{Author’s preemptive note: If a human rights or news organization were not once in a while infiltrated and even subverted from its mission, I would be compelled to consider that that organization possibly poses no threat to corrupt practices and those who practice them.}

First, using the term COINTELPRO implies we’re talking about the FBI and mostly only the FBI. This is likely not true. Having said that, the practices I am referring to are strictly illegal and FBI, whether directly involved or not {it likely is in one way or another}, is the primary investigative body of the Department of Justice and therefore knows the answer. Even the slightest form of harassment, when it comes from an organization, falls completely under the law Title 18 USC Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights. Additionally, one of FBI’s favorite charges to bring against anyone even tangentially involved in investigations in which it engages is accessory after the fact. No matter who is involved, the FBI and the Department of Justice are accessories after the fact.

Title 18 USC Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And yet, for some reason, those who carry these things out don’t seem concerned about being prosecuted.


There are lots of things to point out here. First there’s the Senate and various little fiefdoms. We can see this was the case in the Cold War as well, when the Senate pretended to investigate the intelligence community but was just as much investigating itself:

While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities on their own and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Church/Tower, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, page 5.

Of course those people they reported to likely also knew something was going on. They just didn’t want to know officially. See our Legislative Branch again here regarding CIA’s assassination weapons which they seemed so surprised about, how some of their members, Customs and the FBI had all seen them:

MR. SENSENEY: And I might add that many of your own members here, not on this panel, but many Members of Congress also observed these [weapons].

SEN. HOWARD H. BAKER JR.: Well, you are very generous. None of us saw them; is that right?

Church/Tower, Vol. 1.

They know but don’t admit that they know.

Next, the still as far as we know standing agreement between the Department of Justice and the CIA:

Incredibly, when the subject of possible federal prosecutions of CIA officials for capital crimes and felonies, such as murder and drug trafficking, came up in their discussion, [CIA General Counsel Lawrence] Houston informed [President Ford’s Chief of Staff, Donald] Rumsfeld and [Rumsfeld’s chief assistant, Richard B. “Dick”] Cheney that there was little cause for concern.

Explained the Agency’s General Counsel, since early 1954, following the death of Army biochemist Frank Olson, a secret agreement between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Justice had been put in place whereby the violation of “criminal statutes” by CIA personnel would not result in Department of Justice prosecutions, if “highly classified and complex covert operations” were threatened with exposure. The agreement had been struck between Houston and Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers in February 1954, not long after Frank Olson’s death, and still remained solidly in place.

Jeffrey Kaye and HP Albarelli, “Cries From the Past: Torture’s Ugly Echoes,” Truthout, 23 May 2010:

Now let’s take a look at more recent developments.


Though there are, according to folks who follow it, some good things to come out of the changes to the FOIA system, the Intelligence committee put some things in there to prevent, even if the things are 25 years old or older, being exposed to the public who paid for them.

However, the bill also includes carve-outs for the intelligence committee, added at the last minute by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that would protect so-called “sources and methods” information from any of the new provisions.

“The changes to the House FOIA bill, added as a result of a last-minute demand of HPSCI, is a pattern that is becoming all too familiar and objectionable” Patrice McDermott, executive director of, said in a statement. “The efforts to exempt the Intelligence Community are not acceptable. They are particularly offensive in this bill intended to promote openness across the federal government.”

CJ Ciaramella, “FOIA Rundown: House passes FOIA reform bill, dolphin necropsies, and more,” CJCiaramella FOIA Rundown Newsletter, 15 January 2016:

While the House bill is a good step in the right direction, last-minute carve-outs for the frequently FOIA-ed 17 agencies that make up the Intelligence Community from the bill’s improvements are troubling.1 Added at the insistence of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI), the carve-outs exempt the Intelligence Community (IC) from certain provisions, including “language that states that currently-protected information relating to ‘sources and methods’ would not be subject to disclosure under any of the amendments in the bill”. The bill exempts the IC from necessary reforms to the consultation process; a big mistake as intelligence agencies are the biggest consultation abusers. The bill also contains a provision requiring agencies to publish “a list” of of all denied material unless the disclosure is prohibited by law. This is another tremendously beneficial provision of the bill, but it will be watered-down if the IC is exempted.

Lauren Harper, “Overall Good FOIA Reform Bill Passes House With Troubling IC Carve-Outs,” National Security Archive Blog, 14 January 2016:

Note that ‘sources and methods’ is another way of saying ‘highly classified and complex’ as noted regarding the DoJ/CIA agreement in the quote above.

They have something to hide.


