Monday, April 30, 2007

Dr. Mutulu Shakur Up for Parole and Moved Again

Dr. Mutulu Shakur Up For Parole!

Dr. Mutulu Shakur will come up for parole on June 18, 2007. He was recently moved from the Federal Correctional Complex at Coleman, Florida to the United States Penitentiary at Pollock, Louisiana and now once again to USP Atlanta. While the abrupt transfers have somewhat disrupted Dr. Shakur's preparations for a parole hearing, he, his lawyers and support network have decided to move forward. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT. We are asking Dr. Shakur's friends, family, and community to support his petition for parole. We are requesting letters be sent by May 15, 2007. Letters should be addressed to:

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission
5550 Friendship Blvd, Suite 420
Chevy Chase, MD 20815-7201

Please include the federal government's identification number for Dr.
Shakur: #83205-012. Do not mail the letter directly to the Parole
Commission. Rather please e-mail, fax, or mail.

fax to: 404-288-8786
mail to:
Malcolm X Grassroots Movement
PO Box 361270
Decatur, GA 30026

Points Supporting Parole of Dr. Mutulu Shakur

Letters supporting Dr. Shakur's parole might want to take into account his
history of service to the community including:

Employment at the Lincoln Detoxification Community (addiction treatment)
Program as a political education instructor. His role evolved to include
counseling and treatment of withdrawal symptoms with acupuncture.

Managing a detoxification program recognized as the largest and most
effective of its kind by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, National
Acupuncture Research Society and the World Academic Society of

Treating thousands of poor and elderly patients who would otherwise have
no access to acupunctural treatment.

Developing the anti-drug program for the Charles Cobb Commission for
Racial Justice for the National Council of Churches.

Since he has been incarcerated:

Dr. Shakur has worked to promote education among other inmates and has
participated in efforts to promote unity between prisoners from different
regions, religious, ethnic and cultural affiliations in institutions where
he was imprisoned.

At each institution where Dr. Shakur has been incarcerated he has worked
with other inmates, staff, and community artists, activists, and
intellectuals to create educational and cultural programs as a vehicle to
encourage positive development for the incarcerated, particularly Black
and Latino youth. If you participated in these programs, please speak
about your experiences and observations.

During his incarceration he has sought peaceful means to resolve conflict.

The above points indicate he will be a productive and positive influence
in any community where he resides. Also, the charges for which he was
convicted were politically motivated and related to a political climate in
which the aim was to eliminate racial discrimination and injustice. Dr.
Shakur has advocated efforts to bring about reconciliation from the
conflict of that period. Keep in mind we are not trying to convert the
Federal Parole Board to a particular ideology or campaign, but to secure
freedom from incarceration for Dr. Shakur.

In the words of Dr. Mutulu Shakur, "Much love and respect. We are not
dispirited. In fact, we are empowered by our resistance."

Preparation for the parole hearing involves considerable legal expenses.
We are asking that you send whatever you can to help us with the costs.

Your donation is tax deductible. Please make you check or money order
payable to IFCO/FFMS and mail to: Family and Friends of Dr. Mutulu Shakur,
P.O. Box 3171, Manhattanville Station, NY, NY 10027

Write to Mutulu at:
Dr. Mutulu Shakur #83205-012
P.O. BOX 150160

Send commissary (U.S. Post Office money orders only) to Mutulu at: Dr.
Mutulu Shakur #83205-012, P.O. Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001

Free All Political Prisoners! •

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Support Rev. Luis Barrios

ProLibertad Freedom Campaign April 29, 2007

MONDAY, MAY 7,2007 @ 8:30 A.M

Let it shine....Let it shine.
By Coming to the Court on may 7, 2007 @ 8:30 a.m


Respond this email confirming your attendance or your commitment to
reach out to your families / friends to be at the court house on may

Re-send this email to your friends and contacts

Call or write your protest to Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M.
Morgenthau at (212) 335-9000 or One Hogan Place, New York, N.Y 10013
and demand he drop the charges against Rev. Luis Barrios.

The ProLibertad Freedom Campaign and
ProLibertad Freedom Line: 718-601-4751

Solidarity with Mumia

April 27, 2007 Workers World

When Mumia goes before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philly on May 17,
the Abolition Movement hopes to have an event in solidarity with Mumia here
in Houston.

Stay tuned for details or attend our meeting next Tuesday, May 1, at SHAPE
Center, 3815 Live Oak at Alabama from 7-9 PM. The Texas case of Thomas
Miller-El, who had his case reversed because of racism in jury selection in
Dallas, may be able to help Mumia, who is raising this issue also, among

Follwoing this article is a statement of solidarity from the Panthers (PURE)
organization on Texas Death Row with Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Mumia supporters expose police terror
Published Apr 26, 2007 10:14 PM
Following are excerpts from a N.Y. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition press

From left to right, Gwen Dobrow,
Monica Moorehead, City Councilperson
Charles Barron, Orrie Lumumba and
Suzanne Ross at City Hall press conference.
WW photo: Lal Roohk

On April 23, a press conference was held on the steps of City Hall in New
York denouncing the outrageous and illegal police tactics aimed at silencing
support for internationally renowned journalist and writer, Mumia Abu-Jamal,
who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for almost a quarter of a century.

A Hip Hop concert, organized by young supporters of Abu-Jamal, was scheduled
to take place on April 15 at the Remote Lounge. For a week prior to the
scheduled concert, the police pressured the club owner to cancel the event,
but the owner stood firm.

Then, two nights before the scheduled event, the police barged in on the
club, issued 16 citations, involving thousands of dollars in fines, and
escalated the threats against the owner. Fearing for his family and himself,
the owner at this point cancelled the event. The event was promptly moved to
Solidarity Center and was held with great enthusiasm, but with anger at the
police action.

The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal will be heard on May 17 before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Mumia has his first real chance of winning
a new trial in that court after being convicted of the murder of a policeman
almost 25 years ago. The Fraternal Order of Police, the prosecution and
their allies are doing everything possible to undermine that possibility.

It is in that context that the attack on the Remote Lounge must be responded
to seriously, as it mirrors a long history of similar actions in
Philadelphia. In that city, a scheduled event highlighting famed actor Danny
Glover for April 24, Mumia's birthday, at the Clef Club, was just moved
because of similar police tactics.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Man Admits Shooting Jamil Al-Amin is imprisoned for

Hand-Written Confession: Exclusive to New Trend

Gang Leader in U.S. Prison Says he Shot the Policemen
Imam Jamil is Accused For.

U.S. Government arrested Imam Jamil as Part of
Conspiracy to "Get" the Islamic Leader

In the name of Allah the most Gracious the most

In the name of the Almighty Vice Lord Nation, I am as
I come as I am I come Almighty Vice lord.

I greet you all in Peace. I’m the Spiritual son of the
Honorable Dr. Yusuf Ali Bey founder of Your Black
Muslim Bakery Inc. In Oakland, CA. My name is
Farrakhan Malik Bey AKA Otis M. Jackson AKA James
Santos. I’m the head of the Almighty Vice Lord Nation
as well as the Chairman of the New Student National
Coordinating Committee. It was this organization that
sent me to the mosque and the general store of Imam
Jamil Abdul Al-Amin. I went there to talk to him about
me taking the Almighty Vice Lords from a street
organization to a socially conscious, self-help,
socially motivated organization

Now before going to Atlanta I had just gotten out of
prison in NV for shooting a white man. As a kid I
lived not far from the west end, so when I came back
to Atlanta I went there but with the mind of a
minister and a heart for revolution.

When I got to Oak street on 3-16-2000 at about 10.00
PM, as I was walking back to my car, a Sheriff’s came
up. One got out and ask me something. I could not
understand but I did not want to understand it because
Vice Lords don’t talk to cops and I had guns on me and
I was on parole. So when the other one got out and
asked me to put my hands up, I pulled out and opened
fire with my 9 mm hand gun. I then went to my car and
got my M-14 and fired off some rounds. Deputy Kinchen
shot me two times in the arm so I shot him. I shot
Deputy English as well . I remember standing over him
and him telling me about his family but I was upset
and hurt and I hate cops so I shot him anyway. I got
in my car, went to the home of Latina Moore. She along
with Sheryl Watts removed the bullet. One went in and
came out. The one that was in there, they got it out.
I went home, on the 17th or 18th I found out that they
were looking for Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. So I called
my parole officer and told her what I had done.

I was sent back to Vegas. I had to beg the FBI to
investigate and I was told that I was not the one that
they wanted. I was told that I should be honored that
I had gotten away with killing a police. Truth can be
said to symbolize divinity. Truth is the foundation of
everything that is just. It is what man is constantly
seeking. But truth is impossible to define. All of us
look at everything differently. We are conditioned by
our environment, associates and education. All of us
look at life through restricted windows. No two people
see exactly the same thing at the same time.

Deputy Aldranon English can free Jamil because he
knows Jamil is not the man who shot him. Everything
that he said Jamil had on is what I had on. I talked
to him. I looked into his eyes. He cannot forget that.
The department for whatever reason asked him to pick
out Jamil and he did.

Look, I like living. I have nothing to gain from
telling a lie and I don’t even know Jamil. I’m doing
this for myself and my Nation the Almighty Vice Lord
Nation. I want them to know that when you end up in a
situation, you should own up to what you do. Not one
of Jamil’s criminal defense lawyers have come to see
me because they are a part of what is being done to
him..Imam Warith Deen Muhammad, Minister Louis
Farrakhan and Silis Muhammad all have their own paper.
They are around the same age as Jamil. They remember
him as H. Rap Brown but he has gotten no writing in
their papers, yet they talk about Muslim unity: let’s
come together! All that is just talk. Here is a man
that you know to be living the life of a Muslim
telling you that he did not do something. Here is a
man telling you that the man could not have done it
because he did it. You should do everything in your
power to help them fix this.

