillance of Yovanovitch in Ukraine. She was abruptly fired in May 2019 after a pressure campaign directed by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer. (Parnas, for the record, told Rachel Maddow on Wednesday that he believed Hyde was telling tall tales.)

Parnas turned over notes that again suggest—as House testimony from Ambassador Gordon Sondland previously attested—that Trump and Giuliani were only interested in the announcement of a probe, not the fact of one. This both undermines Trump’s claim to have been trying to fight corruption in Ukraine and indicates that the president’s goal was hurting Joe Biden and enhancing his own reelection chances.

[David A. Graham: Trump wanted an announcement—not an investigation]

Parnas also produced a May 2019 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky requesting a meeting with Trump. Giuliani began the letter, “I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States.” This is the latest evidence to debunk Trump’s claim to have been acting in an official capacity when he pressured Ukraine.

In an interview with The New York Times, Parnas also explained how Giuliani came to represent him and his partner, Igor Fruman. In Parnas’s telling, he was worried about acting as go-betweens for Trump without an official capacity to ensure their safety and access. Parnas first proposed that Trump make the two men special envoys, but after speaking with Trump, Giuliani offered a new idea: He would represent Fruman and Parnas, as well as the president, thus making them all subject to shared attorney-client privilege.

The Parnas allegations go on and on. Parnas has said that Trump was kept apprised of all of his actions by Giuliani, although Parnas said he did not communicate directly with the president about them. (Though Trump has claimed not to know Parnas, there are many photos floating around of them together.) If true, this would also debunk any claim (already implausible) by Trump that he was unaware of Giuliani’s actions.

As the Senate prepares to hold a trial for Trump, with acquittal a foregone conclusion, impeachment remains a strange duck. For anyone who has seriously considered the evidence, it’s impossible to conclude that Trump’s behavior was appropriate (although it remains possible to conclude that impeachment, or removal, is still excessive.) Yet even though the House has finished impeaching Trump, and despite the appalling facts uncovered,  there is much that remains unknown  about the president’s actions with regard to Ukraine, thanks to both Trump’s obstruction and the haste of the Democratic House.

[David A. Graham: The arrests of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman]

This makes it impossible to ignore Parnas’s claims. If true, they make the case against Trump that much more damning. They help to fill in some of the missing information, they underscore the president’s abuse of office, and they come from someone with firsthand knowledge.

And yet it’s also impossible to take Parnas at face value. Parnas, you may recall, first became a household name in October, when he was arrested with Fruman while attempting to leave the country, and charged with violations of election-related laws. This is a man who started a company called “Fraud Guarantee,” reportedly so that he could bury Google results about his own previous shady actions. If he is telling the truth now, he was both involved in a dastardly and preposterous scheme, and lied about it in the past.

Some of Parnas’s claims here deserve particular scrutiny, especially those not backed by documentary evidence. Though he claims Trump was aware of what was going on, he does not claim direct knowledge that this was the case. The fact that Parnas’s account squares with others, including Sondland’s, lends it some credibility. He also told Maddow that “Attorney General Barr was basically on the team,” but offers no evidence for the allegation, and no other evidence has emerged so far to support it. (A Department of Justice statement called that claim “100 percent false.”)

The dilemma posed by Parnas’s claims recalls the one created by Michael Cohen’s testimony to the House last February. As Republicans eagerly noted then, Cohen was a convicted liar, preparing to go to prison on tax-fraud, campaign-finance, and other charges. His testimony was self-interested: He both had reasons to exact personal revenge on Trump, and hoped that his cooperation might induce authorities to lighten his sentence. All of this was true, but Cohen (like Parnas) brought documents to back up his claims, and his testimony has largely been substantiated since.

Parnas is like Cohen in another way: Each was once a part of the Trump circle, and the president and his defenders now dismiss him as a liar and scoundrel. And as with Cohen, the defense is troubling even if true. If Cohen and Parnas are such obvious villains, how is it that they came to be close to the president, putatively working as part of his legal teams? The same question applies to any number of other criminals, con men, and charlatans we’ve come to know over the past four years as Trump associates. The fact that he is surrounded by such people says a great deal about either his judgment or his probity. (Probably both.)

The investigations into Trump have often had to rely on questionable witnesses like Parnas because other, supposedly uncompromised people with direct knowledge have declined to speak. The Trump administration blocked testimony from Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, to name only a few, and Trump has declined to speak under oath. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has conducted a bizarre public striptease, vacillating between hints he will and won’t testify, while saving his stories for a book; on the eve of the impeachment trial, he was spotted strolling around Qatar’s capital city.

In the absence of their testimony, the search for truth has had to depend on uncomfortable encounters with the likes of Lev Parnas. His claims can’t be believed at anything near face value. Yet they also cannot be dismissed out of hand, for the stakes are too high. As long as it’s Parnas’s story versus Trump’s, the question is which proven liar to trust.

*********

The Iran Plane Crash Is the Big Story

The accidental shoot-down of the Ukrainian passenger jet is a glaring example of how the conflict between the U.S. and Iran can spiral out of control even when neither party wants it to.

URI Friedman | Published January 14, 2020 | The Atlantic | Posted January 17, 2020 |

The downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 and the deaths of all 176 people on board—newlyweds flying home from their wedding, graduate students charting ambitious careers, whole families returning from visiting relatives—have come to be portrayed as a tragic asterisk tacked onto the dramatic tale of how Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nearly went to war in the early days of 2020.

Over the weekend, for example, The New York Times published a comprehensive and vivid account of the week-long U.S.-Iran showdown. While the article ran more than 6,500 words, it included only one sentence on the plane crash. “In the confusion, a Ukrainian civilian passenger jet was destroyed by an Iranian missile,” the reporters wrote.

