The answers to life's troubling questions

How many police officers will be drafted once the United States decides to invade Iraq?

Who cares. Alot of them are going to have reality smack them in the face when they're walking toward Tehran. More of them that are out of the US, the better. Don't shed any tears for them when the start coming back in coffins. They're fascists.

Who is going to hold the FBI accountable for the misconduct committed against those who spoke out against the war in Iraq because there was no WMD?

Not the required-Congressional oversight in either the House of Senate Judiciary Committees. See, Orin Hatch, despite being "the dude in charge", shut down the investigation into Sibel Edmonds. Hatch has his head up his ass and DoJ knows they can do whatever they want. We got the Patriot Act thanks to Hatch.

Why is the FBI promoting those who are stupid, arrogant, and not all that bright?

That's all they can pick from. The smart ones left.

Why are Special Agents in Charge [SACs] allowed to have input to Peace Office Standards and Training [POST] when the SACs are the ones who are getting in the way of FBI investigations of law enforcement and doing nothing meaningful about agent misconduct?

Because, despite their experience in the Office of Professional Responsibility, the SACs have fooled alot of people. On one hand the SACs like to think they inspire people with their tales of adventure, but deep inside, they are wanting, insecure people constantly hoping to avoid pitfalls.

Even people that they once had working in HQ with them, are now in the field working under them. They have to hide these people, and the media attention is bought and paid for. Nobody wants to read about "yet another bungled case" in the FBI.

These guys don't have enough money for nice clothes, much less gasoline for their interview cars. Last thing they want is to actually be held accountable for the standards they impose on America.

Besides, which prosecutor is actually going to bring an FBI agent before a Grand Jury as a defendant? They don't want to embarrass the agent.

Why are the agents in the NYC building talking to civilans about what they were told about the "buildings not supposed to fall down" so they did nothing?

Because they were told what was going one prior to 9-11, but did nothing. They are traitors and deserve close scrutiny. They did nothing despite the information; and now command the rest of America to grovel because of their inaction. Time to make these FBI agents grovel before a grand jury.

How many US citizens have been tortured after being removed from the United States on the CIA private charter airline?

More than 1. They're taking them out. Apparently, the Rumsfeld memo has been applied in more than several occasions to make people disappear.

What about this non-public information in the law enforcement data-bases: Why isn't this information subpoenaed when the defense council asks for all information related to a defendant?

The information in the unofficial databases relates to all your conversations: They have gaps in their computer that they keep filling in. Information relates to associates, work, address, identifying information, habits, personal life, nicknames.

This information is cross referenced by any law enforcement officer. Even though they're not supposed to have non-criminal information in there, they have it there to "strike up conversations" and then get more information.

In fact, law enforcement is more concerned with "gathering more information" than actually helping you if you have a problem. So, next time you have a problem and are trying to decide "who to call," think twice. Chance are, the help you get will be late and insufficient; and if you have contact with an officer it is going to waste your time.

Why does the police keep private databases about non-criminal information?

They do this to annoy you. And also build cases. Law enforcement incorrectly assumes that all people have some evil-criminal crime to admit; and that anyone they come in contact with is a potential "brownie point" on their list of convictions.

Besides, how many people do you know who are victims of crimes are going to realize they're being victimized again by someone in law enforcement?

Why does the police treat private citizens who are voluntarily reporting crimes as if they [the reporting citizen] is a criminal?

Law enforcement is lazy. They can't catch the bad guys, so they go after those who are convenient.

Why should the public continue to provide information to law enforcement when the public is treated as if it is stupid, no action is taken, or the investigators turn their attention to the public that dares come forward?

Good question. Law enforcement is shooting itself in the foot. Those who might trust law enforcement are the ones that law enforcement will interrogate, and manipulate.

The best advice when dealing with law enforcement is always know: They have one goal in mind, to put people in jail. If you are a victim, witness, or informant, know that if they can't find the criminals, they'll come after you.

They will even lie to convict innocent people. Its in their nature.

Why are the victims of crimes treated as good targets for interrogation?

Targets of opportunity. It's a game. Law enforcement has no clue how quickly they can alienate an otherwise supportive population.

Why do POST training guidelines have no approved lesson plans to allow field training officers [FTOs] to make up reasons not to take complaints, but this is what is actually happening in the country?

POST inadequately verifies that the lesson plans written match citizen comments. In other words, there's an ineffective oversight mechanism to ensure "what the private citizen reports" is actually matching what is in the detailed lesson plans on POST files; nor are there meaningful consequences on FTOs when they instruct in a manner that is outside the range of the lesson plan they have filed with POST.

What is in writing doesn't match what they do. POST has a problem. It hasn't been audited in a no-notice way by Interpol; and nobody from POST shows up in the field without warning.

This is the same problem that happened in the FAA and DoD inspections--everyone in advance knew they were coming. So, "when there was a real problem" the system that "always was given a heads up" didn't know what to do.

Why are law enforcement officers threatening the public with hand cuffing and detention when the public freely chooses not to interact with law enforcement?

They like to intimidate people. Small problem: When the intimidation doesn't work, and the police realize they're talking to someone that doesn't care if they go to Guantanamo.

Why does law enforcement communicate that it is satisfied with information from the public, but then threaten them with handcuffing and detention?

Law enforcement lies. They say they are happy, but deep inside, they are insecure, fearful, and not all that bright. They lie, even when they don't have to.

Why does the media report information about public complaints about law enforcement back to law enforcement?

Because the media works for law enforcement.

Why is information from the media "about citizen complaints related to law enforcement" entered into the non-criminal databases in law enforcement?

They have non-criminal databases to put pressure on people to talk. Remember, when the write incident reports, this is different than the non-official databases. Although there may be no incident report taken, everything you say, do, or is known about you is kept in the private files. They use this information to harass you, build cases, and annoy you.

Why is the media as unresponsive as government in responding to public concerns about issues?

The media is a business, not a service. They do not care about issues, they want things that will put eyeballs on the paper.

Blogs are different. Blogs don't care.

Why do leaders say publicly that they support democracy, but then when the public shows up to engage in oversight, suddenly the public is labeled as "wasting their time"?

Because the United States is not a democracy. It is a fascist dictatorship disguised as a representative democracy. In fact, the US leadership in Congress doesn't actually check the other branches; it simply agrees with whatever they're told and then blames the public.

No real investigations occur. They simply do what must be done to find no fault. Those who tell the truth are blacklisted, even though there are whistlblowing laws.

DC is like a revolving door. Those who rat on others can't go through the door. They have a problem when someone doesn't play the game, but can't be threatened with loss of priviledges.

They've already taken away your dignity by stomping on the constitution, why do you care how they treat you? The "possible future threat" isn't a basis for inaction today; rather it is the "inaction today" that ensures their intimidation continues.

Why is citizen oversight talked about as a "good thing in Iraq" but when practiced in the United States it becomes the basis to unleash the dogs in the FBI?

Because the US talks about principles it does not practice. This is done so the working class laps up non-sense and continues voting for that which deserves no support. The public has been conditioned to believe the FBI "because it is doing something" is, therefore necessary and "doing the right thing.

Do not mistake action for "doing the right thing." One is motion, the other is correct. The FBI focuses on motion, and does not care about whether their day to day interactions are 'the right thing' -- they are more concerned with convictions than actually investigating.

The FBI will decline information and cases [even though they're not supposed to] because the public generally doesn't understand that the declination decision belongs to the US Attorney. This explains why the FBI for all these years got away with "not providing all the information in the I-Drive."