Judge Stephanie B. Manis should have called me in to
court but she never did. I sent letters and I was
declined the right, so now I feel that I have been
used in a government conspiracy because I know that he
was not even there that night. What is factual to one,
won’t be to another, so it is with symbolism each will
see something different and rightly so. In the Masonic
Lodge we say that we are seeking light. We are
actually seeking truth. . Therefore light symbolizes
truth. I feel that it is my job to bring this truth to

The Persecution and Prosecution is mine, not Jamil’s .
I could never say that I am from the street and have
the Vice Lords look up to me if I run from my
Punishment and let an innocent man die in jail for
something that I did. It’s not right and the Vice
Lords should never honor me if I don’t stand up for
what I do.

I would like to say to the family of Deputy Ricky
Kinchen when he got out of bed that day, God had it
set that he was not coming home that night. I only did
what I had to do.

Deputy Aldranon English I have no respect for you
because you fingered a man that had nothing to do with
shooting you and you know that. You are part of the
conspiracy. You worked with a man every day and he was
killed because you made mistakes. Then you let the man
who did it walk because you were told to. You are
weak, less than a man. You were laying down begging
for your life and I shot you. Had it been up to me,
you would have died as well. I can’t tell you to do
the right thing. I say look at the situation. I ask
all the Vice Lords to respect my wish to open this
case. I ask that any and every one do what they can to
help Jamil.

And to Mr. Al-Amin and his family, I’m sorry that I
got you in this. I know that it’s hard to be sitting
in another man’s seat. I’m so sorry!

Respectfully yours

Farrakhan Bey

[The address is a prison in Florida - editor]

Tree-sitter, accused of threatening police officer, appears in court

April 18, 2007

-- Zachary Runningwolf Brown, a leader of the Berkeley tree-sitters protesting development plans next to Memorial Stadium, appeared in court today with his new lawyer, famed criminal defense attorney Tony Serra.

Brown, 44, faces a felony charge of resisting a police officer and a misdemeanor charge of making terrorist threats. The charges stem from a Feb. 23 incident at the oak grove next to the stadium when he allegedly threatened to shoot a UC police officer.

Serra, whose previous clients include the Hells Angels and Huey Newton, is representing Brown pro bono. They spoke to reporters on the sidewalk today before their appearance in Alameda County Superior Court, where Serra is seeking to have the charges dropped. Another pre-trial conference was scheduled for May 30.

Brown and about a half-dozen other protesters climbed into oak and redwood trees Dec. 2 to protest a UC plan to remove part of the grove to make way for an athletic training center.

Today's court appearance was a pretrial conference with prosecutors.

Brown, who is out on bail, faces a maximum of three years in state prison if convicted.

The fate of the oak grove hinges on the outcome of three lawsuits filed to stop the UC athletic facility that would replace the trees. The trial will be in late summer or early fall.

E-mail Carolyn Jones at

Friday, April 27, 2007

Greece prison protest ends April 27, 2007

A four-day rooftop protest by inmates at a Greek maximun security prison against the alleged beating of an inmate by guards has ended.

Trouble in Greece's prison system spread throughout the country after an inmate in Malandrino prison, about 200km northwest of Athens, was allegedly beaten by guards on Monday.

Hundreds of inmates joined mass protests in another 10 prisons that prompted a nationwide crackdown on Tuesday.

Inmates have also demanded that authorities reduce prison overcrowding and reform Greece's parole system.

On Wednesday, riot police entered Malandrino, cutting off access to the roof.

The authorities asked the inmates, who spent a cold and rainy night on the roof, to return to their cells.

Tear gas

Protests had died down in prisons in Athens, on the Ionian island of Corfu, the Aegean island of Crete, the central towns of Larissa and Trikala, the western city of Patras, the northern city of Salonika and the northeastern town of Komotini by the end of Tuesday.

Three inmates were injured in a police operation in the high security prison of Korydallos in Athens.

Police use of tear gas led to complaints from the local authorities as the prison lies in in a densely populated area of the city.

Four Korydallos prison guards were hospitalised with breathing problems.


Prisoners in Malandrino have also made a series of demands for reduced sentences and longer leave but this was rejected by the Greek justice ministry.

The alleged beating of the inmate, a self-styled anarchist, was followed by a series of incidents in Athens believed to be staged in his support.

On Wednesday, a group of suspected anarchists threw stones and firebombs at the private offices of the Anastassis Papaligouras, the justice minister and George Voulgarakis the culture minister, formerly minister of public order.

Earlier on Thursday, another group threw firebombs at the headquarters of the Athens riot police department near the city centre.

News from Toledo Political Prisoner Lasandra Burwell!

The Books 4 Prisoners Crew ( ) recently received a communication from Lasandra Burwell - a North Toledo resident arrested for defending her community from Nazism and police repression.

She expressed her thanks for the interest in her case and support she has gotten. She specifically mentioned that she is "real glad and thrilled" for the monthly installment of embossed envelopes sent her by the Books 4 Prisoners Crew.

There are also books by several authors she has requested to read. These include:

Jerome Dickey
Sista Soulja
Lamar Tyree
E. Lynn Harris

If you have books by any of these authors that you would like to send her please contact us or the Books 4 Prisoners Crew

Lasandra Burwell is a wife and mother of nine, currently serving five years in prison for courageously standing up for her community and
throwing bricks at riot cops and smashing a police cars windshield. Please keep her and her family in your thoughts.

More on Toledo antifa prisoners

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Prisoner Uprising in Jefferson City, Missouri

Wednesday, April 25 2007

Prisoners at Jefferson City Correctional Center (Central Missouri) are currently protesting the overcrowding and inhumane adminstrative segregation policies at the prison. General Population is currently full and inmates are being held in administrative segregation longer that their conduct violation sentences mandate. Inmates on the administratice segregation unit "7-house," have refused additional cell mates causing a housing crisis in the prison. The rebellious prisoners of 7-house are being shackeled to steel benches without food or adequate clothing. Additionally, 60 inmates are reported to be on a "food strike" until the ad-seg policies are changed by the prison administration.

Jefferson City Correctional Center
8200 No More Victims Road
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dave Dormire, Superintendent

2729 Plaza Drive
P.O. Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-2389
Fax: 573-751-4099

MODOC Inspector General

MODOC Public Information

Solidarity to the rebels.

The following letter dated 4-22-07 contains more info and details:

When a prisoner is sent to administrative segregation (ad-seg) it means that he or she is to be segregated from other inmates. What Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) does is to put two inmates together. They do this to create a revolving door effect. Ad-seg is mental warfare which most inmates can’t handle. They either get in fights with their cell mates or check out of the cell. Either way you get a conduct violation (CDV) which then demotes you in the phase process giving you 30, 60, or 90 more days. This means that whoever comes to ad-seg ends up staying for six months and often longer. Ad-seg is supposed to be reserved for inmates who’ve committed serious CDV’s like at all other prisons. JCCC, however, changed their policy at the end of 2006 and now sends inmates charged with any and all petty violations to segregation. This way they can keep ad-seg full at all times. The process only works if inmates keep catching CDV’s. Now that the inmates are aware of what’s happening, they’re no longer getting these petty CDV’s. This has exposed the phase process as a foolish trick that has not and never will work.

Now that inmates in general population are not coming to ad-seg, all the beds in general population are full. The inmates in 6-house who have completed the phase process have no where to go. Additionally, inmates in 7-house who are on phase 3 have no where to go. All of this means that the sections of the prison reserved for segregation are full of inmates who should be in general population. This is a violation of due process because the phase process is no longer functioning. I’ve heard that there are 120 inmates waiting to go to general population. As you can imagine all hell has broken out.

Now, all inmates in 7-house are refusing to take cell mates. These inmates are handcuffed to a steel bench, hand and foot, for 3 to 5 days. For as long as you are on the bench you get no food, only a bathroom break every two hours. Many of these inmates only have on their underwear. This has been going on for two weeks. All the benches in 6, 7, and 8-house as well as the benches in one visitation room are full of inmates refusing to take cell mates. I’ve heard that at least 60 inmates are on food strike until the superintendent changes the phase process. This place has turned into a zoo!

And it only gets worse. Ad-seg staff have now stopped all showers, clothing exchange, haircuts, visits to law clerks for legal purposes, recreation, sick call, doctor and dentist visits, cell cleaning, trash removal, case worker interaction, complaint form filings, money deposit slips, legal forms, etc. They have even stopped food trays. Now all we get is a sack with a piece of meat, four pieces of bread, a slice of cheese, and a pack of cookies. For breakfast it’s milk and a box of cereal, a peanut butter sandwich, and a bag of spoiled cranberries that a dog wouldn’t eat.

JCCC is the most corrupted prison in Missouri. Department of Corrections officials have known this all along. What took the inmates so long to do this, god only knows. This is the beginning of a revolution. The fire has been lit and will continue to burn!

It goes to show that people with degrees and titles know absolutely nothing. Common sense is a gift apparently given to only a few. JCCC staff are so concerned with oppressing and violating inmates that they implement procedures designed to inflict the most pain possible at the time, never taking into consideration the consequences of their actions. They are trying to get away with as much evil as they can before getting caught and punished. They are praying that this catastrophe doesn’t become public knowledge, but the devil don’t answer prayers.

Please forward as widely as possible.

God Speed!

An inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center

Saving Sepulveda

(Jesus Sepulveda, in addition to being a great guy, is a Chilean radical living in Eugene who wrote the book "The Garden of Peculiarities." He has presented at numerous conferences and events, including speaking alongside Derrick Jensen at the Break The Chains prisoner-support conference in August of 2003.)

Oregon Daily Emerald 4-25-07

Saving Sepulveda

Dozens of students have joined together to raise money and push the University to renew the contract of the popular language

By: Allie Grasgreen

When University senior Priscilla Ann Mendoza heard that Spanish Instructor Jesus Sepulveda's contract would not be renewed for the 2007-08 academic year, she was shocked. As a romance languages major, Mendoza took three classes from Sepulveda and found the instructor to be "an enormous asset to the University community."