Trump, meanwhile, has claimed vindication for his handling of the crisis with Iran, but has barely mentioned the demise of Flight 752, other than to speculate about what caused the aircraft to explode. He has tweeted  often (including in Farsi) about the anti-government protests currently roiling Iran without referencing the impetus for them: the Iranian military accidentally shooting down the airplane, whose passengers were mostly Iranian nationals, and the country’s leaders then lying to their own people and the world about it for days.

But the shoot-down isn’t just some side event in the latest chapter of this story. It is the story, just as much as the U.S. and Iranian governments deciding to de-escalate hostilities is. The incident is a glaring example of how the months-long tit for tat between the two countries—which is far from over, even though their confrontation is for the moment less violent—can spiral out of control even when neither side wants it to. And it should serve as a counterweight to any notion that the parties have full command over the struggle they’ve been stepping up ever since the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

It’s revealing that the most recent round of hostilities between the countries was bookended by mistakes and misperceptions. The Times  reported that the triggering event—a rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia in late December that killed an American contractor at an Iraqi military base—was intended to exert pressure on the United States but not escalate the conflict, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. “The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that [the contractor] was killed,” the paper noted.

Whatever Iran’s intention, the attack did indeed leave an American dead. Which prompted the Trump administration to kill dozens of militia members in retaliatory strikes. Which led to supporters of that militia storming the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Which resulted in Trump ordering the targeted killing of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. Which moved Iran to fire missiles at Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. forces. Which caused the Iranians to brace for blowback from the United States, creating the conditions in which an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile operator apparently mistook Flight 752 for an American cruise missile and, with 10 seconds to act and his communication channels malfunctioning, blasted it out of the sky above Tehran.

Iran seemed to carefully calibrate its missile barrage on Iraqi bases—which damaged U.S. military airfields, blast walls, and various facilities but inflicted no casualties—to symbolically avenge Soleimani’s death without dramatically ramping up its fight with the United States. And the Trump administration chose to respond with similar restraint, asserting that the Iranians were “standing down” and that Washington effectively would as well, by limiting its retaliation to additional economic sanctions. The two foes even exchanged de-escalatory messages over encrypted fax via the Swiss embassy in Tehran. But if one needed an illustration of the difference between intentionally escalating hostilities during a crisis and unintentionally doing so, there’s no starker one than the Iranian military (more or less) precisely firing missiles at specific U.S. military targets and then, hours later, accidentally launching a missile that obliterated a plane with Iranian citizens on board.

The downing of Flight 752 “shows how even restrained retaliation could quickly turn into inadvertent escalation” and how actors in international crises are often less capable than their adversaries assume they are, especially when they’re in a defensive crouch, Jacquelyn Schneider, a national-security expert at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote on Twitter. (In this case, the incompetence of the Iranian military has been particularly noteworthy.) And while Iran and the United States are likely to proceed cautiously with their deliberate escalation—Iranian leaders know that they would lose a direct conventional war with the U.S., and Trump doesn’t want to get sucked into another protracted conflict in the Middle East—the biggest risk in ongoing tensions is inadvertent escalation, Schneider argued: “More mistakes will be made.”

Yes, the parties seem to have looked war in the face and recoiled, but they may simply be channeling their escalation in new directions rather than truly de-escalating. As the Trump administration heaps economic pressure on Iran and shines a spotlight on anti-government demonstrations there, and as Iran’s leaders grapple with this serious internal challenge to their rule and act out further by, say, launching cyber attacks, mobilizing proxy forces, or backing out of their commitments under the nuclear deal, the conflict could spin out of control again.

To confidently conclude that escalation is a manageable force would be reckless. Imagine, for instance, that those Iranian missiles had killed Americans, something Trump has deemed unacceptable and threatened to counter with overwhelming force. Troops at one of the Iraqi bases that came under assault told Reuters that a soldier came “very close to being blown up inside a shelter behind the blast walls.” And Lieutenant Colonel Staci Coleman, the U.S. Air Force officer who runs the airfield there, told The Wall Street Journal that she thought the Iranians “really wanted to target our [air] assets and if they so happened to kill Americans in the process, that was okay with them.” Or imagine if Americans had been on board Flight 752. How would the world look today? To channel Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in escalation, but sometimes escalation is interested in you. It’s a fallacy to presume that state actors can completely control a crisis. After all, who would have predicted that Iranians would be in the streets this week calling for the downfall of the supreme leader as Trump cheers them on?

“Most obviously, humility is in order,” Robert Jervis, an international-relations theorist at Columbia University,  wrote  recently, regarding the lessons of the U.S. standoff with Iran. “My guess is that neither President Donald Trump nor the Iranians know what they will do next (and what they think they will do may be different from what they will do when the time comes).” Next time—and there will be a next time—the Swiss and their encrypted fax machine may not be sufficient to avert a war no one wants.

*********

Iran’s Response to Soleimani’s Killing Is Coming

The killing of Qassem Soleimani was a monumental blow to the country’s regional ambitions. It could be about to go back to basics in its response.

By SAM DAGHER | Published January 14, 2020 | The Atlantic | Posted January 17, 2020 |

BEIRUT—About two years ago, Qassem Soleimani delivered a speech at a ceremony in Tehran marking a decade since the death of Imad Mughniyeh, the senior Hezbollah commander killed in a car-bomb explosion in the heart of Damascus, an attack carried out by the CIA with support from Israel. Standing in front of a huge portrait of Mughniyeh superimposed against a panorama of Jerusalem, Soleimani addressed an audience of senior Iranian officials, as well as representatives of Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Syria, and Yemen.

