RT On Air

Saturday, 17 April 2010

No bail - go directly to jail


NSW has eroded the right to bail and many in the criminal justice system are speaking out about the injustice it is causing, writes Joel Gibson.
JUSTIN FILIPETTI was jailed last year, aged 18, accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in daylight in front of a 15-year-old witness.
In the Silverwater remand centre and later in Goulburn Jail, he was called a rock spider and given two serious beatings. He lost teeth and part of the sight in one eye.
On the day of his jury trial in February, prosecutors withdrew the charges. The judge, Paul Conlon, was furious.
''In my view this case screamed out for someone to scrutinise it very early,'' he said.
''When are the police or the [Director of Public Prosecutions] going to understand that if young victims are going to be interviewed there has to be some expertise in conducting them? I had time to review the evidence of both the victim and the young witness and their evidence appears poles apart. In this case, where a jury was to be asked to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt, the two versions could simply not stand together.''
The dressing-down was small consolation for the now-19-year-old Mr Filipetti, who will never get those eight months or his full vision back. His time inside was a nightmare, he said, and its legacy remained.
''I'm still being hassled by police. I get stared at in shops in Wollongong, I get called a rapist when I did nothing wrong. The way I see it, my charges weren't serious enough to deserve this.''
The case was a particularly egregious example of what more and more people in the criminal justice system are saying is a widespread problem with our bail laws. Although granted bail at his first attempt, prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court to put him inside. The magistrate who initially released him has since retired and is now free to speak his mind.
''Once I made an [apprehended violence order] against the kid I certainly didn't see any need to lock him up,'' Paul Johnson said this week.
But amendments to bail laws have long since made it more difficult for people accused of serious offences to await trial on the outside, even if they are unlikely to flee or interfere with witnesses.
''People are going into custody for things like driving offences - driving without a licence or while disqualified. You put people in custody who otherwise wouldn't go in and they are mixing with people who have long experience of custody. They come out worse than when they went in,'' Johnson said.
John's case is more everyday than Justin's, but no less frightening for anyone accused of a crime in NSW. He is preparing for a trial, so we can't use his real name. He was a cleanskin when arrested on charges of breaching an AVO and common assault. He has pleaded not guilty. A court will soon decide whether he is.
In the meantime, he spent six harrowing nights he will never forget in Silverwater jail.
''Silverwater is just extraordinary. There were people burning heroin into their arms with cigarettes … I noticed others less resilient than I am, crushed men looking drawn and fearful and apparently there, like me, for unchallenged allegations.
''When I got bail the prison officer shook his head and said, 'No one gets bail any more.' I have no previous criminal record. I'm employed full-time with a young child. I couldn't believe that the system could be so warped to have me sent to jail for a week.''
He was there because of the Bail Act's most controversial provision - section 22A. It says you get only one chance to apply for bail, so solicitors routinely advise their clients not to do so at their first appearance - usually a day after arrest and too soon to have everything in order. So John sat out a week behind bars while his solicitor prepared a winning application, rather than risk having to wait up to five weeks for a Supreme Court review and lose his job into the bargain.
Section 22A puts many inside for dubious reasons, former magistrate Johnson says. ''The solicitors just shrug their shoulders and sit down.''
One of the government's reasons for introducing the section in 2007 - to prevent the need for victims to repeatedly appear in court for bail applications - ''just doesn't exist'', he said. ''My experience is that never happened in my almost 18 years on the bench.''
The section has since been amended to make an exception for applications with new information, but the results are yet to be assessed.
Max Taylor is another former magistrate who is free to say what he thinks. Since retiring in 2005, he has embarked on a campaign that is the culmination of his 35-year career as a president of the NSW Teachers Federation, barrister and magistrate.
The 63-year-old returned to university in 2006 to complete a second arts degree, majored in politics, and wrote a thesis about the history of the Bail Act in NSW.
He then began building the Bail Reform Alliance, an unprecedented coalition of lawyers, prison staff, welfare advocates and civil libertarians, to challenge a 32-year habit of eroding the right to bail in NSW.
Taylor's research showed that high-profile crimes at key moments have convinced governments to remove the presumption in favour of bail for one type of charge after another, even though policy experts recommended it for all offences from day one.
In 1978, when then-attorney general Frank Walker introduced the Bail Act, only aggravated robbery was denied the presumption of bail. Statistics said banks were seventh on the list of robbery sites and only 3 per cent of robbers were on bail at the time, but two fatal armed bank hold-ups tipped the balance.
In 1986, serious drug supply charges were added to the list. Again, statisticians said there was no evidence serious drug suppliers were more likely than others to abscond, but they were no match for the impact of three royal commissions and the disappearance of an alleged ''top drug dealer''. In 1993, it was some domestic violence charges and murder, following the tragic death of domestic violence victim Andrea Patrick.
And in 1998, aggravated sexual assaults, manslaughter, kidnapping and malicious wounding were added, soon after the murder of two Bega schoolgirls.
All were horrific crimes. Each demanded a response. But Taylor's statistical analysis found no evidence that eroding the right to bail was the right answer. It was a leap of logic - a political trick, even - to say otherwise.
Government crime statistician Dr Don Weatherburn agrees, to some extent.
Research into juvenile offenders by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research last year found no link between tougher bail laws and reduced crime rates, he said. Whether the same went for adult defendants was a ''missing piece in the puzzle''.
But the changes to bail laws in 2002 had achieved a documented reduction in the number of accused people absconding.
''So some of the tightening of bail was done with good reason and had the desired effect. But that's not to say [that's the case] for every tightening,'' Weatherburn said.
''It's critical before you make decisions like that to ask, 'Are you actually improving the safety of the community?' Otherwise, the damage you do to the accused's rights doesn't have any countervailing benefits.''
The Law Society's president, Mary Macken, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, and the Public Service Association, which represents Legal Aid lawyers and prisons staff, also say the right balance needs to be re-struck.
They have added their voices to another recently formed lobby group made up of former judges, academics and defence lawyers, the Crime and Justice Reform Committee, which is lobbying for a rethink on law and order policies that have created a prison population of more than 10,200 costing more than $1 billion a year.
But they are facing off in an election year against the might of talkback and tabloid media, and victims groups and police who say our bail laws keep us safe at night.
Subscribing to the view that bail laws have helped to stem the flow of crime, the Police Association of NSW's secretary, Peter Remfrey, warns that ''any watering down would place the community at risk and would be opposed by front-line officers''.
Howard Brown, from the Victims of Crime Assistance League, said toughened bail provisions came about because too many magistrates released people who went on to reoffend. ''We said to the legal profession, we trust you, and they stuffed up, so we said we are going to restrict you until you get it right.''
He acknowledges there are people refused bail who should not be, but puts it down to inadequate defence by their lawyers.
He would rather see an innocent person in jail on remand than a guilty person committing another crime on bail. ''You have to remember, just because a person is acquitted doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It just means the Crown has been too slack to prove beyond reasonable doubt.''
But for former magistrate Taylor and others rallying to his cause, it has all been one-way traffic for 30 years and NSW is lost. ''Occasionally someone will get bail and go and do something terrible. But the only alternative to that is to give nobody bail.''