"He is a professor that's changed my life," she said.

The situation raises questions about the University's commitment to maintaining institutional diversity, a core element it has recently targeted for improvement.

In protest, Mendoza and Spanish major Laura Stull organized the "Save Sepulveda" campaign to communicate the instructor's intellectual and academic contributions to the University community.

"We want to give students a voice," Mendoza said. "It's hard for us to comprehend how they can make a decision like this without input from the students. The campaign was the most constructive way to voice our opinion and mobilize the students."

For Mendoza and Stull, the uniqueness of Sepulveda's talent lies in his international perspective and engaging teaching style. A celebrated Chilean poet, Sepulveda believes one of the most critical components of an intellectual education is a thoughtful learning process.

"When you think you improve yourself; you clarify your ideas and you cultivate your spirit," Sepulveda said. "Without an understanding of the world we as human beings are going to collapse. The only way to understand the world is to have a diverse place."

Stull said that outlook is characteristic of Sepulveda.

"He's got a knowledge base that so many people in the academic community, and the world in general, don't have," she said.

Barbara Altmann, head of the Department of Romance Languages, said the loss of Sepulveda is a result of "chronic underfunding." As of 2005, only 10 percent of University faculty, officers of administration and classified employees were classified as minorities, according to the University. Many people on campus feel that the University should prioritize hiring ethnically diverse employees.

Last year the faculty diversity issue came to the forefront when former history professor Martin Summers left the University to accept a higher-paying faculty position at the University of Texas. Students responded by protesting outside Johnson Hall and submitting a petition calling on the University to make the greatest possible effort to retain Summers.

Vice Provost of Institutional Equity and Diversity Charles Martinez was unavailable for comment on the situation.

As in Sepulveda's case, the University said "limited financial resources" accounted for obstacles in retaining faculty.

But some students do not consider low state financial support a legitimate reason not to renew the contract of a diverse faculty member.

Josué Peña-Juarez, a junior majoring in ethnic studies and history, works on recruitment and retention in the Multicultural Center. He said the University's lack of commitment to create a caring, inviting environment to retain ethnically diverse faculty has resulted in a distrust of administrators by students. He suggested that administrators should foster a dialogue about diversity rather than just saying the campus is welcoming and open to diversity.

"The U of O is very good at putting on a face of diversity and multiculturalism, but it's not very apt to take that on and take accountability," Peña-Juárez said. "It's always very superficial."

Sepulveda was slightly more forgiving, but also observes misgivings in the University.

"(The University) tries, but sometimes I notice there are priorities, like building a football stadium," he said. "Humanities in general are not very well-treated. There's no balance at all."

The campaign's co-creators plan to generate a petition, collect personal testimonies and, most important, encourage student involvement in budgetary issues and administrative decisions. The testimony collection, which will be placed in a permanent file of Sepulveda's, is intended to speak for the instructor's talent should another university consider him as a potential hire.

Those who have had him as an instructor are quick to tout his skills.

University senior Lorraine Dowty said Sepulveda encourages students to think about concepts in deeper ways, provoking compelling discussion and personal exploration. They met at a Tsunami Books poetry reading where Sepulveda not only read, but inspired Dowty to register for his class. Sepulveda also came highly-recommended from two of Dowty's graduated classmates.

Although Mendoza and Stull initiated the campaign in hopes of convincing the University to renew Sepulveda's contract, Mendoza said they have come to grips with the harsh reality that low budgets complicate retaining faculty.

Bill Rankin is a 75-year-old University graduate who sometimes sits in on Sepulveda's classes. He's covering the bases he missed in college.

"I'm here because I was never taught to understand outside my own culture," he said. "This is a serious problem. If we're going to have an important role in the world we have to know what the world is."

Both Rankin and Mendoza, independently of one another, said Sepulveda is an instructor with the ability to open students' eyes to the world.

Nevertheless, that rare talent may not be enough for the University to renew the contract.

Despite Altmann's dismissal of race as a factor in either hiring or firing, Peña-Juárez finds the redundant situation "suspicious and convenient."

"It's hard to believe that it's entirely the budget when the first ones to be cut are professors of color," he said.

Peña-Juárez stressed the importance of forging a relationship between a student and an instructor, and said that's difficult to do when instructors can't stick around long enough to get to know their students. He said the ethnic studies professors he had as a freshman are no longer teaching at the University.

Contact the higher education reporter at

DHKP-C case in Belgium: defence arguments in successful appeal

(Four people convicted of DHKP-C membership have been released from prison after the appeal judge on April 19 noted serious irregularities in their trial, presumably taking into account the defence arguments outlined here, in the website of CLEA, a Belgian civil liberties organisation. The prosecutor is in trouble, it seems, as he influenced the choice of judge, thereby ensuring that the defendants did not get a fair trial.)

Translated from French

The judgement of the Final Court of Appeal in the "DHKP-C affair" will be rendered on Thursday 19 April at noon in the Brussels Palace of Justice

Here are the main arguments advanced by the lawyers of those who were convicted:

As you know: through a scandalous and disgraceful appeal judgement on November 7, 2006, seven presumed members of the DHKP-C were sentenced to heavy prison terms – for membership of an organisation described by the tribunal as "fanatical, criminal and terrorist". So four of the accused (among them Fehriye Erdal) were sentenced to four years; Bahar Kimyongur was given five years of close imprisonment; Musa Asoglu and Dursun Karatas (translator's note: the latter is DHKP-C leader and was not in court) were given seven years.

As the two trials of their clients had been marred by a number of irregularities, their lawyers pursued the case to the Final Court of Appeal. In their deposition, issued just 14 days after the verdict, the lawyers Carl Alexander (for Kimyongur), Paul Bekaert (for Erdal), Jan Fermon (for Asoglu), Raf Jespers (for Erdal), Nadia Lorenzetti (for Akar) and Ties Prakken (for Karatas and Sari) – put forward no less than 20 reasons for the verdict to be quashed.

(Caption to photo in original website) On March 27, Sukriye Akar was handcuffed throughout the hearing. On Tuesday April 17, when the police refused to remove her leather waist harness which resembled a torture instrument she decided to leave the court, so as not to attend the trial and show her disapproval of such a decision.

Here in summary are the main objections the lawyers put to the president of the tribunal of secondary instance J. Logghe and to the two assessors T. Denys and J. Libert (understanding well that had been supported whenever they hit below the belt by the federal
magistrate Johan Delmulle).

— The Court of Appeal of Ghent had been completely wrong to ratify the establishing of an extraordinary tribunal at Bruges. The happened through letting the judge Freddy Troch of Termonde preside over it in the first instance, as judge and as president of the correctional

To be sure that the tribunal of the first instance would succeed in establishing a judicial reality at its most implacable, a section of the senior magistrates of Flanders actually made themselves accomplices in a major power grab: to make the 14th chamber of the penal tribunal at Bruges into an extraordinary special court. This was achieved the order dated November 4, 2005 from the first president of the Ghent Court of Appeal (Jean-Paul De Graeve) by designating Freddy Troch, judge at Termonde, to preside over "trying the Erdal affair", to give it the required twist and degree of tension desired.

From that point on, the independence of the tribunal was highly dubious: the judge Freddy Troch, had copme specially to Bruges to preside over this business, and had been appointed on the advice of the Floor (the procurator-general of the Ghent Court of Appeal), who was in charge of the prosecution and so a party to the case, just as much as the defendants. So one party was contributing to deciding by whom the case would be judged. This was unacceptable to the defence. What is more, in its response to the predictable complaints voiced by the lawyers of the accused, the judgement of the appeal dared to
claim (page 37), against all common sense that the _expression tijdelijk (which means "temporarily") "carries the implication, according to Article 98,of "provisionally", which can apply as well to a particular term as to a particular trial (sic)»… An interpretation evidently unfounded.

— Neither at Bruges nor at Ghent was the public character of the hearing guaranteed. Ultra-high security measures were brought in by the police which undoubtedly deterred people who would otherwise have come to attend the trial. Through these unusual security measures, the press and TV could not follow the sessions of the trial, either in the first instance or in the Court of Appeal.

So at the first hearing in Ghent, on Monday, September 11, 2006, more than a hundred sympathisers were right away obliged to pass through a metal detector. Some had to remove their shoes, or remove necklaces or bracelets. Then they were required to hand in their ID cards (which were photocopied twice)… About 100 people whose seats in the hall were designated by the police on ethnic grounds: Turks, or those who appeared to be, at the back; whites in front, in the first seven rows. You would think it was a dream, but it wasn't.

— The Court of Appeal at Ghent and the Correctional Tribunal of Bruges were completely wrongly declared to be competent venues for a purely political trial. Only the Court of Assizes should have been used.

According to the defence, since it was about crimes of an eminently political nature, article 150 of the Constitution stipulated that only the Court of Assizes was competent to judge them. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument on the grounds that the crimes of the
DHKP-C "have not directly affected Turkish political institutions". "The fact of carrying out attacks on persons (principally police officers, judges, industrialists) and buildings
(police stations, courts etc…) do not in themselves affect the action and organisation of political and legislative institutions or menace the organisation of the state" (page 35).

However, in the same judgement of November 7, 2006, on various occasions it is specified that the aim of this organisation is to "overthrow the Turkish state by means of armed struggle".

— The Court of Appeal in its judgement undermined freedom of _expression, freedom of association and freedom to assemble.
The law on criminal organisations adopted in 1999 created (in an unprecedented manner) a crime of membership. Even if you have committed no act contrary to the laws, the simple fact of belonging to an organisation declared to "criminal" makes you a criminal who can serve a prison term.