Soleimani hailed Mughniyeh as “the legend” responsible for practically all the achievements of Iran’s so-called axis of resistance, which according to the Iranian general included building Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas into formidable threats to Israel and killing 241 American service members in the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. “The enemy knows that punishment for Imad’s blood is not firing a missile or a tit-for-tat assassination,” he told the crowd. “The punishment for Imad’s blood is the eradication of the Zionist entity.”

Following Soleimani’s killing in an American air strike this month, it is worth remembering the man’s own words. Soleimani, Mughniyeh, and the current Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, formed a trio of men who carried out Iran’s strategy across the Middle East under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And so it is hard to overstate the magnitude of the blow that Soleimani’s death has delivered. The focus in the days since his killing has been on the perceived impulsiveness of Donald Trump’s decision, Iran’s retaliation—limited thus far to the firing of 22 missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq, with no reported casualties—the public displays of grief for Soleimani in Iran, and the national- security implications. But as with Mughniyeh’s death, to paraphrase Soleimani himself, the response to the Iranian general’s killing will not be restricted to a lone missile attack or a tit-for-tat move—Iran is not yet done.

Take the case of Mughniyeh. In the summer of 2012, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed five Israeli tourists and a driver in an attack in a Bulgarian resort town. U.S. and Israeli officials  suspected that the bombing, which occurred four years after Mughniyeh’s death, was retaliation for the Hezbollah commander’s killing, as well as for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, which Tehran blamed on Israel. “I have received many messages from brothers in the resistance asking for permission to carry out martyrdom operations” to avenge Soleimani’s death, Nasrallah said during a speech aired at memorial services for Soleimani held throughout Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and the country’s south. Revenge, he continued, will be a “long” battle.

For now, in responding to Soleimani’s killing, self-preservation and maintaining staying power mandate restraint. The strike that killed him also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who commanded the largest of the seven main Iraqi proxy militias working for Iran, according to Hisham al-Hashimi, a Baghdad-based security analyst with the European Institute of Peace. Iran’s ability to retaliate is also complicated by the fact that it is loathed by most Iraqis, including its fellow Shiites, who recently attacked Iran’s missions in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. Iraqi Shiites blame Iran and the militias and parties affiliated with it for killing more than 500 protesters in Iraq since October, and they see these same actors as being behind much of the corruption and plundering of the country’s resources that has hobbled Iraq’s ability to deliver services and economic opportunities to its citizens. Mounting economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on Iran and its allies in Iraq will also restrict their room to maneuver.

Read: The Soleimani assassination is America’s most consequential strike this century

Similar dynamics are at play in Lebanon, home to Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful regional proxy force. Once beloved as a resistance movement that liberated southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000, Hezbollah is now regarded by many Lebanese as part and parcel of the corrupt, dysfunctional, and sectarian political class that has brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. Residents of predominantly Shiite cities in southern Lebanon such as Nabatieh and Tyr, which are seen as bastions of support for Hezbollah, have even joined their fellow Lebanese in protests that have been ongoing for months. “The prevailing mood now is ‘Give me money and I’ll come out on the streets and chant against America and endorse any of your illogical propositions. But you do not want to give me money and still want me to come out against America, no,’” Ali al-Amine, a journalist and politician who is among the most outspoken anti-Hezbollah Lebanese Shiites, told me.

Given these limits to Iran’s short-term capabilities, it will likely focus on assessing the impact of Soleimani’s killing, plugging holes and vulnerabilities in its intelligence and security apparatus, reevaluating its strategy and approach, and streamlining its operations throughout the region. Tehran will also seize opportunities for détente with its regional archnemesis, Saudi Arabia, and seek rapprochement with the region’s Sunni Arabs, whose animosity toward Iran worsened after it partnered with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to crush an uprising in Syria, primarily carried out by the country’s Sunnis, that began in 2011.

Over time, the United States, Israel, and their allies—and all those perceived as harming Iran’s regional strategy—will face retribution, though, most likely in the form of covert operations and actions that will be much harder to trace back to Tehran. It would, in a way, be back to basics: bombings, assassinations, and stealth tactics long attributed to Mughniyeh. Indeed, Soleimani himself touted such efforts both at the memorial service for Mughniyeh and in a rare TV interview he gave in October. As Soleimani put it, it is the technique of “appearing like a sword and disappearing like a ghost.” It’s as if he were instructing his soldiers on the path they would have to take after his demise.

During the memorial for Soleimani, Nasrallah vowed to avenge his comrade’s killing by driving U.S. troops from the region and returning them to America “in coffins,” echoing the vow Soleimani made in 2018 to avenge Mughniyeh by “eradicating” Israel. Hezbollah will not shy away from carrying out operations against the U.S. and its allies, and may even resort to the campaign of assassinations and bombings that it turned to in Lebanon starting in 2005, when it felt under siege and compelled to defend its existence.

Elsewhere, having reconciled with Hamas after the two sides fell out over Iran’s support for Assad, Tehran could turn to the group to ratchet up confrontation with Israel in Gaza. In Syria, both Iran and Hezbollah will seek to maintain their presence and influence—Assad, for one, knows his survival hinges on patronage from Iran and Russia; Tehran, meanwhile, sees Syria as the second-most-important country in its axis of resistance, after Iran itself. And in Iraq, Iran’s proxy militias “have the wherewithal and expertise to escalate the situation and deliver painful blows to the U.S.,” Hashimi told me. There, too, he said, the focus will be on mobilizing assassination squads and mounting other special operations, rather than on carrying out conventional attacks on American forces.