 Subscribe in a reader

Friday, 16 April 2010

For Name Players in the N.F.L., Try the Bob Smith Test

Next time you’re evaluating an N.F.L. player, be sure to run a Bob Smith Test. To do this, simply ask yourself, If this player’s name was Bob Smith, would I still notice him? How would my opinion of him differ? The answer could surprise you.

I first discovered the Bob Smith Test when watching film of the Miami Dolphins. I was paying close attention to linebacker Channing Crowder. After a few games, it dawned on me that a big reason I was focusing on No. 52 was because of his catchy name and reputation. But Crowder did nothing to warrant special attention, and I wrote in my notes, “If Crowder’s name was Bob Smith, fans wouldn’t know he exists.”

This got me thinking about players’ names and images. Take Brady Quinn. Because he played at Notre Dame, and because he’s a Brady Quinn, it helped stoke the perception that he could be something like a Tom Brady.

Harrington Quinn would be more of a match for reality.

Quentin Jammer is another example. He can’t pass the Bob Smith test. Jammer is a good cornerback, but he doesn’t play a flashy brand of football. Casual fans have no reason to remember him. Still, they do, because his name is Jammer. Jammer isn’t nearly as physical as he sounds, either. True, he uses his hands well in press coverage (he’s a good jammer), but many believe him to be a potent tackler. He’s not. Insiders describe him as soft.

Other players who probably wouldn’t pass – or at least not ace – the Bob Smith Test include Santana Moss (he’s essentially a Steve Smith ersatz whose first name is that of a rock star with the last name of an N.F.L. superstar); Takeo Spikes (he’s had a noble career, but he got on the map as a Bengal back when Bengal players didn’t get on maps); and Julius Peppers (his first name is smooth, his last name is pungent; without this, would we put up with his inconsistency?)

Many players pass the Bob Smith Test. Bob Sanders – whose real first name is Demond, by the way – won the Defensive Player of the Year award in 2007 despite being named Bob Sanders. Steve Smith in Carolina is virtually a household name. In fact, combine his Q rating with that of Steve Smith in New York and you definitely have a household name. All it took for Titans running back Chris Johnson to overcome his name was a 2,000-yard season. Johnson should buy the first name of his teammate, LenDale White (both would make good money from that). Think about it: Who would forget a dreadlocked speedster with a name as rhythmic as LenDale Johnson?

A few quality players don’t quite pass the Bob Smith Test. Saints defensive end Will Smith is one. If he had a snazzier name – or at least one not already taken by a movie star – he’d probably be more popular nationally. But only fans in New Orleans seem to truly appreciate Smith’s quickness and tenacity.

There’s an even more obvious example of a failed Bob Smith Test. In the 1999 Super Bowl, Rams linebacker Mike Jones made an unforgettable tackle against Kevin Dyson on the 1-yard line to preserve victory. But his name was still Mike Jones, which, in Latin, I believe, means Forget Me. So Jones is forever remembered as “That Guy For The Rams Who Made The Tackle On The 1-Yard Line.” (Although sometimes he’s remembered as “London Fletcher….Right? Was It London Fletcher?”)