Moreover, for the crime of membership peculiar to the law on criminal organisations, the legislation on terrorist crimes (December 2003) substitutes to a degree a crime of "sympathy" that is even more pernicious: any act of "solidarity" can serve to establish your
undoubted membership of an organisation banned by the judiciary. So the judicial system worked hard, in the case of Bahar Kimyongur for example, to establish undeniable membership of the DHKP-C, a movement described as a "band of malefactors, a criminal association and a terrorist organisation". So appeals to local authorities prior to holding public demonstrations (denouncing the conditions of detention to which political prisoners are subjected in Turkey) were not treated as using a legal and democratic right: these repeated appeals (moreover, received and accepted) were interpreted by the court as indubitable proof that Kimyongur was not a mere sympathiser or a member among other members, but one of the leaders of the organisation…!

— The Court of Appeal at Ghent notably found the defendants guilty of acts not committed in Belgium and not committed by themselves. Amongst other things, they were condemned for actions which happened decades or more before. Some of the accused had not even been born or were very young children at the time of the acts.

To prove that the DHKP-C is a "terrorist" organisation, the court did not hesitate to use actions or elements occurring in other countries (Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands…) and periods of time other than those covered in the period people were being tried for (for example, acts which took place in the 1970s, when some of those charged had not been born or were still children). For the defence, this is a manifest violation of the tribunal's "scope", that is to say, the principle that the tribunal only deals with actions committed during a particular period and on the territory relevant to the citation (here, Belgium).

— The court used penal laws which did not exist at the time of the acts.

The law on criminal organisations was adopted in January 1999 and the legislation on terrorist crimes was adopted in December 2003. Like all legislation, these cannot be applied retroactively.

— Judicial investigation was entirely in favour of the prosecution. The court rejected all petitions for investigation favourable to the accused. So the trial could hardly be called "fair".

In reality, judicial investigation rather quickly left the hands of the judge in Bruges and was taken up by the gendarmerie and the federal procurator. This was reflected in the way the file was closed, when all the duties of investigation were accomplished by Judge Buysse. Just before the file was sent to the Chamber of Council, it – also sent to the parties and to the public ministry – went on to be completed by the federal magistrate: Johan Delmulle
added his own remarks and as regards the charge against the defendants as an association of malefactors, he added eight words: "… in view of carrying out attacks in Turkey". This last minute reformulation (which gave the Turkish state an opening to be counted as a civil party) had an immediate result: it introduced a distortion in the proceedings, manifestly undermining their regularity. Because investigations had not included investigation in Turkey, the reformulation is not impartial, because it is partial.

In the appeal judgement, the judges in Ghent fostered this instrumentalising of procedures and the alleged impossibility of carrying out supplementary investigation:: "In the case of hearing testimony under oath from Birsen Kars to prove inhuman treatment of political prisoners in the jails of Turkey and to prove a case of necessity? The court is of the opinion that testimony by B. Kars [who was badly burned during the December 19, 2000 attack on Turkey's prisons, editor's note] has nothing to do with the charges against the accused and it is not necessary to discover the truth" (page 46).
— The court totally removed acts from their context. The court obstinately refused to examine human rights in Turkey and include these in their judgement.

The defence cited a "case of necessity", arguing that the accused and their political movement in Turkey conducts a struggle, in part violent, in reaction to the violence of the state – a regime dominated by the Army. Since the Second World War, Turkey has experienced three military coups (the last introduced a terrifying dictatorship which led to 650,000 people being arrested in the 1980s). In reality, behind a democratic façade, the military still hold the reins of power. Turkey holds the record for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (75% of complaints to the court in Strasbourg concern this country) and it has thousands of political prisoners in its jails. The judges in Ghent did not want to think about that: "That certain Turkish authorities would resort to illegal means to avenge themselves… is not relevant to the judgement of the acts the accused have been charged with". (page 44)

— Both the Correctional Tribunal in Bruges and the Court of Appeal in Ghent gave vent to thoroughly political opinions (respectively in their judgement and in the appeal judgement).
The appeal court went on to develop – over entire pages – a thoroughly partial viewpoint, describing the DHKP-C (with a view to discrediting it) as an "extremist" Communist or Marxist-Leninist movement.

The Court of Appeal in Ghent constantly sought to deny the essentially political nature of the matter it had to judge. While using political considerations to disparage the ideology of the

— The Turkish state could not be a civil party

To let Kris Vincke plead – from the start of the trial to the Appeal stage – in the name of Turkey (while in its judgement of February 28, 2006, the Bruges tribunal had finally declared its constitution as a civil party unfounded "The Turkish state has not incurred individual damages")…? This was favoured by Judge J. Logghe –instituting a court of appeal with three judges and (a real first) two procurators. In fact, within the tribunal the federal magistrate represented the general interest, society. Now the Turkish state had not bothered to detail the damage it had incurred, Vincke was a second magistrate for it, defending "the general interest". Which could not be.

In reality, for its position as civil party to be accepted, the Turkish state not only had to make a demand ofr reparation but also had to show how it had been "personally" affected. The demand by a physical or a legal person cannot be accepted if that person does not
have a personal and direct interest to be valued. In fact Turkey never explained in a case by case way what damage in particular (direct damage, material or moral) it had suffered through acts to be laid to the charge of the accused, or to the organisation they were
accused of leading or of being its members.

Faculty Call for Churchill Report Retraction, Consider Filing Research Misconduct Charges

This document contains 3 documents:
i) Open Letter
ii) Summary of Violations of Standard Scholarly Practice in Churchill Report
iii) Documentary Evidence Packet

Open Letter from Faculty Calling for Churchill Report Retraction

Today, Monday April 23, 2007, we, the undersigned nine professors, call on the University of Colorado at Boulder--especially the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM) and the Churchill Investigative Committee of the SCRM--to rescind the "Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill."

Through a process of careful investigation guided by two experts in the field of American Indian Studies who did not know Churchill before 2006--Prof. Eric Cheyfitz, Ernest I White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters at Cornell University, and Prof. Michael Yellow Bird, Associate Professor, Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at Kansas University--we have found the Report to contain violations of standard scholarly practice that are so serious that we are now considering the additional step of filing charges of research misconduct against the authors of the Report. These violations include:
- relying on a biased and flawed source for major arguments;
- relying on the artificial exclusion of reputable independent sources that contradict the Report's argument in order to support its argument;
- suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the Report's argument;
- distorting the weakness of the Report's case;
- artificially limiting scholarly interpretation in violation of norms of scholarship.
These and further violations are explained more fully in the attached summary and documentary evidence packet.

Prof. Wesson, the chair of the committee that authored this report, has already publicly acknowledged and corrected one of these violations in the report (Silver & Gold Record, April 12). But our investigation has uncovered such a pattern of these violations that the report cannot be salvaged through individual corrections. As with any scholarly document found to be so deeply compromised, the Report must be retracted. The violations of standard scholarly practice that are contained in the Report are serious enough to justify failing a PhD thesis, let alone an investigative report that is to serve as a basis for firing a tenured, full professor.

Our concerns transcend the Churchill case altogether. We feel compelled to take this action not only because of the seriousness of the violations themselves, but because the consequences of allowing them to go unchallenged reverberate far beyond anyone's individual career. As faculty, we trust that the procedures governing reviews, due process, academic freedom and faculty governance are, in fact, fair, appropriate, and duly constituted. We trust that when these procedures are carried out, they will meet the norms of standard scholarly practice and the minimum standards of professional integrity. Yet, the pattern of violations of standard scholarly practice in the Report compromises not only its own scholarly integrity but also the integrity of the protocols and principles that protect academic freedom. To allow the firing of any professor on the basis of an investigative document that is so fundamentally compromised is to lower the bar of due process so dangerously that it puts any professor at risk of arbitrary dismissal.

We do not know what motivations or intentions could have produced this pattern of violations. We are only convinced that the report contains them and that any faculty member who studies the documentary evidence we are attaching to this letter will find themselves confronted with the same grave concern. We believe that the University, the SCRM and Churchill Investigative Committee of the SCRM can accept our call in good faith and rescind the report, making it unnecessary for us to consider research misconduct charges. Because of the urgency of the situation and the seriousness of our concerns, our only focus is the rescinding of the Report-an action which is crucial in and of itself, regardless of what next steps may follow.


Eric Cheyfitz
Ernest I White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters at Cornell University

Elisa Facio
Associate Professor, Department of Ethnic Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder

Vijay Gupta
Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering
Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)
University of Colorado, Boulder

Margaret LeCompte
Professor, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder

Paul Levitt
Professor, Department of English, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tom Mayer
Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder

Emma Perez
Associate Professor, Department of Ethnic Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder

Martin Walter
Professor, Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado, Boulder

Michael Yellow Bird (Sahnish, Hidatsa)
Associate Professor, Center for Indigenous Nations Studies, Kansas University


"Report of the Investigative Committee on Research Misconduct at CU-Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Prof. Churchill"
May 9, 2006. 124 pages

VIOLATION #1. Relying on a single biased and flawed source (LaVelle) for major arguments; importing LaVelle's errors of source misrepresentation into Report

The report uses John LaVelle's two essays as the basis for the report's major findings of misconduct in the first two allegations, A and B. As the first two paragraphs of LaVelle's 1996 review essay of Churchill's Indians Are Us? show in their ad hominem, unsupported attacks on Churchill's identity and work, LaVelle's work is clearly biased before the fact against professor Churchill and contains substantial errors in its understanding of Native history (General Allotment Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and the legal construction of Native identity through blood quantum) and in its misreading of two of Professor Churchill's sources: Limerick and Thornton, misreadings that the Investigative Committee affirms and imports into the Report. For example, on page 266 of his 1999 essay in Wicazo-sa Review, LaVelle asserts: "But in fact, Thornton makes no such prediction about the demise of lndians in the twenty-first century-not within the range of pages cited by Churchill nor anywhere else in Thornton's book." And yet we find such "predictions" not only within the pages that Churchill cites (see 180 in American Indian Holocaust and Survival) but elsewhere in the book (239). As for LaVelle's assertion that Churchill is quoting Limerick out of context on the effects of quarter-blood quantum, the context of the Limerick (see 338 in The Legacy of Conquest) appears to affirm Churchill's use of it and calls into question LaVelle's reading in his 1996 "Review Essay" in American Indian Quarterly (111). Further, other scholars have used this quote from Limerick in precisely the same way that Churchill uses it (see Cheyfitz, The Columbia Guide to American Indian Literatures of the United States Since 1945, p 25). Relying on one source (LaVelle's work) as the basis for one's major arguments despite its being clearly biased and flawed, constitutes a serious violation of standard scholarly practice.