Intelligence Activity Exemption

The proposal includes exemptions for intelligence surveillance activities. Since the intelligence communities have long histories of using creative interpretations of the law and regulations, we believe that any exemption should be subjected to heightened review. As we write:

[The policy] offers practically no limitation to an intelligence community with a history of expansively interpreting limited exemptions. There should be a discussion, a representative list, or at a minimum a modifier added here to give future courts or administrative law judges some sort of applicable standards to apply if a dispute arises.

Dave Maass, “More Needs to Be Done to Strengthen Protection of Human Subjects in Scientific Experiments,” EFF, 7 January 2016:

Much of this is about privacy of medical records, but the above is the focus here. There’s also the massive manipulation of online discourse though, by the US Department of Defense’s MINERVA, which like the UK’s GCHQ/JTRIG department whose slides made it clear they are targeting everyone, not just terrorists, is using social sciences online.


However, things can get very muddied easily as to what they are. What is a covert operation? What is interrogation? What is torture? What is research? What is a medical treatment?

By leaving these kinds of things vague and ambiguous, intelligence agencies, the military, and their private partners can deny doing any one of them by quickly reclassifying anything they do as falling under one of the other categories.

This is not new by any means. The CIA being investigated as part of the assassination program–which may have arose out of ARTICHOKE–when they retained deadly fish toxin was a good example of this. When the White House ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons as a good faith move toward easing tensions with the USSR, the CIA considered the fish toxin a biological weapon because it came from a fish. When the subsequent order then came to destroy all biological weapons for the same reason, they switched back to considering it an inorganic material. Finally, when questioned by the Senate on the subject, they simultaneously claimed that it was being kept for medical research {the amount retained was orders of magnitude higher than all of the medical schools in the US combined could use} and that they simply lost track of one of the most deadly substances known to man.

Switch the subject now to rectal feeding. Is it a medical treatment for people on hunger strike? Or is it punishment or torture? Or is it part of a “brainwashing” program, to break down the personality in order to paint whatever the Agency desires upon the tapestry of a human’s psyche?

See also how Chelsea Manning was treated while at the prison at Quantico. Was it really a medical issue, the process just short of suicide watch, or was it an attempt to force a plea deal in order to limit exposure of the information possessed by Wikileaks?

There are multiple barriers to getting at the truth and these barriers are not accidental. They are the intentional subversion of accountability. But that is not to say that both Legislators and Executive branch officials are unaware that it is happening; merely that they do not acknowledge it.


Here’s where we move from the mostly historical and current events presented by news and those who watch the watchers as best they can to my experiences and interactions with others and how I think that they fit this big picture. Note, much of this is carefully considered after six years of attempting to diagnose what precisely is wrong and how such blatantly illegal actions could take place regardless of whom I or others contact about it.

The first most obvious thing, which only became clear after I was targeted myself, is that some of what occurs is field training. As I’ve noted many times, I witnessed sudden bizarre changes in two women who worked at a theater in 1989 and 1990. I also met a woman who was having similar problems and who had worked there in 1988. There were also lots of small things that, in retrospect, kind of resemble the sort of ploys you might see on the old Mission: Impossible TV show.

Divisions were created. Some of the events were so strange and seemingly defied explanation that I, for a time, became religious. The idea that we were being used by the government as training dummies for something like COINTELPRO just never occurred to me, or if something similar did, seemed so alien to what the news and media teach us about how the world works that it was easier to chalk it up to the supernatural than try to make sense of some bizarre conspiracy concocted by people we are told every single day exist only to protect us and our families from harm.

These were mostly subtle things, like noises or electrical effects that seemed to coincide with something someone said. We were also largely sleep deprived, getting up in the morning for class, working all day, putting on a show, and then prepping the stage for the next performance. We were easy targets.

More recently I have had opportunity to interact with many people who claim to be subject to some form of harassment. What I started noting was a small number who had history of mental illness before the harassment began. How was I to reconcile this?

Though they sometimes made many claims that I do not believe, often lodged in the middle of this were a few things that matched the experiences of people who had no history of mental illness. How was that possible?

It became obvious. Just as a bunch of interns at a Summer theater were used as targets, so are sometimes those afflicted with mental illness. It is the perfect cover, because they will never be believed. Their history alone makes them unreliable witnesses as far as most people are concerned. This provides several benefits to the psychological operations specialists and their command structure:

1} The targets will not be believed {note again EFF’s concern about medical records};

2} Because the claims are similar to those who do not suffer from mental illness, it will tend to make those who are not mentally ill might actually be because their claims are similar to those who are;

3} It proves to the command structure that the field specialist has no empathy for a helpless target, much as a sniper would be required to prove;

4} There’s a financial side-benefit for Wall Street, cheap labor advocates, and greedy sociopaths in general that is not unlike what happens when poor neighborhoods are flooded with drugs. That is it creates the impression that the mentally ill are a burden on society and excuses the public from caring about them and therefore becomes an impediment to any sort of single payer options for those who cannot care for themselves.