Some players refuse to take the Bob Smith Test. Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson went so far as to change his name to Chad Ochocinco. Billy Johnson added “White Shoes” in the middle of his name. Joe Greene is a fairly plain name….until you stick “Mean” in front of it.

But I digress. The bottom line: When pondering a player or convincing yourself that your team’s big-money investment is wise (Raider and Redskin fans know what I’m talking about), ask yourself, If this guy’s name was Bob Smith, would I even notice him?

Andy Benoit is the founder of NFLTouchdown.com

 Subscribe in a reader

Coca Colla: the new 'real thing' in Bolivia

coca colla drink bolivia


A certain US soft drinks giant may disagree, but Bolivia has come up with a fizzy beverage it says is the real thing: Coca Colla.

The drink, made from the coca leaf and named after the indigenous Colla people from Bolivia's highlands, went on sale this week across the South American country.

It is black, sweet and comes in a bottle with a red label – but similarities to Coca-Cola end there. One is a symbol of US-led globalisation and corporate might; the other could be considered a socialist-tinged affront to western imperialism.

The first batch of 12,000 bottles, priced about $1.50 (96p) for half a litre, were distributed in the capital, La Paz, as well as Santa Cruz and Cochabamba.

The familiar-sounding name and packaging may rile the Atlanta-based soft drinks manufacturer, but Coca Colla could also cause groans in Washington.

It is made from the coca leaf, a mild stimulant that wards off fatigue and hunger, and has been used in the Andes for thousands of years in cooking, medicine and religious rites.
Coca is also the raw ingredient of cocaine, the powerful narcotic that is the primary target of the US-led "war on drugs".

Bolivia tried to wipe out the leaf at Washington's behest. But that was before Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian and coca grower, was elected president, championing coca as a crop with legitimate uses.
The socialist government vowed zero tolerance for cocaine but expelled drug enforcement administration agents, accusing them of spying, and encouraged Bolivian companies to use coca to make teas, syrups, toothpaste, liqueurs, sweets and cakes.

It backed Coca Colla from the beginning. "We are seeing how we can give it impetus, because the industrialisation of coca interests us," the deputy minister of rural development, Victor Hugo Vázquez, told the news agency Efe earlier this year.

If the coca spin-offs work out, the government said the area of land authorised for legal cultivation of the leaf may expand from 12,000 hectares to as much as 20,000 hectares.

The US warned that most of the coca crop would be siphoned off for cocaine, and accused Bolivia of failing to co-operate in the fight against drugs.

Coca-Cola, which denies ever having used cocaine in its recipe, did not immediately respond to requests for its views on the Andean upstart.

It is not the first time the corporation has faced a South American coca rival. In 2005, Paez Indians in south-western Colombia launched Coca Sek, which was also based on coca extracts, and sought to promote the cultivation and everyday consumption of the coca leaf, including in tea. But the drink was banned the following year amid pressure from the international narcotics control board, the body responsible for implementing United Nations drugs conventions.

 Subscribe in a reader

Thursday, 15 April 2010

'13 Bankers' In 4 Pictures: Why Wall Street Profits Are Out Of Whack

My three-year-old daughter, looking at 13 Bankers, said, "It doesn't have any pictures." (She was hoping for a book about yaks.) Actually, it has a few pictures, although they are just pictures of data. But those pictures themselves tell an interesting story.

The first part of the story is the "financialization of the economy." There are many ways to describe this phenomenon--looking at the ratio of financial assets to GDP, or the ratio of debt to income, and so on. But we thought this was the best way to show it.*
Those are corporate profits of the financial sector and the nonfinancial sector. It's an index, so the two lines are defined to intersect in 1980. Looking back from 1980, you can see that financial and nonfinancial profits grew at basically the same rate since the Crash of 1929. Then in the 1980s, financial profits took off into the stratosphere, defying even the crash of the stock market in 2000.

Remember that financial services are an intermediate product--that is, we don't eat them, or live in them, or put them on in the morning. They are supposed to enable a more efficient allocation of capital, so that the nonfinancial economy is more productive. But what we saw since the 1980s was the unmooring of the financial sector from the rest of the economy.

The right edge of the figure is also telling. That plunge in financial profits is Q4 2008--the three months right after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Wachovia. But then in the next three quarters, financial sector profits shot back up to the levels of the boom. That's called business as usual. And it's not what happened to the real economy.

If the hypertrophy of the financial sector wasn't good for the nonfinancial sector, whom was it good for? Bankers, for one. The chart below shows average annual compensation in the banking sector versus the private sector as a whole, in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. There's no need to use an index, since from 1948 until 1980 bankers made the same as everyone else. Then their compensation shot up in almost a straight line, while everyone else's plodded along.
And this understates what really happened, because that upward jump did not happen because bank tellers or customer service representatives started making more. It happened largely because investment bankers (and, later, hedge fund and private equity fund managers) started making much, much more, to the point where it began to have distorting effects on our society and culture, such as a shift in the career preferences of graduates of top schools.