VIOLATION #2. Artificial exclusion of independent sources representing alternate views; and, misrepresentation of a Supreme Court case to create false appearance of authoritativeness.

Following Lavelle, the Report misreads Churchill on Allotment and does not bring any evidence to support its claim that Churchill is wrong on the blood fraction of one-half or more used to issue allotments, a number that is supported by at least one other reputable scholar.(See Circe Sturm in Blood Politics 2002, 78). This matter of how tribal rolls were constituted by the Interior Department, using blood fractions-the department was empowered by the 1887 Gen. Allotment Act to constitute these rolls (sec.3 of the Act)-needs further research but it is clear, as Churchill and other scholars assert, that blood quantum was used in one fraction or another (Angela Gonzales in "The (Re)Articulation of American Indian Identity" [1998]). Further, the Report's reading of US v. Rogers in order to discredit Churchill's historical sense of when blood quantum was formally instituted is at best debatable and at worst simply wrong, for Taney does not define race in his decision in terms of either blood or blood quantum (see 45 573) as the Report insists. By relying on the artificial exclusion of reputable independent sources (Gonzalez and Sturm) that contradict the thesis of the investigative report in order to make the case against Churchill and by creating the false appearance of authoritativeness by referencing a Supreme Court case (US v Rogers) in support of its argument in spite of the fact that the case in question is at best debatably relevant to the thesis-in these ways, the report violates standard scholarly practice.

VIOLATION #3 Importing factual error or distortion from LaVelle; and turning a scholarly debate into an indictment by arbitrarily limiting scope of interpretation when such limitation is not justified given the unresolved debate over such scope

The Report charges Churchill with falsifying the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. While Churchill's account of the Act is not entirely accurate in Indians Are Us, it is not "egregiously" inaccurate as LaVelle claims on page 174 of his 1999 essay in Wicazo Sa Review, which does not get the Act entirely right either, omitting state recognition of a tribe as granting its members recognition as Indians and asserting contra Churchill that "the act [does not] refer to any such thing as 'the Alaska Native Corporation'" (1999; 275). In fact the Act does explicitly include in its purview "Alaska Native village[s]," which, as scholars of federal Indian law know, are indeed organized into corporations. LaVelle, as he does over and over, is either willfully misreading Churchill here or is himself ignorant of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as he is of other key points of federal Indian law and Native history. Churchill's statements about the Act's federal standards of one-quarter blood quantum have validity because they are implied in the Act. Though the tribes have varying standards of blood quantum to determine enrollment, Stephan L. Pevar's The Rights of Indians and Tribes: the Authoritative ACLU Guide to Indian and Tribal Rights notes that "Many tribes require that a person have at least one-fourth tribal blood to be enrolled" (Third edition; 19). Thus, the Report's and LaVelle's description of the Act as not including those standards is at best debatable and arguably wrong. As with the Allotment Act issue, what we have here is a scholarly debate about the extent of particular acts, and what is or is not included in them; and it seems that Churchill's extensive readings make much more sense than the Report's and LaVelle's limited readings, which do not take into account the actual coverage and implementation of these acts. Further, the Report notes that Churchill also wrote a later essay (2003) on the Indian Arts and Crafts Act in which he cited it accurately and thus modified his description of it. But instead of giving him credit for scholarly revision, something the Report takes him to task for not doing in his Allotment formulations, it uses this revision to damn the earlier one (see page 30), noting "that in his 1994 essay, 'Nobody's Pet Poodle,' Professor Churchill seriously and deliberately misrepresented the specification of a blood quantum requirement of one-quarter of Indian blood in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990" (31). This statement is not only inaccurate in charging Churchill with "seriously and deliberately [having] misrepresented the specification of blood quantum" but also exhibits in bad faith given the earlier demand of revision and so raises the question of intent. If Professor Churchill were "deliberately" misrepresenting the Act in his earlier characterization, why would he revise that characterization in a later essay, which he clearly calls attention to the earlier work?

VIOLATION #4. Suppressing text from cited source that contradicts the Report's argument

In the matter of John Smith and smallpox, the Report leaves out crucial quotes from Salisbury that Churchill cites as support for his speculation that there is circumstantial evidence implicating Smith's involvement in a smallpox epidemic in New England in 1616. The Report claims that Churchill fabricated Salisbury, a serious charge. In fact, the Report's assertion that "The pages referenced by Professor Churchill in the Salisbury book do not contain the words "Wampanoags" and have no discussion of any disease or epidemic (including smallpox)" (34) is completely incorrect. The Salisbury passage in question contains a sustained discussion of epidemic (101) and on p.102 refers to a tribe of the Wampanoags, the Pokanet.

VIOLATION #5. Suppressing text from cited source that contradict the Report's argument; and distortion to bolster weakness of argument

The Report finds Churchill's account of the Ft. Clark epidemic supported by Native oral history. Further, in charging Churchill with misrepresenting Thornton on the epidemic, the Report leaves out Thornton's citing of the speech of Four Bears (American Indian Holocaust and Survival, (98-99), which supports Churchill's reading of the epidemic. But why spend almost one-third of the Report investigating a charge that is substantially dismissed unless one wants to make it look as if there is something to the charge in order to prejudice the reader against Churchill, even as one basically concedes his interpretation? This again strikes us as an act of bad faith, an act of deliberate distortion.


In sum, the Report turns what is a debate about controversial issues of identity and genocide in Indian studies into an indictment of one position in that debate. Further, while it is normative to interpret acts of Congress or any legal document for that matter to include both their implementation and effects, the Report, following LaVelle, insists on violating this standard and confining the acts under investigation to their literal language, which makes no sense if one wants to understand their actual political and historical force. By following this method, the Report restricts interpretation of the acts in a way that privileges its own understanding of them and excludes alternative explanations that it may find challenging to this understanding. This approach clearly runs counter to the accepted procedures of scholarly and critical interpretation, the purpose of which is to encourage a range of interpretations so long as plausible evidence can be produced in their support. Professor Churchill has provided such evidence in his interpretations but because of the manufactured limits of interpretation set by LaVelle's scholarship and the Report, Churchill's interpretations have been substantially excluded from reasonable consideration. Such arbitrary exclusion fails the scholarly standards of the profession.

For claims re violations of standard scholarly practice in Churchill Report

* Because of time constraints, a few pieces of textual evidence cited in the Summary were not included here. But the Summary above provides the citations and page numbers to enable readers themselves to locate the texts in question.

VIOLATION #1 Relying on a single biased and flawed source (LaVelle) for major arguments; importing LaVelle's errors of source misrepresentation into Report

Textual Evidence re Bias, Ad Hominem

These are the opening 2 paragraphs of one of the LaVelle essays upon which the Report relies. This is LaVelle's review essay on Churchill's Indians Are Us? (American Indian Quarterly 20:1, 1996, 109-118):

Indians Are Us? is a collection of commentaries on American Indian
political and social affairs, written in the truculent tone that readers have
come to expect from writer Ward Churchill. Like its predecessors, Fantasies
of the Mastter Race and Struggle for the Land, this latest Churchill project consists
largely of polemical pieces hastily compiled from obscure leftist publications.

Through the course of all his writings, Churchill gradually has
emerged as a spokesman of sorts for those persons derisively referred to as
Indian "wannabees"--individuals with no American Indian ancestry or tribal
affiliation who nonetheless hold themselves out to the public as "Indians" by
aggressively inserting themselves into the political affairs of real Indian
people. Churchill's appeal among the "wannabees" lies both in the boldness
with which he expresses contempt for Indian tribes, and in the scholarly
facade he gives his anti-tribal propositions; indeed, many Churchill fans
appear to have been won over by the mere fact that Churchill's books contain
an abundance of endnotes. By researching those copious endnotes, however,
the discerning reader will discover that, notwithstanding all the provocative
sound and fury rumbling through his essays, Churchill's analysis overall is
sorely lacking in historical/factual veracity and scholarly integrity.

Discussion: The essay frames its unscholarly approach through vituperative ad hominem attack. The "wannabees" assertion borders on libel since the Churchill book in question is endorsed on its back cover by major American Indian figures Russell Means, Jayce Weaver, and Rob Robideau.

Textual Evidence re LaVelle's misrepresenting source Thornton

On page 266 of his 1999 essay in Wicazo-sa Review, LaVelle asserts:
"But in fact, Thornton makes no such prediction about the demise of Indians in the twenty-first century--not within the range of pages cited by Churchill nor anywhere else in Thornton's book."

Directly contradicting this assertion, the page range Churchill cites from Thornton contains the following on p180 re the possible ultimate disappearance of full-blood American Indians, which is the group Churchill is referring to:

Thus part of the increased mixture of American Indians with non-Indians between 1910 and 1930 was due not to increased intermarriage itself but to the different rates of growth of the full- and mixed-blood American Indian populations at that time. After issuing and analyzing these data, the U.S. Bureau of the Census concluded, with particular reference to the ongoing population recovery of American Indians: "The results of the studies on sterility, on fecundity, and on vitality all point toward one conclusion, and that is that the increase of the mixed-blood Indians is much greater than that of the full-blooded Indians, and that unless the tendencies now at work undergo a decided change the full-bloods are destined to form a decreasing proportion of the total population and ultimately to disappear altogether" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1915:159).

