Standing before the podium with his reading glasses perched on his nose in a Really Serious Position, former FBI Director Louis Freeh read the summary of his damning report on what happened at Penn State University. The university, he intoned, was directly responsible for permitting Jerry Sandusky, the former football team defensive coordinator and now a convicted child molester, for preying on young "troubled" boys.
So far, the media response has been lockstep not only in its condemnation for Penn State and the late Joe Paterno, the legendary coach who won more games than any other NCAA Division I football coach in history, but also in its praise for Freeh. (I include links from the New York Times, ESPN, and CBS Sports.)
Not being familiar with the details of the report or the Sandusky case and the role of Penn State officials in trying to hide what they feared was happening, I will ask readers to judge the accuracy and tone of Freeh’s report and make their own assessments. However, before the media and legal world goes on to paint Louis Freeh in the most heroic terms, I would remind readers that probably any one of us could have written that report and made the same damning comments made by Freeh and his underlings. It hardly is heroic to come upon a situation after the fact and to write those things which apparently were obvious in hindsight.
No, I am writing in order to let readers know that this "heroic" Louis Freeh has some serious baggage of his own, baggage that includes covering up murders, whitewashing the most hideous domestic massacre since Wounded Knee, publicly making wrongful accusations, and further turning the Federal Bureau of Investigation into an entity that James Bovard accurately has called, "A Stasi for America." Louis Freeh does not deserve our praise; indeed, he does not even deserve our scorn. Instead, he deserves to be sitting in a cell at the federal Supermax Prison in Colorado, as the crimes he committed during his years at the FBI pale in comparison to anything done by Paterno, whose legacy Freeh has destroyed, or even Sandusky ever did.
Read the rest of the piece here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
But the victims of Waco were "poodles," people who existed outside of what the Majority considered to be mainstream. This is why they were exterminated: not only would the Majority not care, but would actively cheer "law enforcement" for ridding the country of "dangerous cults."
The Waco/Ruby Ridge Strategy is textbook doctrine for not only the FBI, but all other federal, state, and local "law enforcement" agencies. Target a demographic group that is widely distrusted and/or despised so that the crimes you commit will not only not be prosecuted, but will be praised as acts of heroic national virtue.
The good news is that the monster is now undermining itself. It has become so bloodthirsty that it is running out of "poodles" and is beginning to turn is predations upon the mainstream.
No one but Jerry Sandusky is responsible for what he did. As for Paterno knowingly allowing it to happen, how can Freeh even consider this without speaking to Paterno himself? At the beginning of this investigation, I read where emails allegedly sent between Paterno and those in charge of Penn State were the basis for the decision. However, there were a few, very few, reports from those who know the coach saying he refused to use email, and had never opened his. Therefore, I feel this report is flawed as it's predicated on emails, which those who know the coach well say he would have never written.
Also, there are questions as to a lot of things coming out in my mind. Why didn't any of these people call the state police when they couldn't get heard initially? Why not contact the FBI with the information. A local agent can look into something if enough people make enough noise.
Finally, and this isn't an excuse, but an observation. Paterno was a very charimatic man, but he was also in charge of a world renoun football team - a team that brought home the wins. He certainly can't also be Mr. Personality when it comes to protecting his team. The same goes for any successful person. To have these people coming out now and saying Paterno stopped them from disciplining the team members, or this or that, is spiteful cowardice. Yes, the image of Paterno is tarnished for me, but he was still a great leader who made mistakes. And if we're going to point fingers at him, those fingers had better be strongly pointed at those in positions of power above him who sat on their thumbs and did nothing, and are now scrambling to get out prison sentences themselves.
The Sandusky defense team is pursuing an appeal because
1. Sandusky was denied due process because his defense was not allowed to even know who the accusers were until shortly before trial.
2. An altered (what else would you expect from NBC) video was shown to the jury which made Sandusky look guilty. (This was the third grossly altered audio or video tape by MS/NBC: The first where they cut out a question by 911 to shooter George Zimmerman asking if the person was black; the second where they cut out verbiage by Mitt Romney when he commented on computer-input food orders to make him look stupid; this third video where they repeated Costas's question to Sandusky to make Sandusky look guilty.)
3. An improper order was made for the defense to disclose to the prosecution its strategy.
I find it odd anyone would support anyone here, as everybody at Penn St. could be held responsible. And to deem Freeh "heroic", sure that is preposterous. In my opinion the whole cast of this article should be locked up. To read more about "power-mongering" in America go to:
http://ronborst.blogspot.com/
Y'all have a great week, RLB.
"The Sandusky defense team is pursuing an appeal because"
[...] and
4. The ownership of the soap bars, along with the more slippery brand supplied, was a dominant factor the defense was denied the ability to make the jurors aware of.
***********
On a more serious note; if anyone was a hero a decade plus into this mess, it might be the individual(s) responsible for allowing the investigative team to open access to the emails.
Now, per pennlive.com, we are seeing numerous "errors" in the Freeh report. So when a person is investigated by police and vindicated, and later allegedly commits crimes, is everyone who ever associated with that person guilty of conspiracy?
Post a Comment