So one question to ask is: why did this happen? We go into that in depth in the book, but here's one picture, from a widely-cited paper by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef. (That's with two L's--sorry it's wrong in the figure. It's right in the book.)
The dotted line is an index that the authors constructed of financial deregulation. The solid line is the ratio of average wages in finance to average wages in the rest of the economy. I think it speaks for itself.
So we have a deregulated financial sector, a highly profitable financial sector, and extremely well-paid bankers. What's wrong with that? Well, that's a debate that could go on for a while. For one thing, those high profits are largely the result of a high degree of concentration in certain markets (credit cards, mortgages, equity underwriting, derivatives, etc.), which means that there is not enough competition in the market. For another, look at this:
Those are the six largest banks today and their growth over the past fifteen years. This is what we mean by "too big to fail"--these banks, like Lehman Brothers before it, are so big and so interconnected that their failure could damage the financial system as a whole. As a result, they enjoy a widespread understanding that, in the event of a crisis, they would have to be bailed out by the government. This lets them borrow money more cheaply than their competitors, which means they will only get bigger and more powerful.
We're not saying that everyone has to agree with everything we say about these pictures. But they make clear what kind of financial system we have today. And they need some kind of explanation.

Now my daughter wants the next book to be about dinosaurs.

* Note that the figure numbers in the charts here are different from those in the book, because we renumbered the chapters after submitting the manuscript.

 Subscribe in a reader

Catalyst - School of Hard Knocks, longterm effects of multiple concussions suffered by footballers

Footballers take pride in their ability to take a few knocks on the chin, but the long term effects of multiple concussions are genuinely shocking. Jonica Newby visits neurologists in the U.S. whose findings are changing the rules of contact sports.

Download mp4
Download wmv

Transcript

HardKnocks small  
Ted Johnson
I would drive to the grocery store specifically to get something, you know, and... leave without getting it.

Chris Nowinski
I couldn't remember any of my friends' names.

NARRATION
It’s been an unspoken secret of life after football...

Andrew Heath
A lot of headaches.

Ted Johnson
The depression, the headaches...

NARRATION
...memory lapses, concentration problems, depression, suicide...

Andrew Heath
You wonder how long's this, how long's this going to go on for.

NARRATION
...caused not by drugs or serious injury, but a normal sporting life of multiple mild concussions.

Dr Anne McKee
The damage in their brains is actually worse than in the worst case of Alzheimer's disease.

Chris Nowinski
We can’t find a healthy brain in an ex-football player. It’s quite scary.

Jonica Newby
Football is everywhere in our culture. We love its drama, its gladiatorial battles. But only now is science revealing the true impact of this schooling in hard knocks.

NARRATION
Our story begins with Chris Nowinski. He had the life of your classic all round American hero. He was a Harvard graduate – a top college football player. And then he got the call from World Wrestling Entertainment.

Jonica Newby
How much fun was that?

Chris Nowinski
It was a blast. I was a bad guy. I played the snobby Ivy League jerk who liked to tell everyone he was better than them. It became not so fun after I kept getting kicked in the head. I kept getting concussions. And I also kept blowing them off because I never really understood what they were.

NARRATION
So he pushed on, despite chronic headaches and other baffling symptoms.

Chris Nowinski
I had no idea what, what that meant to suddenly develop sleep walking, to not be able to remember conversations, to forget your email password every day.

NARRATION
Forced to quit pro-wrestling after months of not getting better, Chris began researching the medical literature... which finally led him to an expert who could explain. Even minor concussions are cumulative. He had post concussion syndrome.

Chris Nowinski
Had I rested any of the concussions I’d had, I wouldn't be in the position I was in because when you injure the brain and then you keep stressing it, you make the injury much worse. And so when he told me those two things in the fall of '03, I was like you know I've been banging my head for 11 years for fun, never thinking twice about it, like I can't believe no one ever told me that.

NARRATION
Suspecting a hidden epidemic, in 2005, Chris used his academic contacts to co-found a brain bank, and boldly started calling for top sportsmen to donate their brains. Dr Anne McKee is a brain pathologist with over 20 years experience - and a keen football fan. So when the first footballers' brains started turning up, she was curious – which soon turned to pure shock.

Dr Anne McKee
Well this is the second NFL football player's brain that I looked at and what we see here is this tremendous build up of tau protein. It shows that there's a brown pigment. And for you to see it with the naked eye is extraordinary. And then if you do magnify the image, you can see it's forming this tangle inside the nerve cell, and eventually it'll cause the nerve cell to die.

Jonica Newby
Wow. So it almost looks like a quarter of these nerve cells are actually dead?

Dr Anne McKee
Oh oh absolutely if not more.

NARRATION
It’s a condition she’d only seen before in boxers - Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE – also known as being punch drunk. It’s a degenerative disease that doesn’t show up on brain scans – you can only see it once the sufferer is dead.

Jonica Newby
How many brains of footballers do you have now?

Dr Anne McKee
We have 11 football players. We're seeing this change in every single one. So we know a substantial portion of individuals who've played football are going to come down with this disorder.