These two groups, those with a history of mental illness and those without, represent the first two levels of training. Beyond this, it becomes targeting high profile or influential individuals, whistleblowers, sometimes journalists, activist attorneys, and sometimes just to create a phony narrative.

But even this last category has the potential to fall under both national security and human research just as the examples above might when it is an organization practices in deceit making those decisions. Utilizing some new method, which would be ‘highly classified’ and therefore not subject to FOIA nor prosecution by the DoJ, and at the same time have some operational goal. If anything related to the operation became noticed by outsiders, it could be categorized as whichever was most beneficial to retaining the secrecy involved.


Many times I had thought I knew the answer to this over the years and as many times I have found that my “list” is too short. Of course the real answer is pretty much everyone indirectly, but in this section I mean directly.

There’s a woman who simply lived too close to some kind of EMP weapon test. She suffered a brain injury and was harassed, driven crazy so that the existence of the weapon would remain secret and so there would be no chance of her being able to file a civil suit against whichever aerospace corporation owned the weapon.

There’s a woman who simply prevented a mass workplace shooting by alerting authorities before it was carried out. Whether this was from some kind of shortselling that was foiled, or an op simply designed to eliminate someone’s competition is not clear. What is clear is that she was a successful nurse for 20 years before this happened and she was ostracized from her profession due to a patient claiming she groped him. This is classic for covert operations where the target is accused of something distasteful and that removes any chance of support from friends and family who, like the juries in the Making a Murderer cases, cannot fathom a reason why officials would lie about someone and frame them up.

Then, as noted before, there’s people like Myron May. May was a successful African-American attorney for many years. His entire life crumbled rapidly and he decided to try to raise awareness and go out via similar to “suicide by police.” While there could be additional motives for doing this to someone like May, it is obviously in part about “justifying” the bigotry that many people feel by creating phony narratives, anecdotal “evidence,” which if you spend much time on the Internet you know means a lot more to most people than percentages and other statistics. Again, this would serve to remove public empathy for the poor via guilt-by-association-via-skin color.


They are intentionally keeping us at each others’ throats. This is basic, ancient governance at work. Keep the rabble going after some other group you don’t like and they aren’t as likely to show up on your doorstep with pitchforks and torches saying “Pass single payer now,” “Raise the minimum wage,” “End the wars you are getting richer and richer off of,” etc.

It is also viewed as expanding the markets for NATSEC. If you can show that people of a particular skin color, religion, background, sexual preference, etc. are more prone to violence they you open up the possibility of new and expanded contracts for the intelligence community which is reportedly 70% private. That’s right, for every dollar spent, 70 cents goes into the public sector. It is a business. These people are in part drumming up business behind a veil of lies, covert operations, and ‘highly classified’ methods that cannot be scrutinized.

This is what they do. This is why they do it. What’s troubling me is not actually the nature of their game, but how few of us seem capable of connecting the dots within it. It’s greed. Is that hard to understand?


See also, regarding the bad portrayal of mental illness in film {which, to its credit, Hollywood spent some time in 2015 trying to repair somewhat}, that mass media teaches even when its stated function is entertainment and profits.

It might be tempting to write off these depictions of mentally ill people as merely harmless Hollywood distortions, but as advertising executives thoroughly understand, media images insidiously work their way into the collective unconscious of society and influence the way we all regard the world around us. Although none of the images described can be said to have arisen de novo, the question of whether society’s perceptions of the stereotypical representations came first cannot be resolved without empirical research. Regardless of which came first, it is important to recognize the effect that cumulative viewing of such images may exert.

Steven H. Hyler, “Stigma Continues in Hollywood,” Psychiatric Times, 1 June 2003:

And why that power comes with responsibility that should also mean accountability:

As I said, this hypocrisy isn’t interesting because it’s so utterly undeniable. However, what is interesting—and profoundly telling—is King’s explanation for his behavior. He says simply that “it makes no sense to talk about other [read: non-Muslim] types of extremism.”

The remark, of course, typifies a broader sentiment in America and raises the most important “why” question: Why do so many like King see extremist acts by non-Muslims as mere isolated incidents that “make no sense to talk about,” yet see extremist acts by Muslims as a systemic problem worthy of military invasions and now congressional witch hunts?

David Sirota, “The ’80s Origins of Today’s Anti-Muslim Bigotry,” Truthdig, 10 March 2011:

And note again how books published by the same country marketed to different places were published around the same time in, you guessed it, the 80s. See bottom portion.

{* Originally posted here.}