In his October TV interview, Soleimani fondly recounted how, in 2006, he traveled through back roads to get to Beirut from Damascus during the 33-day summer war between Israel and Hezbollah, and how he, Mughniyeh, and Nasrallah oversaw the conflict from a command center in the Lebanese capital’s southern suburbs. He said that Israeli bombers were bringing down buildings all around them, and that they survived by moving around and dodging Israeli reconnaissance drones.

Soleimani hinted in the same interview that even if the trio were to all die, an entire generation had been groomed by them to continue the fight—in asymmetric warfare, he warned, there are no traditional fronts. “The enemy,” Soleimani said, “must contend with an expansive and smart field of land mines.”

______

By SAM DAGHER, the only Western journalist based in Damascus at the start of the Syrian conflict, is the author of Assad or We Burn the Country: How One Family’s Lust for Power Destroyed Syria.

*********

[niniblack]

Undercover Cop/Teacher AU part 5

Past part are here: #undercover au

We’ve actually reached the end of what I already have written, and I got derailed by another idea today, so this might be it for the daily updates for a bit. Fingers crossed that it continues to be slow at work!

It’s the longest Monday of Damen’s entire life. The clock ticks at a glacial pace as he muddles his way through his classes. If the kids notice that he’s not paying much attention, none of them mention it. Damen’s too preoccupied with trying to remember everything he can about last night and figure out this mess too notice if they did anyway.

He has a list in his head. He doesn’t dare write it down, in case anyone saw it.

Fact 1) Laurent ordered a drink in a bar. Multiple drinks. The bartender asked for his ID and accepted whatever Laurent showed him as proof that Laurent was old enough to drink. Therefore, Laurent is over 21, and Damen has not committed any felonies.

Fact 2) Laurent was way too good at giving head for a teenager. Damen knows this because he was once a teenager, and knows that teenagers are selfish when it comes to sex. This isn’t as definitive as purchasing alcohol, but Damen feels good about this as evidence in the not-a-felon category.

Fact 3) Laurent had talked about a job and a boss. Only adults talk about work like that. But he never mentioned what the job was. Damen files this in the maybe column.

Fact 4) Laurent looked like a teenager this morning. If Damen hadn’t seen him last night, he never would have doubted that he belonged in high school. He’d looked young last night, too, but not that young. Lots of people looked younger than they really were. Hell, there were 30 year old actors who played teenagers in movies. Damen filed this off to the side. Clearly he could not judge Laurent’s age on appearances alone. Down that path leads ruin.

Fact 5) Damen is starting to suspect that Laurent is fucking with him. Evidence: Laurent is currently sitting in the back of Damen’s senior level French class, accepting a lollipop from Nicaise, the delinquent freshman who wound up in this class because he’s fluent and no one knew where else to put him.

“Do you have strawberry?” Laurent asks.

Nicaise digs through the bag, and emerges with a pink candy.

Laurent unwraps it and pops it in mouth, keeping ahold of the stick. He catches Damen’s eye and hollows his cheeks.

“Nicaise,” Damen says. “No candy unless you have enough for the whole class.”

Nicaise frowns at him. “I’m not giving any to these losers,” he says, tucking the bag back into his backpack.

“Should have thought of that before sharing with Laurent. Bring it here.” Damen holds out a hand, and keeps it there until Nicaise grudgingly gets up and throws the bag at him.

“What bug crawled up your ass?” Nicaise asks.

“Language,” Damen says.

Nicaise repeats himself in French, looking Damen straight in the eye as he does it.

Laurent’s grinning. “Maybe he just needs to get laid,” he mutters to Nicaise.

Nicaise’s face lights up in unholy glee at having a partner in crime. “Who would fuck him though? He’s not even attractive.”

Laurent’s eyes flick back over to Damen. “You never know.”

“If you two are quite done,” Damen says.

Laurent holds up his hands, still grinning.

One of the other kids, Ancel, leans forward across his desk. “Are you gonna pass out the candy or not?”

Ancen is sitting in front of Nicaise, and Nicaise kicks his foot at the leg of Ancel’s desk, hitting it hard enough that it start to tilt to the side and Ancel shrieks before righting it. “You little shit!”

“I didn’t bring it for you! Get your own damn snacks,” Nicaise tells him.

“Mr. A just said he was going to share with the whole class.”

Damen feels like throwing the candy at them all right now, honestly. This is hands down his worst class of the day, and it’s not even due to the recent of the addition of the maybe-student he’s going to go to jail for fucking. Somehow this end of the day, senior level French class wound up full of kids who either know the language well enough not to need the class, or are so bad at it that they shouldn’t have passed the previous year and only made it in because the counselors needed to fill up schedules. Nicaise and Ancel are the worst of the lot, bickering with each other one minute and trading lip gloss the next, and somehow Laurent has already fallen in with them.

It’s ten minutes into class now and so far Nicaise is the only one to have spoken any French beyond bonjour so Damen switches to French to tell them all, “You can earn the candy. Who did their homework and can go conjugate the imperfect form of être on the board?”

Nicaise rolls his eyes and mutters something to Laurent that Damen can’t hear. Laurent laughs.

“No volunteers? What about you, Laurent?” Normally Damen wouldn’t pick on anyone on their first day, but this feels like an unusual situation in every regard. “Want to give it a try?”

Laurent frowns at him, and then says, with an atrocious American accent he definitely didn’t have last night, “Je parle un… peu fra… france? French.” He caps this off by holding his hand up, thumb and index finger close together, and repeating, “Un peu.”

Damen stares at him, stunned.

“Français,” Nicaise supplies, snickering.