Jonica Newby
Every single brain so far?

Dr Anne McKee
Right.

NARRATION
Just as startling, the first ex-footballer she saw had never even been knocked out – he’d only had minor concussions. But perversely, his football helmet, designed to prevent head injury, had allowed another kind of head impact to become part of normal play.

Dr Anne McKee
He'd been a linebacker and in the course of a single season, these individuals probably get about 1500
sub-concussive hits. So it may not be the concussion per se that's important, but just the cumulative effect
of all these minor head traumas over the course of the years.

NARRATION
All of which was worrying news to a man Chris Nowinski met in 2006. Ted Johnson is a genuine American football legend.

Jonica Newby
Look at this neck.

Ted Johnson
22 inches.

Jonica Newby
How do you get a neck that big?

Ted Johnson
Part of it is the hitting. When I take on a blocker, the first thing I hit him with is this part of the helmet. It just happens so fast, I hit him, and try and snap his head back, and then I can get my hands in. I was nicknamed Cement Head Ted.

Jonica Newby
Cement Head Ted?

Ted Johnson
Yeah, I had a hard head.

NARRATION
In a 10 year career with the Patriots, Cement Head Ted helped his team win three Super Bowls. But then came headaches – retirement – depression – and an ongoing suite of personality changes he couldn’t explain.

Ted Johnson
I would avoid stressful situations because talking with people I mean would exhaust me, just irritable all the time and that's, that wasn't me. That's just not who I was.

NARRATION
Then Ted saw the brains. It convinced Ted not only to pledge his own brain, but to break his silence and go public.

Ted Johnson
I knew it wasn't going to be popular. I knew I was going against the establishment but this story was so much bigger than football.

Chris Nowinski
So Ted came forward two weeks later before the Super Bowl, before the biggest game of the year, that was more news, and then people just started coming forward.

NARRATION
The story was huge. So huge that in late 2009, Congress announced a special hearing into the problems with football players. So what about Australian sport? We may not have the helmet factor, but our three biggest football codes are all high contact sports. In fact, the big hits are celebrated. Former Wallabies player Andrew Heath, who was originally a maths teacher, copped more than a few.

Andrew Heath
Um, I remember, a bell-ringer, but a big one - I reverted back to childhood, instincts. I thought I was playing AFL. And it took me three or four minutes to realise that I was, ah, the sport that I was actually playing and representing the country in.

NARRATION
After a season when he just kept getting bell ringers, he retired. To his dismay though, the symptoms didn’t.

Andrew Heath
Slight headaches, long periods where it's very, very difficult to concentrate.

Jonica Newby
And you have these still, 10 years on?

Andrew Heath
Yeah, absolutely. I've improved it to a point. I'm very happy with where I am. However I know colleagues and friends which have been a lot worse off.

NARRATION
And how about the hundreds of thousands of Australians who play sport at the school or amateur level? Well, many of us don’t even know what a concussion is.

Professor Mark Stevenson
In many instances, it’s not a loss of consciousness at all, it’s things like amnesia, dizziness or loss of coordination, nausea or headache

NARRATION
In a landmark study, Mark Stevenson’s group has spent the last three years painstakingly following the concussion incidence of over 3000 amateur rugby players.

Professor Mark Stevenson
10 per cent of those players sustained a concussion. 10 per cent is a very high rate of injury.

NARRATION
More striking – those who’d had one concussion were twice as likely to get another one that season.

Professor Mark Stevenson
Why? Some of that we think is they're going back to play before they've truly recovered. A lot of guidelines suggest a three week period out is sufficient. But we think it may be a much longer period.

NARRATION
And if your reaction times are still slowed, you’re more likely to get hit again. It’s not known what proportion of sportsmen and women will sustain long term brain injury – like post concussion syndrome or CTE - from multiple mild concussions. But a new unpublished study by the American National Football League found former footballers suffered memory disorders at 19 times the normal rate for men aged 30 to 49.

Jonica Newby
There’s no doubt football codes around the world are trying to tackle the issue. Team doctors are increasingly using psychometric testing to determine whether players are ready to return to play.

NARRATION
But even that isn’t mandatory in some codes – and very few schools or amateur clubs have access to this kind of tool. Meanwhile, back in America, the entire issue came to a head in October 2009 when Congress met for its hearing.

Chris Nowinsky
A month after those hearings, the NFL said all right we give up, we give up, you're right. We can't fight this anymore. We're, you know, concussions are a problem.

NARRATION
Late 2009, they announced the changes. No return to a game following a concussion. Players can only return to play after being cleared by an independent doctor. And they’d already announced mandatory baseline psychometric testing. It’s nearly everything Chris and his fellow campaigners had asked for – though they still want the hitting taken out of practice. In the end, no-one we spoke to wants to kill off their beloved sport. They just want the message out to players of all contact sports. Resist the pressure to simply take the hard knocks.

Chris Nowinski
I used to think that the guys who got concussions were soft. I mean this is only 10 years ago. Like you're not committed. And to think that today three of the top 10 running backs in the NFL are all sitting out right now with concussions. So literally overnight it switched.