Again, directly contradicting LaVelle's assertion, at the end of Thornton's book on p239 Thornton closes by suggesting a possible grim future:

It may be that demographic effects of less natural increase, more intermarriage, and less tribalism will ultimately eliminate American Indians as a distinct population, whereas 400 years of population decimation after European contact did not. American Indians as Indians may eventually end, in the words of T.S. Eliot, "not with a bang, but a whimper."

Textual Evidence re Report Importing LaVelle's Source Misrepresentation (Thornton) into Report

Professor LaVelle contends that Professor Churchill willfully distorts the scholarship of both authors [Limerick and Thornton] to buttress his claims concerning Indian statistical extermination. Although that issue is not central to the allegation before us, the Committee's reading of Limerick's and Thornton's original writings finds that Professor LaVelle is correct in this instance as well: those authors do not support Professor Churchill's claims. (Report p 31)

VIOLATION #2 Artificial exclusion of independent sources representing alternate views; and, misrepresentation of a major court case to create false appearance of authoritativeness.

Textual Evidence re artifical exclusion of independent sources representing alternate views:

Here is the Churchill text that the Report is investigating:

As forwarded to our Committee, the allegation focused on the most elaborated statement of Professor Churchill's position, found in his essay, "Perversions of Justice," in his Struggle for the Land (1993 edition), pp. 48-9.19

One of the first of these was the General Allotment Act of 1887, "which unilaterally negated Indian control over land tenure patterns within the reservations, forcibly replacing the traditional mode of collective use and occupancy with the Anglo-Saxon system of individual property ownership."[63] The Act also imposed for the first time a formal eugenics code-dubbed 'blood quantum'-by which American Indian identity would be federally defined on racial grounds rather than by native nations themselves on the basis of group membership/citizenship.[64]

Here is the Report's argument criticizing Churchill:

The General Allotment Act of 1887, as originally enacted, simply applied to "Indian[s]" and, unlike many later statutes, contained no definition of Indian whatsoever. It certainly did not, as repeatedly claimed by Professor Churchill, expressly require any blood quantum, let alone one-half or more Indian blood. (Report p16)


The general thrust of Professor Churchill's underlying basic point (seemingly and surprisingly rejected by Professor LaVelle) is that late nineteenth-century racism by federal officials in implementing the General Allotment Act of 1887, rather than traditional Indian cultural practices based on community citizenship, better accounts for the predominance of current blood quantum requirements in tribal membership rules. That argument certainly has a firm historical basis, dating back at least to the Rogers decision. Professor Churchill nevertheless has virtually all of the details of that history wrong. This racism predated the General Allotment Act of 1887, as Rogers demonstrates. It was not imposed either for "the first time" or in any express way by the General Allotment Act of 1887, as Professor Churchill claims, although blood quantum was certainly employed to implement the Act during its fifty-year history of wreaking havoc in Indian country and justifying massive transfers of two-thirds of the Indian land base into non-Indian ownership. There was never a half-blood quantum requirement for eligibility for an allotment under the Act …. (Report p.22)


"Professor Churchill deliberately embellished his broad, and otherwise accurate or, at least, reasonable, historic claims regarding the General Allotment Act of 1887 with details for which he offered no reliable independent support of any kind in his publications or in his defense during this investigation and for which the Committee was unable to find that any reasonable and reliable support exists." (Report p.27 "Conclusion")

Contrary to Report's assertion that Churchill's analysis is incorrect and not supported by any other "reasonable or reliable" work in the field, Circe Sturm argues in Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Univ of California Press, 2002) on p.78:

As early as the Sauk and Fox Treaty of 1830, the federal government had used blood as the basis for racially identifying Native Americans and distinguishing them from the national body. However, in the late nineteenth-century, it began to impose a different racial ideology on Native Americans-the eugenic notion that Native-American identity was tied to Indian blood quantum. Beginning with the General Allotment Act of 1887, commonly known as the Dawes Act, the federal government used this ideology mostly to control access to economic resources. The Dawes Act was designed to break up the communally held Native-American land base by allotting parcels of 160 acres to individual Indians. Blood quantum was crucial to its implementation: Native Americans living on reservations who documentably of one-half or more Indian blood received allotments, while those who did not meet this standard were simply excluded.

Sturm's well-known text, from a reputable university press, closely supports Churchill's analysis of the historic impact of the Act re introducing blood quantum. Angela Gonzalez' article "The (Re)Articulation of American Indian Identity: Maintaining Boundaries and Regulating Access to Ethnically Tied Resources" in American Indian Culture and Research Journal (22:4, 1998, 199-225) is another such supporting text that appeared almost a decade ago in one of the main American Indian Studies journals:

When treaty making ended in 1871, the prevailing attitude of the federal government was that Indians should be assimilated and transformed into productive members of society. To hasten this transformation, Congress passed the General Allotment Act in 1887, aimed at the dissolution of collectively held tribal lands into individual land allotments. The criteria used to determine allotment eligibility was based on individual Indian "blood quantum."
Reflecting the scientific ideology of the time, blood was believed to be the carrier of genetic and cultural material. The amount of blood that an individual possessed of a particular race would determine the degree to which that individual would resemble and behave like persons of similar racial background. Inferred from the racial background of the parents, if both parents were of 100 percent Indian blood, their offspring would also be 100 percent and quantified at four-fourths Indian blood quantum. Children of mixed parentage, for instance, if the father was white and the mother was Indian, would possess one-half Indian blood quantum.
Determining blood quantum, however, required a benchmark, so beginning shortly after passage of the act, federal enumerators began canvassing Indian lands, counting Indian households, and recording the number of adults and children and the blood quantum of each. Given that few Indians possessed "official" birth certificates, enumerators had to rely on subjective judgment, individual self-report, and information supplied by neighbors, friends, and relatives. Compiled into what became known as the Dawes Rolls, these records continue to be used by Indian tribes for enrollment decisions and determination of eligibility for special programs and services provided by the federal government for American Indians. (from online version of journal)

Any expert in the field would be expected to know of the Sturm and, at the very least, would be expected to turn up both Sturm and Gonzalez in any research into this subject.

Textual Evidence re misrepresentation of a Supreme Court case to create false appearance of authoritativeness

The Report uses US v. Rogers to assert with sustained confidence that Churchill is historically incorrect:

During the nineteenth century, federal law did not rely exclusively, or even primarily, on tribal kinship-based definitions of citizenship, but rather insisted on employing partially racially-based definitions by demanding some degree of Indian blood or ancestry. Perhaps the most dramatic proof of that point, although unassociated with the allotment period or the General Allotment Act of 1887 (and surprisingly not mentioned by Professor Churchill in any of his claims about the General Allotment Act of 1887), was the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 567 (1846), announced four decades before passage of the General Allotment Act of 1887. […] Thus, in the nineteenth century, and forty years before enactment of the General Allotment Act of 1887, the United States Supreme Court already had adopted a racial definition of Indian, based literally on Indian ancestry (i.e., Indian blood), rather than the political definition of citizenship adopted by the Cherokee Nation. […] Professor Churchill is inaccurate, however, insofar as he credits the General Allotment Act of 1887 as the source (as he puts it, "the first time") of that federal imposition of racial Indian ancestry (i.e., Indian blood), since it had been accomplished at least forty years previously in the Rogers case. The General Allotment Act of 1887 was simply enacted and, more importantly, implemented against that background. (Report p18)
Thus, Professor Churchill's claim made to the Committee (but not clearly stated in his published scholarship) that an eligibility requirement of Indian blood quantum could be implied in the Act, and was certainly the way it was implemented by federal agents, might literally be true. Nevertheless, the requirement of Indian blood did not originate with either express or implied requirements of the General Allotment Act of 1887, as Professor Churchill claims, and the Rogers case disproves. (Report p19)
The general thrust of Professor Churchill's underlying basic point (seemingly and surprisingly rejected by Professor LaVelle) is that late nineteenth-century racism by federal officials in implementing the General Allotment Act of 1887, rather than traditional Indian cultural practices based on community citizenship, better accounts for the predominance of current blood quantum requirements in tribal membership rules. That argument certainly has a firm historical basis, dating back at least to the Rogers decision. Professor Churchill nevertheless has virtually all of the details of that history wrong. This racism predated the General Allotment Act of 1887, as Rogers demonstrates. (Report p22)

The key section of the Rogers decision being cited does not support the Report's assertion that the Rogers decision clearly represented an earlier imposition of "blood" in defining Indian identity. Here is the key section from Chief Justice Taney's decision:

And we think it very clear, that a white man who at mature age is adopted in an Indian tribe does not thereby become an Indian, and was not intended to be embraced in the exception above mentioned. He may by such adoption become entitled to certain privileges in the tribe, and make himself amenable to their laws and usages. Yet he is not an Indian; and the exception is confined to those who by the usages and customs of the Indians are regarded as belonging to their race. It does not speak of members of a tribe, but of the race generally,-of the family of Indians; and it intended to leave them both, as regarded their own tribe, and other tribes also, to be governed by Indian usages and customs. (45 U.S. 567 at 572-573)

Taney's decision never mentions a "blood" requirement for identity. Further, he does not rely on a biological understanding of race in this decision but instead on a cultural/social definition-"usages and customs"-of American Indian identity. Biological theories of race were still only emerging in 1846 (the word "biology" was not coined until roughly 1820). The Report's use of USv.Rogers as a case which authoritatively proves Churchill wrong is clearly questionable.