“Right, that.” Laurent says. He shrugs. “They asked if I knew any French. They didn’t ask how much.”

Nicaise leans forward to poke Ancel. “Finally someone at your level.”

Ancel swings around and nearly clocks him, but Nicaise ducks, laughing.

“Boys!” Damen yells, glaring until they settle back into their seats.

They get through the rest of class. Damen winds up tossing a sucker to anyone who can give a correct answer -- mostly Erasmus and Kallias, who sit in the front and are always really earnest about learning. Nicaise interrupts occasionally to mock someone’s pronunciation, and all Damen can do is tell him to stop being rude because he’s not actually wrong.

He doesn’t call on Laurent again after the bell rings, when he says, “Laurent, stay after for a minute.”

Nicaise demands the rest of his candy back before he’ll leave, but then it’s just Damen and Laurent left in the room. Laurent lounges back in his chair and puts his feet on his desk.

“Un peu français?” Damen asks.

Laurent shrugs.

“You spoke it pretty fluently last night.”

“You should really lock the door if you want to talk about that,” Laurent says, in perfect goddamn French.

Damen grits his teeth, but Laurent isn’t wrong, so he goes over and shuts the door, dropping the shade over the little window and engaging the lock.

“Is this going to be a thing then?” Laurent asks. “Asking me to stay after class and locking the door?”

“You just told me--” Damen cuts himself off with a huff of breath. “Is faking being bad at everything your new thing?”

Laurent drops his feet back to the floor and stands up in a fluid motion, making his way through the desks and towards Damen. “I’m not bad at anything,” Laurent says, right up in Damen’s personal space now.

Damen tries to take a step back, but the door is behind him. “What are you doing?”

“You’re cute when you’re teaching,” Laurent says. “Trying to look stern but failing miserably.” He grins, leaning further in, hands landing on Damen’s hips. “And the kids like you, even if they’re being brats.”

“Including you?” Damen asks.

Laurent makes an agreeable noise.

Damen reaches up and brushes Laurent’s hair back from his face, tucking it behind his ear. “You’re a student.”

Laurent shrugs. “They told me not to fuck the other students. No one said anything about the teachers.”

“The-- what?” Damen asks, but Laurent is ignoring him, fingers fumbling with Damen’s fly. “Wait,” he says, just as Laurent gets a hand into his pants.

“What?” Laurent asks, pausing.

“You’re a student,” Damen says again.

Laurent just looks confused.

“I can’t sleep with students,” Damen says.

Laurent frowns. “It’s after hours, I’m not a student anymore. It’s fine.”

“You… That is not how it works.”

Laurent purses his lips. “I was going to suck your cock again. Yes or no?” He gives said cock a squeeze, and Damen wishes he weren’t already half-hard just from being this close to him.

Damen’s going to hell.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Might as well at this point. Nothing left to lose, right? He could probably come up with more idioms if he tried but he just nods.

Laurent squeezes his cock again and drops to his knees.

Damen’s pants are around his thighs and Laurent has just taken the head of his cock into his mouth when reality slams into Damen like a freight train. He shoves Laurent back with a firm push on his shoulders, and the sudden motion means he gets teeth scraping his dick painfully.

“No, no,” Damen says. “I can’t do this.”

“The fuck!” Laurent demands, from where he’s landed on his ass.

“You are a student,” Damen says. “I can’t sleep with you.”

“You already did!”

“And that was a mistake. I’m so sorry. I’m sorry about just now. This is… this is bad.” Damen yanks his pants up, fumbling with his fly. “Look, I’ll get you moved to a different class. You don’t have to ever see me again. I didn’t know. You were at the bar and you were--“

“Damen,” Laurent breaks in, stopping Damen’s rambling apology. “How old do you think I am?”

Damen blinks down at him. “If you’re a senior then you’re 17 or 18.”

“If I were a senior, yes,” Laurent says.

Damen stares down at him.

“Damen,” Laurent says, tone slow and patient. “I’m 25.”

Damen keeps staring. Finally, he manages to say, “What?”

“Did you actually think…?” Laurent shakes his head, laughing incredulously. “This morning you said-- Damen, this is an op. I’m undercover.”

“I thought you were underage! I thought I was going to go to jail!” Damen nearly shouted.

Laurent’s still laughing. “You said this morning that you knew!”

“No, I didn’t! I said I was gonna go to prison this morning.” He glares down at Laurent. “This is not funny.”

“This is hilarious,” Laurent says, finally climbing back to his feet. “I thought you made me as soon as I walked in.”

“How?! I told you I was going to have to register as a sex offender.”

“I thought you were just being melodramatic,” Laurent says. “That’s why I told you not to say anything. We’ve been working on this case for months, I can’t afford for you to blow my cover.”

“I can’t believe you let me think I’d fucked a student all day,” Damen says.

Laurent tilts his head, giving Damen a considering look. “Did you still think I was a student just now, when you were going to let me suck you off?”

Damen sputters. “I suspected you weren’t.”

“Uh huh,” Laurent says, a slow grin spreading across his face. “This is kinkier than the handcuffs, Mr. Akielon.”

“Please don’t,” Damen says.

Laurent leans in, hand skimming down Damen’s stomach towards his cock again, breath warm against Damen’s neck. “I think you’re getting--“

They’re interrupted by someone twisting the door handle, and knocking when they find it locked. “Damen, are you in there?”

“Shit, it’s Nik,” Damen whispers.

Laurent steps back. “Oh. He knows,” he says, also whispering. “But he can’t know that you know. This whole op has to be secret from the teachers.”