Andrew Heath
If you get a bell-ringer, get off the field, put, put your hand up.

Professor Mark Stevenson
Take time out, basically take time out.
Topics: Health
  • Reporter: Dr Jonica Newby
  • Producer: Dr Jonica Newby
  • Researcher: Faye Welborn
  • Camera: Mike McEarchern, Kevin May, Brett Ramsay
  • Sound: John Osborn, Steve Radich, Greg Dowcra
  • Editor: Vaughan Smith

Related Info

Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, Boston University.
Sports Legacy Institute

 Subscribe in a reader

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Hungry Beast - Border Bashings



In October 2007, I was gangbashed in Coolangatta, Queensland – just across the NSW state border. But I didn’t get much help from the police – in fact, I found out the NSW and QLD police have a very strained relationship. As the months and years rolled by and the bashings continued, I started to wonder whether the border itself - which cuts my hometown right down the middle – could have something to do with the ongoing problem. So I went back – and here’s what I found out.

Download the Queensland Police Service Media Release response to HUNGRY BEAST.

If you have witnessed bashings or violent crime, please report it to Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000 or visit their website. You can do so anonymously.

Below is a list of all the media reports which led to HUNGRY BEAST'S investigation.

Witness weeps over dying man memory 13/4/2010 NBN GOLD COAST NEWS
Youth gangs controlling our streets? 8/4/2010 2UE RADIO SYDNEY
Youth speak out at rally 30/3/2010 ABC GOLD COAST RADIO
Youth violence out of control: Tweed protesters 29/3/2010 ABC NEWS ONLINE
Tweed rallies against youth violence 28/3/2010 NBN GOLD COAST NEWS
Parents attack youth violence 26/3/2010 Tweed Daily News
Fear grips border community 12/3/2010 ABC News Online

The Wild Frontier 1/3/2010 The Monthly Magazine
Tweed Mayor urges gang crackdown 9/2/2010 ABC News Online
Youth problems can’t be ignored 5/2/2010 Tweed Daily News
Youth violence in West Tweed 8/1/2010 Tweed Daily News
Off-duty soldier bashed by teens 29/12/2009 Tweed Daily News
Another bashing in Coolangatta 23/12/2009 Tweed Daily News
Bullied man’s desperate act 14/12/2009 Tweed Daily News

Vicious Coolangatta bashing: man charged 11/11/2009 Brisbane Times
Man faces manslaughter charge 7/9/2009 NBN Gold Coast News
Policing in the Tweed 5/2/2010 Stateline (ABC TV NSW)
Over the edge 5/2/2010 Stateline (ABC TV NSW)
Two bashed, one critical in hospital 25/9/2009 Tweed Daily News
One punch kills in Coolangatta brawl 7/9/2009 Gold Coast Bulletin
Schoolboy Jai Morcom beaten to death at recess 30/8/2009 news.com.au

Thugs take photo of bashed student 29/6/2009 Gold Coast Mail
Gang bash, rob men in Tweed CBD 16/6/2009 Tweed Daily Mail
Gang of eight bashes man in Coolangatta 8/12/2008 Tweed Daily News 

Teen kidnapped, left for dead, in gang attack 30/8/2008 The Courier-Mail
Let’s Kill Michael Murray” Myspace page formed 28/8/2008 Today (Nine Network)
Web kill club targets teen 27/8/2008 Tweed Daily News
Bra Boy extradited to Coast 10/1/2008 Gold Coast Bulletin
Bashing victim dies, charges upgraded 7/1/2008 The Age
Four hit court in severed ear case 20/12/2007 Gold Coast Bulletin
Gangs ruling no-go zones 19/11/2007 The Courier-Mail
Coolangatta-Tweed Community Safety Action Plan 1/7/2007 Blaze Consulting


 Subscribe in a reader

The Really Really Long War

Let's imagine that the Cold War was a detour. The entire 20th century, in fact, was a detour. Since conflicts among the 20th-century ideologies (liberalism, communism, fascism) cost humanity so dearly, it's hard to conceive of World War II and the clashes that followed as sideshows. And yet many people have begun to do just that. They view the period we find ourselves in right now — the so-called post-Cold War era — as a return to a much earlier time and a much earlier confrontation. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't discrete battles against a tyrant (Saddam Hussein) or a tyrannical group (the Taliban). They fit together with Turkey's resurgence, the swell of Muslim immigration to Europe, and Israel's settlement policy to form part of a much larger struggle.

Welcome to Crusade 2.0.

For those who see Islam as a civilizational threat, the key dates aren't 1945 or 1989 but rather 1683, 1492, 1099, and 732. The very mention of these watershed years stirs the blood of the modern-day crusader. In 1683, thanks to the intercession of the Polish cavalry, Christian forces beat back Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna, preventing Islam from spreading to Western Europe. In 1492, Christian armies recovered all of Spain from Muslim rulers. In 1099, during the first Crusade, the European army seized Jerusalem. And in 732, Charles Martel led the Franks in a victory over the forces of the Ummayad Caliphate, ensuring that Islam would not spread beyond its conquests in Spain.