VIOLATION #4. Suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the Report's argument

Textual evidence re suppressing text from cited source that contradicts the Report's argument

Here is the Churchill text that the Report is investigating:

REPORT p33-4

Allegation C refers specifically to the next sentences [by Churchill]:
There are several earlier cases, one involving Captain John Smith of Pocahontas fame. There's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoags as a means of clearing the way for the invaders.[140]
[Churchill's] Note 140 cites Neal Salisbury, Manitou and Providence: Europeans, Indians, and the Making of New England, 1500-1643, pp. 96-101 (Report p33)

The Report then asserts a serious charge of source fabrication:

The pages referenced by Professor Churchill in the Salisbury book do not contain the words "Wampanoags" and have no discussion of any disease or epidemic (including smallpox). They contain no suggestions that John Smith or anyone else intentionally introduced a disease. (Report p34)

But the Report completely misrepresents the Salisbury pages in question:

But the real destruction of Smith's New England came during the ensuing three years. From 1616 through 1618 the Indians were subjected to an epidemic, or series of epidemics, of catastrophic proportions. Attempts by medical historians to diagnose the malady have floundered on the inconclusive nature of the surviving descriptions. The only first-hand European witnesses whose observations survive, Richard Vines and Thomas Dermer, agents of Gorges, both referred to the disease simply as "the plague," and the remaining evidence likewise supports the conclusion that the epidemic represented a strain of plague. (Salisbury 101-102)

The pages cited by Churchill contain not none but six mentions of disease or epidemic. Further, in this same section of discussion Salisbury also mentions "Wampanoags":

The epidemic's other coastal extremity is quite abrupt-the Pokanoket [one tribe that composed the Wampanoag peoples] on the eastern and northern shores of Narragansett Bay were struck but the Narragansett on the west side were not. (Salisbury 102)

Here, the Report commits fabrication in its handling of Salisbury, an Oxford Univ Press book from 1982 that is authoritative in the field.

VIOLATION #5. Suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the Report's argument

Here is the Report's claim that Churchill misrepresents Thornton re Mandan epidemic:

In "Bringing the Law Home" (published in 1994), Professor Churchill writes: "Such tactics [deliberate spread of disease by the British among American Indians during the colonial period] were also continued by the United States after the American Revolution. At Fort Clark on the upper Missouri River, for instance, the U.S. Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets as gifts among the Mandan. The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis where troops infected with the disease were quarantined" (p. 35).
He does not give a year for when this happened and provides no references for those sentences, but at the end of the paragraph, he provides the following note: "The Fort Clark incident is covered in Thornton, op. cit. [American Indian Holocaust and Survival], pp. 94-6."
That wording indicates that his account was based on Thornton, whereas in fact Thornton says something quite different about the Fort Clark situation. On pp. 95-9 (not 94-6), Thornton discusses the Mandan situation in some detail. He says that that the disease was spread by people on the steamboat who had smallpox and/or by Indians who came in contact with them after the boat had first stopped at Fort Clark and then gone on to the Mandan villages. He says that this started a "pandemic," but he does not mention blankets or suggest deliberate infection on the part of the U.S. Army or the American Fur Company. Professor Churchill therefore misrepresents what Thornton says.

Contrary to this assertion, the Thornton text in this very same section does contain extensive mention of deliberate infection when Thornton cites the speech by Mandan leader Four Bears on p98-99:

My Friends one and all, Listen to what I have to say- Ever since I can remember, I have loved the Whites, I have lived With them ever since I was a Boy, and to the best of my Knowledge, I have never Wronged a White Man, on the Contrary, I have always Protected them from the insults of Others, Which they cannot deny. The 4 Bears never saw a White Man hungry, but what he gave him to eat, Drink, and a Buffaloe skin to sleep on, in time of Need. I was always ready to die for them, Which they cannot deny. I have done every thing that a red Skin could do for them, and how have they repaid it! With ingratitude! I have Never Called a White Man a Dog, but to day, I do Pronounce them to be a set of Black harted Dogs, they have deceived Me, them that I always considered as Brothers, has turned Out to be My Worst enemies. I have been in Many Battles, and often Wounded, but the Wounds of My enemies I exhalt in, but to day I am Wounded, and by Whom, by those same White Dogs that I have always Considered, and treated as Brothers. I do not fear Death my friends. You Know it, but to die with my face rotten, that even the Wolves will shrink with horror at seeing Me, and say to themselves, that is the 4 Bears the Friend of the Whites-
Listen well what I have to say, as it will be the last time you will hear Me. think of your Wives, Children, Brothers, Sisters, Friends, and in fact all that you hold dear, are all Dead, or Dying, with their faces all rotten, caused by those dogs the whites, think of all that My friends, and rise all together and Not leave one of them alive. The 4 Bears will act his Part-.

The Report's suppression of this speech in Thornton is made worse by the fact that Four Bears' speech is known the writers since the Report itself cites the speech on pp49-50.
The Seven Charges of Academic Misconduct (Prof. Churchill)
Allegation A: Misrepresentation of General Allotment Act of 1887
Allegation B: Misrepresentation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990
Allegation C: Captain John Smith and Smallpox in New England, 1614-1618
Allegation D: Smallpox Epidemic at Fort Clark and Beyond, 1837-1840

Allegation E: Plagiarism of a Pamphlet by the Dam the Dams Group
Allegation F: Plagiarism of Professor Rebecca Robbins
Allegation G: Plagiarism of Professor Fay G. Cohen

Definition of Misconduct:

from CU Policy "Misconduct in Research and Authorship"

"Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and other forms of misappropriation of ideas, or additional practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research."

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Prisoners revolt around Greece

Athens Indymedia April 24, 2007

Ongoing story
, constant updates: please check back regularly

In the morning of Monday 23/4, prisoners at the prison of Malandrino in Fokida, mainland Greece, revolted. The spark igniting the revolt was the beating of anarchist prisoner Yiannis Dimitrakis as well as the vicious, violent response of the guards to the protests staged by his co-prisoners.

Disgraceful holding conditions, lack of water, regular beatings, electronic surveillance and the extremely short times allowed at the yard comprise a grim reality for the Malandrino prisoners. The prison has seen plenty of revolts in the past...

The latest information from Malandrino says that the prisoners are in full control of the prison.

Meantime, information coming in right now (12:30pm GMT, April 24) indicates that prisoners at the Ayios Stefanos prison of Patras have also revolted; two hundred of them abstain from their daily meal. 340 prisoners at the prison of Tripoli have gone on hunger strike.

24.04, 15:45GMT: Unconfirmed reports on mainstream media claim a revolt has also broken out at Korydallos prison, the country's main prison located in Athens (latest info from Korydallos).

Solidarity Actions

  • Solidarity action outside the residency of the greek president: On the night of the revolt, 150 anarchists gathered outside the house of the greek president, chanting solidarity slogans for the prisoners.

  • On the same night, anarchists gathered spontaneously in Thessaloniki, distributing texts, spray-painting and chanting slogans.

  • The committee for prisoner rights has called for a solidarity demo tonight, April 24, 7pm at Omonia square in Athens.

[ English version of the text distributed in Thessaloniki | Ministry of justice: Prisoner demands "unreasonable" | Latest info from the Korydallos Prison in Athens ]

Muslim POW support site

It takes little imagination to visualise life in a prison. The confined cell, the bare walls, the silence, and most of all, the feeling of isolation. Many have no family members in the UK and as a result they have become despondent and desperate. In one case, a detainee was actually seeking permission from a scholar to commit suicide until he began to receive letters from the public, which renewed his desire and motivation to live.

It is not enough that we feel sorry for what they are going through. It is not enough that we shed a few tears when we sit and think about what they are experiencing. Nor is it enough that we lay back and wait for others to take on the responsibility of reaching out to them.

We must not fail them at this critical time. We must hasten to comfort them, and support them at a time when they need us most. We must write letters that give them hope, help strengthen them and motivate them to persevere in remaining patient. We must be their link to the outside world, a link that shows that they have not been forgotten.

Such letter-writing campaigns have proved to be hugely successful – with the 8 Belmarsh detainees receiving 60 letters each in the week that the campaign was first launched and with Babar Ahmad receiving over 50 letters in his first week in prison.

Therefore we urge you all to make it a regular practice to write to at least one prisoner a week and to encourage all your family members and friends to do the same.

The letters can be as short as a paragraph, preferably written in your own handwriting as it is more personal, or if you do not have time to write a letter, you can buy a set of 'Thinking of You' cards. The content of the letters should be encouraging them to be patient, reminding them to have hope and that they have not been forgotten. This should not take more than half an hour and should not cost you more than £3. However, it may give hope to a prisoner for whom half an hour is like half a year.

Simple messages of goodwill are enough. Never advance your political opinion or discuss politics at all.

Clearly state the prisoner number otherwise the card will not reach the intended recipient. In some cases, the names of prisoners are withheld for legal reasons.

If you have included your name and address (preferably a stamped addressed envelope) it is probable that the prisoners will write back to you and you can find out exactly what their situation is like inside. If you still prefer not to leave your name and address, then please write to them anyway.

Please ensure that the prisoner addresses are written exactly as they appear below.

Monday, April 23, 2007

stop snitchin blamed on rappers, not cops

Stop Snitchin'

April 19, 2007

(CBS) In most communities, a person who sees a murder and helps the police put the killer behind bars is called a witness. But in many inner-city neighborhoods in this country that person is called a "snitch."

"Stop snitchin'" is a catchy hip-hop slogan that embodies and encourages this attitude. You can find it on everything from rap music videos to clothing. "Stop snitchin'" once meant "don’t tell on others if you’re caught committing a crime."

But as CNN's Anderson Cooper reports for 60 Minutes, it has come to mean something much more dangerous: "don’t cooperate with the police – no matter who you are."

As a result, police say, witnesses are not coming forward. Murders are going unsolved.

Reluctance to talk to police has always been a problem in poor, predominantly African-American communities, but cops and criminologists say in recent years something has changed: fueled by hip-hop music, promoted by major corporations, what was once a backroom code of silence among criminals, is now being marketed like never before.