“What are you even undercover for?” Damen asks. Louder, he says, “Just a sec, Nik,” to the door. He pats down his front to make sure his pants are zipped.

Laurent crosses the room to grab his bag. “Drugs,” he says, answering Damen’s question.

Damen frowns. They’d had a student overdose last month, but he’d thought it was an isolated incident. “And Nik knows?”

The doorknob rattles again, so Damen reaches out to unlock it before Laurent can answer. “Hey Nik.”

Nikandros is frowning. “What’ve you been doing? Did you forget about drinks?”

“Oh, right! Um, no. No I was just…”

“He was helping me with some remedial French,” Laurent pipes up, coming to stand next to them. “I’m really far behind. My last school didn’t have such a good foreign language department.” He flashes Nikandros a bright smile, then turns it on Damen. “Thanks again, Mr. Akielon. Same time tomorrow?”

“Uh… I coach track on Tuesdays,” Damen says.

“I’ll find you out there then,” Laurent says. “Bye Mr. A, bye Mr. Delpha.” He waves over his shoulder as he walks away.

[bookishreviewsblog]

V.E. Schwab: Vicious (Villains #1) | Lara

Victor and Eli started out as college roommates—brilliant, arrogant, lonely boys who recognized the same sharpness and ambition in each other. In their senior year, a shared research interest in adrenaline, near-death experiences, and seemingly supernatural events reveals an intriguing possibility: that under the right conditions, someone could develop extraordinary abilities. But when their thesis moves from the academic to the experimental, things go horribly wrong.

Ten years later, Victor breaks out of prison, determined to catch up to his old friend (now foe), aided by a young girl whose reserved nature obscures a stunning ability. Meanwhile, Eli is on a mission to eradicate every other super-powered person that he can find—aside from his sidekick, an enigmatic woman with an unbreakable will. Armed with terrible power on both sides, driven by the memory of betrayal and loss, the archnemeses have set a course for revenge—but who will be left alive at the end?

“Plenty of humans were monstrous, and plenty of monsters knew how to play at being human.” When can I marry Victor and adopt the rest of his gang? Seriously, I would do anything (ANYTHING!) for any of them, but I’ll come to that later. Dark, twisted, vicious. This story reminded me all over again why I am such a sucker for hardcore anti-heroes. Victor and Eli are best friends and college roommates. Were. Before Eli shot Victor and sent him to jail after he killed his girlfriend. It is sure as hell more a little bit more complicated, but it started with Eli’s research on his class thesis about EO – the ExtraOrinary. Namely, those are people who endured trauma, more accurately near-death experience, and body’s chemical composition changed and gave them… powers. Naturally, what would two arrogant, rich, bored seniors do rather than experiment, on themselves? What could possibly go wrong? World building in this book is by all means astonishing. As in Shades of Magic, Schwab provides a whole new perspective on superpowers. This mixture of science fiction and fantasy makes a perfect foundation for an extraordinary story. I especially like the concept of EO’s getting their powers – persons last thoughts are somehow connected to the source of their newfound power. Genius. I have a sudden urge to write a poem about Schwab’s spectacular writing and pacing. This book is everything I didn’t even know I needed in my life. The whole book is, in fact, a big preparation for the epic encounter between Eli and Victor. The book begins with the opening of Eli and Victor’s story, how they got to where they are, ten years from the moment that changed their lives and where are they now. Then it slowly introduces backstories, development, motives and then it begins the process of including other characters who complete their story. I loved the way Schwab introduced her world and story, with all ��10 years ago” “two weeks ago” chapters she created the rhythm of slowly unraveling the plot, and I could, indeed, feel the story piecing together like a puzzle. Tension is everywhere, all over the city of Merit, and it keeps increasing, chapter by chapter, hour by hour until I almost lost it from lunatic anticipation. It is growing slowly, almost lazily, that I didn’t notice it at first, but towards the end, it was so much of it that I was all nerves. Even though I knew (suspected,,) Victor had a plan the whole time, I felt on edge the whole time and just waited for everything to go wrong. The plot was really dynamic and it is so worth reading because I couldn’t part with my kindle for the most of the time. I really want to shout this aloud a few more times because I am afraid there is a person in some corner of the Earth that don't know it. Victoria Schwab has the absolute greatest characterization. Victoria Schwab died, was revived and received power to write the most shshiny, perfect, spectacular characters. That’s the only explanation for this perfection. Victor Vale“Because you don't think I'm a bad person," he said. "And I don't want to prove you wrong.” I knew I’d love a wonder that Victor Vale is from the moment he appeared on the pages. An introvert ambitious genius constantly overshadowed by his charming roommate. From early descriptions, I could see something that is going to be a big trigger for Victor – jealousy. He’s constantly envious of Eli, even though he does not know it. Whether of his ambition, knowledge, his girlfriend Angie or his ability to charm his way out of anything, he is constantly overshadowed by him. His chance to shine pops out during Eli’s research about EO’s – if they could do it and Victor became EO, wouldn’t that make Victor equally, or even more important for the research and force Eli to work together? Well, that is about to be good. His blind determination to become part of Eli’s research turns to obsession, and he isn’t willing to stop until he succeeds, no matter the cost. After a series of events, he ends up in jail for ten years. That is, like, “before” (before becoming EO) part of his character. I’m still missing out some of his backstory, but I hope Schwab will bless us with that in Vengeful. “I want to believe that there's more. That we could be more. Hell, we could be heroes.” The “after” part of Victor is insane. What can a guy do in prison for ten years? Well planning a vicious revenge sounds like a deserving source of entertainment. I love revenge and characters driven by it because it always makes things dirty. So, Victor breaks out of jail, with nothing on his mind but sweet sweet vengeance, no moral compass and ability to inflict or stop pain on anyone. The reason I said there is “before” and “after” of his character is that becoming EO changes people. It takes some basic but vital feelings, like grief, guilt, regret, empathy. He remembers what it’s like to feel those things, but can’t actually force himself to feel them, but has to constantly “remind” himself of it. He acknowledges something is wrong, because he set it like that in his mind, but he doesn’t sense it. (I had a quote but can’t find it, damn, but here’s one I found: “A pang of guilt, something foreign after a decade in jail, nudged his ribs.”). That I-don’t-care-but-care, ughgghghgg he’s so adorable, with a weak spot for twelve-year-old necromancer, old dog and his hacker cell mate. (“Victor fed it to him, and gave the dog’s ears—which came to his stomach, even sitting on the stool—a short scratch. He looked from the beast to Sydney. He really was collecting strays.”) Mitch Mitch aka chocolate milk is the most iconic character ever to exist. A kick-ass hacker, who constantly ends up in prison for crimes he didn’t commit. So one day, he loses it and decides to actually commit a crime, well, if he’s going to end up in jail anyway, better make it good. He’s actually the ultimate sweetheart and I love him. Sydney Sydney is also a EO, with a badass power – she can raise the dead. She grew up with manipulative older sister and parents who didn’t particularly care for her, so she isn’t to eager to go home after her sister and her psycho boyfriend try to kill her. I just have to say how much I love the three o them together. They are such a cute, badass little family and I love it so much how they grew on each other without knowing it. “She knew exactly where she was going. Serena hadn’t told Sydney to go home. She hadn’t told her to run away. She’d told her to go somewhere safe. And over the course of the last week, safe had ceased to be a place for Sydney, and had become a person. Specifically, safe had become Victor.” I’m melting inside. Eli Cardale “If Eli really was a hero, and Victor meant to stop him, did that make him a villain?" Eli Cardale the ultimate villain, who believes himself a hero with a mission from God to purify the world and protect people from monsters that are Eos. I guess he forgot that he’s an EO himself, whoops. “When no one understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.” But it’s all good if he feels blessed. I actually thought I’d like him for his dedication to the cause, but he just annoyed me all the time with his god complex. Serena Serena is a really good female villain – always gets everything her way and know exactly what she wants. She has real ambition and is a type of villain I usually like but she possesses a dose of bitchiness that made me hate her. *spoiler* I was so happy when Victor killed her, but I have a bad feeling about her and that they aren’t done with bitch-siren yet. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go and read the second book in one go, probably regretting it later because I’ll miss half of my life 😊