Today, many Europeans are enlisting in a modern crusade. They see the threat of 732, with Islamic immigrants coming in from North Africa and bringing their culture and customs — like the mosque and the veil — to secular France and multicultural Switzerland. They see the threat of 1683, with Turkey planning to join and then take over the European Union. And they stand with Israel to protect Jerusalem from the demands of Palestinians and their supporters in the Arab world.

In defense of their crusade, they point to acts of terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists (the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2005 London bombings), occasional acts of violence (the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, a rash of honor killings), the fatwa against novelist Salman Rushdie, and so on. These incidents, they argue, add up to a pattern: an attempt to destroy the Judeo-Christian world, reestablish the caliphate dismantled by Ataturk in 1924, impose sharia law, and turn the world into a version of Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Although Muslims represent only 3-4 percent of Europe's population, today's crusaders see the outlines of Eurabia emerging, a Muslim takeover of the continent through shrewd politics and inexorable birthrates. A "civilization of dhimmitude," Bat Ye'or calls the endpoint of this strategy, in which "subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or peoples…accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death." Muslims will conquer "Europe's cities, street by street," the Weekly Standard's Christopher Caldwell argues in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.

This isn't just the opinion of a few intemperate pundits. A surprisingly large number of Europeans simply don't like Muslims. More than 50 percent of Germans and Spaniards "rate Muslims unfavorably," the Pew Global Attitudes Project diplomatically reported. The recent Swiss referendum banning future construction of minarets has proved quite popular among those polled in other European countries, writes Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Jeanne Kay.

"The populist right doesn't hold a monopoly on the clash-of-civilization narrative in Europe," she continues in Europe's Islamophobia. "Parties of the moderate right have jumped on the Islamophobia bandwagon to gain political capital from the sordid national identity debate. They are sometimes even joined by social democrats under the banner of liberal values. Mainstream politicians most often invoke 'Enlightenment' values to stigmatize features of Islam. In the Netherlands, the alleged incompatibility of Islam with the country's historic gay-positive culture is a critical argument in anti-Islamic rhetoric. But co-opting liberalism is particularly prominent in the debate over the veil in public spaces, a hot issue across Western Europe."

Islamophobia isn't even a dirty word in Europe. Novelist Martin Amis displayed a prejudice worthy of his father Kingsley's infamous anti-Semitism when he declared in 2006 that "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. Not letting them travel. Deportation further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or Pakistan." Even before September 11, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee proudly declared, "I am an Islamophobe." As journalist Peter Osborne wrote, "Anti-Semitism is recognized as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia."

Islamic extremists have certainly committed crimes. So have extremists of other faiths. But no one, as far as I know, has recommended the deportation of Christians and the strip-searching of people who look like they're from Iowa simply because of the Oklahoma City bombing or the killing of abortion providers.

The question here is whether Islam as a religion poses a threat to Europe or to the United States. Outspoken atheists like Christopher Hitchens have argued that all religions pose a threat to humanity. But the arguments of atheists aside, Islam isn't a threat unless you adopt the crusader mentality. Put simply, intolerance and bigotry lie at the root of Islamophobia — that and a thousand years of protracted conflict and bloodshed.

Here in the United States, fear of Islam ranks considerably lower than in Europe, according to the aforementioned Pew poll: 23 percent of Americans view Muslims unfavorably. But fear of an Islamic planet has clearly trumped fear of a Black planet: we elected Barack Obama, but only after he made strenuous efforts to ensure the electorate that he was a good, church-going Christian. Remember what John McCain said during the presidential campaign when a member of his audience accused Obama of being an Arab: "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man." Excuse me? I didn't realize that "decent family man" was the antonym of Arab.
"As a young American Muslim raised in this country, I'm not sure whether America is willing to truly incorporate Muslims or merely assimilate us," writes FPIF contributor M. Junaid Levesque-Alam in Muslims in America, "whether the nation views us as a potential pillar or a probable fifth column. Fine phrases about freedom cannot, after all, gild the discrimination, suspicion, and occasional outright hostility we have faced here amid the sustained neoconservative assault of the past decade."

It wasn't long ago that American Jews asked themselves the same questions. In the Pew survey, anti-Semitism was very low in the United States (only 7 percent of Americans had unfavorable views of Jews). In Europe, however, anti-Semitism has gone hand in hand with Islamophobia (46 percent of Spaniards and 36 percent of Poles viewed Jews negatively). For Europe, at least, the two intolerances have often intersected. In the first crusade, for instance, Christian forces engaged in a wave of attacks against Jews on their way through Germany and in the retaking of Jerusalem. Later, the re-conquest of Spain in 1492 coincided with the expulsion of the Jews, both events meriting more attention at the time than the travels of Columbus.

The seven crusades that lasted from 1096 to 1291 weren't just about Christians versus Muslims. In the Fourth Crusade, for instance, Christian forces attacked fellow Christians during the sack of Constantinople in 1204. "For three days and nights, the Crusaders murdered, raped, looted, or destroyed everyone and everything they could get their hands on. Untold thousands perished; many more were brutalized, maimed, left homeless," writes Colin Wells in Sailing from Byzantium. "In the great church of Hagia Sophia…looters stripped the silken wall hangings, smashed the icons, tore apart the gold and silver furnishings, and then brought mules inside to load with booty. Some of the mules slipped and fell, unable to regain their footing on the blood-slicked marble floor."