The message appears in hip-hop videos, on T-shirts, Web sites, album covers and street murals. Well-known rappers talk about it endlessly on DVDs. It is a simple message heard in African-American communities across the country: don't talk to the police.

"When I was growing up, kids used to talk about snitching…. It never extended as a cultural norm outside of the gangsters," says Geoffrey Canada, a nationally recognized educator and anti-violence advocate. "It was not for regular citizens. It is now a cultural norm that is being preached in poor communities."

Canada has been working with children in Harlem for more than 20 years. He grew up poor in a tough New York neighborhood, but says the message kids are getting today is very different and dangerous.

"People are walking around with shirts. People are going out making, making music. People are saying things that if you're a snitch it's like being an Uncle Tom was when I was growing up," Canada says. "It's like you can't be a black person if you have a set of values that say, 'I will not watch crime happen in my community without getting involved to stop it.'"

"So this slogan, this 'stop snitchin'.' It now extends to rape, robbery, murder, really any crime?" Cooper asks.

"Any crime," Canada says. "It's like we're saying to the criminals, 'You can have our community. Just have our community. Do anything you want, and we will either deal with it ourselves, or we'll simply ignore it.'"

Canada could no longer ignore it on Feb. 5, 2006, when Israel Ramirez, a student he had mentored and loved like a son, was shot to death outside a soundstage in Brooklyn.

Ramirez was working as a bodyguard for the rap star Busta Rhymes, who was making a music video.

A person who was there told 60 Minutes Ramirez was shot in front of Busta Rhymes. He died at the scene two days before his 29th birthday, leaving a wife and three children behind.

"You know, I just think of him, being shot, falling down, probably thinking, 'This might be it.' And I just wonder, who held his hand? Who caressed his head? Who told him, 'I'm gonna be here?' Who stayed with him? Who made sure this man just didn't die alone for nothing?" Canada wonders.

New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says there were at least 25 people who may have witnessed the shooting. But he says nobody has come forward to testify.

"The people that we've located, either were inside and didn't see anything. Or you'll get a version of, 'I have to work in this business. Ask Busta Rhymes what happened,'" Commissioner Kelly says.

The police would like to ask Busta Rhymes what happened but, even though he talked vaguely about the killing on a cable TV show, he refused to talk to investigators, or to 60 Minutes.

Geoffrey Canada believes it's because Busta Rhymes doesn’t want to jeopardize sales of his music and videos; Canada says being labeled a "snitch" might have damaged Rhymes' "street cred."

"One of the things that sells music is when the artist is looked at as someone who's come up from the streets. Not just any streets, but the toughest, meanest streets of the urban ghetto. And that's called 'street credibility,'" Canada says.

Busta Rhymes did put a tribute to Israel Ramirez on the video he was making when Ramirez was killed. "Just wanted to make sure people seen this so they know you ain't die in vain. Love you and I miss you, Homie. Hope we make you proud," Rhymes said in the video.

"I think that's horrid," says Canada. "I ask you Busta, as a man, if that was your son and you watched someone kill your son, would you remain quiet or would you get justice for your son? This is murder. This is murder. This is watching someone getting murdered. How do we walk away from this?"

The truth is, people having been walking away for years. In 1996, rapper Tupac Shakur was gunned down in Las Vegas; the crime remains unsolved. So does the 1997 shooting of the rapper Notorious B.I.G.

Rap star Cameron Giles, known as Cam'ron or "Killa Cam," got shot in both arms in 2005. The shooting occurred in front of members of Cam'ron's entourage, but to this day, neither they, nor he, have cooperated with police.

Asked why, Cam'ron tells Cooper, "Because with the type of business I'm in, it would definitely hurt my business. And the way that I was raised, I just don't do that. I was raised differently, not to tell."

"If I was shot, I would want to know who did it. I would want the guy to get caught," Cooper remarks.

"But then again, you're not going to be on the stage tonight in the middle of, let's say, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, with people with gold and platinum teeth and dreadlocks jumping up and down singing your songs either," Cam'ron says. "You know what I'm saying? We're in two different lines of business."

"So for you it's really about business?" Cooper asks.

"It's about business but it's still also a code of ethics," Cam'ron replies.

Asked if he thinks there is any situation when it's okay to talk to the police, Cam'ron tells Cooper, "Yeah, definitely. Say 'Hello, how you feel, everything alright?' Period."

"That's it?" Cooper asks.

"There's nothing really to talk about with the police, I mean, for what?" Cam'ron says.

"If there's a serial killer living next door to you, though, and you know that person is, you know, killing people, would you be a snitch if you called police and told them?" Cooper asks Cam'ron.

"If I knew the serial killer was living next door to me?" Cam'ron asks. "No, I wouldn't call and tell anybody on him. But I'd probably move… But I'm not gonna call and be like, you know, 'The serial killer's in 4E.'"

If you think Cam'ron is kidding, he’s not. Maintaining street cred sells record – just watch his movie "Killa Season," or his rap videos, and you’ll quickly learn about his drug-dealing past. He wears it as proudly as his jeweled chains.

In a recent video, which was viewed more than a million times on YouTube, Cam'ron engages in what has become a standard attack on a competitor rapper’s brand. He accuses rapper 50 Cent, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, of being a "snitch" for allegedly cooperating with a police investigation.

"You don't need someone destroying you when your own people are the worst messengers possibly," Canada says. "And this is what black people in America have not come to grips with. If we had a bunch a people in robes saying this stuff, there would be a movement all over America to shut this thing down. That it's young black millionaires, we are doing nothing."

Cam'ron acknowledges that he is a millionaire and drives "a couple" of Lamborghinis. On the streets of Harlem, he is idolized. A few years ago when he started wearing pink clothing, kids in inner city schools across the country started wearing it too.

"Whatever they dish out, we eat it up," a teenager named Victoria tells Cooper. "They could dish out the nastiest thing in the world, but we still will eat it up."

Cooper met Victoria, Alex, Derrick, Darnell, and Tess through a church-based organization called Uth Turn. They’re 14 through 19 years old, and they told 60 Minutes the "stop snitchin'" code doesn’t just apply to rappers.

"A snitch is a tattletale, a rat, somebody who goes around telling other people business instead of minding they own," Alex tells Cooper.

Asked if he believes that, Alex says, "Yes.

"Anybody who comes forward and talks to the police about something they witnessed, a murder or a crime, are they a snitch?" Cooper asks.

"Yes… It's a crime, remember, in our community, to snitch," says Tess.

Most of these kids had witnessed at least one violent crime but had not helped the police identify the culprits. Victoria saw someone get shot a few years ago; she says she was scared to talk to the police then, and she wouldn’t identify the shooter if the same thing happened today.

Asked why, Victoria says, "Because that's the rules."

Those rules are making it much harder for the police to catch killers, according to Professor David Kennedy of The John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Kennedy works with communities and police departments all over the country. Nationwide, he says, police are able to arrest a suspect in about 60 percent of the homicide cases they investigate. That’s known as the "clearance rate."

But Kennedy says in some neighborhoods the rate is much, much lower. "I work in communities where the clearance rate for homicides has gone into single digits."

The unwillingness to come forward, Kennedy says, lies at the core of the problem.

"What does it say about what's happening in a community that if you come forward, you lose status in that community?" Cooper asks.

"In these neighborhoods, we are on the verge of, or maybe we already have lost, the rule of law," Kennedy says.

The snitchin' credo is not just a product of hip hop music, he says. Nor are people simply afraid to come forward. As Professor Kennedy sees it, and as Cam'ron portrays it in a movie, the root cause is a long-standing belief that law enforcement is the enemy.

Kennedy says that’s partly because of police tactics used to fight the war on drugs.

Asked if he trusts the police, Alex tells Cooper, "No."

Why not? "'Cause there's been numerous times I've been walking, just being a regular American citizen and getting stopped for no reason," Alex says.

"Is it possible that people aren't coming forward to talk to the police not because of what rappers are saying, but just because they don't trust the police?" Cooper asks New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

"Sure. There's always going to be an element that is not happy with what the police do," Kelly says. "But I think the difference here is the commercialization, if you will, of 'don't snitch.' The glorification of it."

"It's that sort of edgy, you know, kind of ghetto, everybody's kind of into it. It does package well, and it does sell well. And beneath, you know, beneath all of this stuff, there's huge corporate profits in the industries that feed off this," Canada says.

Many of the big-name rappers who rail against snitches are distributed on major record labels. Cam'ron is distributed through Asylum Records, a division of Warner Music.

When the rapper L'il Kim committed perjury rather than implicate members of her entourage in a shooting, Black Entertainment Television launched one of its most popular shows ever, chronicling her days before going to prison.

"Black Entertainment TV ran a reality series about her that was advertised with the tag line, 'She's going to prison with her mouth shut and her head held high,'" Professor Kennedy says. "This is a Joe Camel issue. This is big business selling death."

Black Entertainment Television has said its series on L’il Kim did not condone her crime, but rather took "a very serious look at her life and her choices…." As for Cam'ron's relationship with Warner Music, an executive there declined to comment.

"I dare any of those executives in the major companies to put one of those songs on in board meeting. I dare 'em. They'd never do it," Canada says. "You put on some song that has the n-word 50 times that talks about killing and murder, oh no. Board members don't want to hear that kind of stuff."

"I just think that rap takes way more slack than the video games and the movies. We don't make guns. Smith and Wesson makes guns," Cam'ron argues. "Like, white people make guns and bullets and all we're doing is rhyming and putting words together."

"If your record label said to you, 'Look, we're not going to promote you, we're not going to distribute you if you keep calling Curtis Jackson a snitch.' Or you keep, writing about guns and selling drugs, would you stop?" Cooper asks.

"No record company in the world would say 'We're not promoting if you keep calling somebody a snitch. They know what makes money," Cam'ron says. "A record company would never be that stupid. Ever."