[drmyler]

FBI Police Investigation Authority

Police Investigation Authority – New Division of the FBI

 by

 Dr Stephen F Myler PhD (Psych)

 Abstract:

 In this paper I would like to explore the case for a new division of the FBI in light of the recent cases of police brutality against third parties including minorities, criminal coercion and internal corruption. At the current time investigation of the police is carried out by Internal Affairs mostly staffed by serving police offices who are asked to investigate alleged crimes committed by the police themselves. The very fact that the police investigate the police is open to coercion from senior ranks above and lack of cooperation，evidence suppressed by fear and retaliation internally. The case for a complete reorganization of police for criminal activity is now at the forefront of social cohesion and racial harmony.

 Introduction:

 Federal Bureau of Investigation

 When the FBI was first established in 1908 via a famous memorandum from attorney general Charles J Bonaparte after the assassination of the then President McKinley it was seen as a force for good. McKinley was followed by President Roosevelt who appointed Bonaparte to deal with the factions of terrorists emerging in the USA from home grown agitators.  Although the beginnings of the FBI were fraught with political intrigue and power maneuvers over time the Bureau established certain criteria that made it independent from the police and had countrywide federal powers of arrest and seizure. Most of the early agents were ex-secret agents, accountants, lawyers and the odd employees who had special knowledge or a past history of investigations often through past espionage. They were called Special Agents as they had skills sets that set them apart from the normal police activities and often were far more intelligent and educated. J. Edgar Hoover then a young justice department lawyer in 1918 made his mark and as the future FBI head would modernize the FBI into scientific investigation and a more progressive force for law and order. Although the aims and focus of the FBI have changed over the century by various political forces and demands for the direction of its federal powers into investigations such as terrorism, fraud, hostage taking and major crime organizations as its main advantage has always been its independence to perform as a protective arm of government (G-Men) to the civil population. I would love to say that the original intention was that the FBI was incorruptible as Hoover has espoused but recent activity in the Bureau has shown its vulnerability to political corruption and power conflict within and without where the Directors of the FBI can be seen playing politics is a very sad state of affairs. The FBI should remain and always be a non-party non-political organization and once again show that its agents and Directors are the incorruptible investigators we still need today.

  Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB)

 The department of Internal Affairs is fairly young in comparison to the FBI and is often seen by police officers as the rat bureau (or cheese-eaters) it is this dislike that makes its work almost impossible. Also because of the nature of its work the officers tend to be college graduates and have had intensive background checks to make sure they cannot be – got at – by serving officers via corruption, bribery or threat of coercion. However in a perfect world that would be enough, however often police chiefs, sheriffs and other leaders in the police prefer internal discipline hearings that can control bad publicity and careers, than to calling for an IAB investigation. This also means that most police officers who commit acts of criminality know they are unlikely to be disciplined even if caught, but sanctioned internally instead. The IAB is also under-funded and under-manned in many cases so can only investigate high profile incidents that have social or public repercussions – especially where the public's use of photo and video cameras make the alleged crimes harder to ignore or sweep aside. There are programs that IAB investigators can take offered by the FBI and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. These courses focus on advanced interrogation and evidence techniques as well as new internet investigations. This means they can be better equipped to investigate their own (police officers) however the stigma and difficulty getting the required management support or reliable witness statements can be a very stressful engagement for the investigators themselves.

 The New Proposal

 The above gives us room for thought and reassessment of the current state of affairs when investigating police misconduct, whether that is via brutality, theft, corruption or just straightforward criminal activity. I propose that the IAB should be dismantled over time handing off its investigations and files to a new division of the FBI called the Police Investigation Authority (PIA) with federal powers of investigation and arrest. That the existing staff of the AIB be returned to normal police duties through transfer and natural retirements. The USA has a shortage of detectives on the ground and so this move would greatly enhance the everyday detection of crime and investigation.  No ex-IAB personal should be allowed to join or have access to the new PIA. This also includes any police past or present from being able to join the PIA for security reasons and conflict of interests that already arise in the IAB.

 The new PIA would be built around the principals of the FBI of uncorrupt ability and non-alignment with any police service, making investigations completely unbiased and not controlled by the higher authority of the police themselves. Recruitment should focus on University graduates of criminology, social studies, psychology and forensic science giving the new investigators the skills necessary to investigate police corruption and criminality without being dragged into any internal policies. It is mostly the FBI training programs set up for the AIB which could be enhanced and continued for the new internal division (PIA) with additional training in forensic psychology and new laws enacted to support the external authority of the FBI over police investigations of malpractice. Legal power is very important to the efficiency of the PIA in that it automatically outranks any police officer at any rank including penalties for political interference at State level from Governors or Mayors that may for political reasons interfere with the PIA investigation. This would require the government, congress and the senate all agreeing that in the investigation of police officers of any rank that there is a non-interference policy. That even the President cannot comment on ongoing investigations for public or political gain.

 Case Study – How Might It work?

 If a policeman during the arrest of a suspect does use excessive force and results in physical harm or death then that incidence is brought to the attention of the PIA via an FBI reporting system (to be agreed upon) and if the incident is not reported, but later comes to light, the reporting officer (head of the offenders department (where shown did not report a known alleged offense) shall be dismissed from their post immediately. Once the report is made, investigators will arrive and begin the interrogation of the subject of the complaint then interview witnesses and see reports. Local police offices should make available suitable rooms for the investigators from PIA to conduct their tasks and the most senior officer should by law be available to support and make sure that no interference or unwanted barriers to the investigation take place. If the complaint has merit then the investigation is handed over to the special prosecutor of the FBI to take before the courts for a preliminary determination of the case. This should be held in-camera (secret) in the first instance to decide if the evidence would hold up in the normal criminal court. If the case has merit then it will be then passed to the open court hearing for adjudication by due process.  At this point the police officer would have his own attorney or defense council to represent them as would be normal in any criminal case. The PIA then acts as witness for the prosecution for the purposes of presenting evidence and assisting the court in its own process of Law. If found guilty by the public court, deliberation as to sentencing should take account of the conditions in prison for the now dismissed police officer and their future safety in incarceration. Once convicted there is no appeal to the court or PIA except in exceptional circumstances. The ex-police officer should also be banned from serving in any capacity in legal services including private security, private investigator or working in a law practice for a period of five years post the serving of any sentence.  For example if given a ten year prison sentence – it would be fifteen years in total before allowing to be involved in any of the aforesaid posts. In this case study we have concentrated on the process in general and to protect the identity of the police officer being accused until the case can be tested in open court. It is important that the PIA agents have the power of arrest and detention so as not to rely on the police to enact that power on their behalf but have federal law behind them.

 Discussion.

 Would this new division of the FBI be feasible and workable? The answer here is a resounding Yes. What would be the perception of the public if this was enacted? First that the complaints that officers had in the past (present) get away with in criminal activities, such as institutional racism, could be investigated without internal bias, that the public would have more faith in the system if the police were  not investigating themselves.  Also the public need change and any government that enacts this proposal would be deemed working in the interests of not just the disadvantaged in society, but for the benefit of all parts of the society. Overnight many of the social ills plagued by bad policing would have a new champion of law and order, that only has one task, to make sure the police serve and keep safe the public as it priority and not the protection of the few bad apples being protected by a system based of corruption. Would any government have the foresight to enact the necessary laws to enable a new era of policing that could concentrate on being ethical and proud once again to wear the uniform of protect and serve? That remains to be seen - once the PIA is up and running it will take time to settle down and become effective in policing the police but overall even serving police officers could see a fairer more protected system if the investigations were unfettered by internal politics, bias and loyalties being tested for turning a blind eye to the present situation. Politically this is a win win situation. A word on costs and funding – the present budget of the IAB plus the closer of its offices and facilities would free up enough resources to get the PIA started. No new offices should be in existing police stations but could be used to expand local FBI offices to accommodate PIA staff. In this way the eventual increase in costs and convictions would probability even out over-all. So from a funding point of view would be more economical than the present system in the end.

 Summery

 This paper was inspired by the recent events of arrests resulting in death and or injury at the hands of irresponsible police officers and their departments that protect them from IAB investigations and the inevitable corruption of a system of investigation that clearly does not work efficiently. By taking this function away from the police to a new department of the FBI called the PIA there are multiple advantages with very little downside to its instigation. I do sincerely hope that readers of this paper who have direct access to decisions makers will promote and advertise this proposal for a radical new future not just in the USA but police forces around the World.

  References:

 No references are necessary for this paper as the content is new and has no prior academic discussion. Content for the history of the FBI and IAB came for open sources.