Today's crusaders, in their attacks on Islam, would have a hard time rivaling the murderous destruction of their predecessors. But they can still do serious damage — and not just to Muslims. In trying to "save" Western civilization, they will end up, like the looting crusaders in the Hagia Sophia, fouling the wellsprings of their own tradition and making a mockery of their professed values.

Blowback


In the days after September 11, George W. Bush said "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." The crusade language, after a barrage of criticism, quickly disappeared. And now, with the Obama administration, the "war on terrorism" has largely slipped out of the language, replaced by "overseas contingency operations." But however much the language has changed, Washington continues to make the same bone-headed mistakes in the global campaign against al-Qaeda and its supporters.

Consider the operation in Yemen. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington is pursuing policies in the name of counter-terrorism that just end up swelling the ranks of al-Qaeda. "Obama's pledge to 'strengthen our partnership with the Yemeni government' shouldn't lead to a Western embrace of President Ali Abdullah Saleh's government," explain FPIF contributors Peter Bouckaert and Christoph Wilcke in The Problems of Partnering with Yemen. "The United States and other outside powers also need to address Saleh's terrible human rights abuses, which help fuel al-Qaeda recruitment. In southern Yemen, for instance, the government has responded to massive and largely peaceful protests in favor of secession with unprovoked deadly gunfire on numerous occasions. Al-Qaeda has openly tried to capitalize on southerners' growing anger by declaring its support for their struggle against the 'infidel' government.

In Afghanistan, meanwhile, our much-hyped surge has not done much to improve relations with Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul. "The Obama administration recently demanded that the Karzai government reinstate an independent electoral commission and end corruption — in particular, by dumping the president's larcenous half-brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, who runs Kandahar like a feudal fiefdom," writes FPIF columnist Conn Hallinan in Behind the Afghan Fraud. "Karzai responded by flying off to Tehran to embrace the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and meet with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Given that the United States is trying to isolate Iran in the region, Karzai's Iran visit wasn't a happy moment for those on the Potomac."

Bibi and Drilling


Speaking of questionable allies, at top of the list these days is Bibi, a.k.a. Congressman Benjamin Netanyahu (R-Israel). In No Tea Parties for Bibi, Leon Hadar discusses Bibi's recent visit to Washington and the current downturn in U.S.-Israeli relations precipitated by Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

"The dispute over the settlements, however, did not reach a crisis point until Vice President Biden's visit to Israel in early March, when the Israeli government made an ill-timed announcement about the construction in Seikh Jarrah," Hadar writes. "Thus was ignited the most dramatic crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations since 1991, when President George H. W. Bush threatened to punish Israel unless it stopped settlement expansion in the occupied territories. In addition to being an Israeli diplomatic slap, the announcement jeopardized U.S. plans for 'proximity' talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Obama and his aides decided that unless they responded with a tough message, Washington could end up losing its credibility — or what's left of it — in the Arab world."

Hadar's analysis comes from Right Web, which has recently moved over from Political Research Associates to us here at the Institute for Policy Studies. IPS would like to thank Political Research Associates for its successful stewardship of the project over the last three years, and we look forward to working with the staff of Right Web to build on the impressive record of scholarship and advocacy the project has become known for.

Finally, we've partnered with Triple Crisis Blog to bring you Frank Ackerman's analysis of Obama's decision to pursue offshore drilling. "This administration is full of people who are way too smart to believe that offshore drilling will supply any noticeable part of our long-term energy needs," he writes in Why Is Obama Drilling? "In the overly clever mode of partisan triangulation — is there any other mode in Washington? — it smells like a concession designed to get a few Republican votes for a climate change bill. Oddly enough, our national policy is now to increase fossil fuel production in the hopes of winning support for reducing fossil fuel consumption."

 Subscribe in a reader

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Helen Thomas on her one question for Obama

More at The Real News

In part one of his interview with Helen Thomas, longest-serving member of the White House Press Corps, Paul Jay asks her about her first question for President Obama. The question, asking President Obama to name all the countries in the Middle-East that have nuclear weapons, was avoided by the President, who claimed to not want to "speculate". Thomas claims that knowledge of Israeli nukes is very public in DC and Obama's answer shows a lack of credibility. She explains the importance of this question for U.S. policy in the region. Finally, she confides that she has not been called on by the President since that day, but that if she does, she will ask him whether or not he has found any more information about nukes in the Middle-East since their last encounter.

Bio

Helen Thomas is an American news reporter, member of the White House Press Corps and author She was the first female officer of the National Press Club and the first female member and president of the White House Correspondents Association. Her latest book, co-authored with Craig Crawford is Listen Up, Mr President: Everything you Always Wanted Your President To Know and Do.
Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay at our studio in Washington, DC. Our special guest today is Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas has been a member of the White House press corps for over 58 years. She's covered every president since John F. Kennedy. She was the first member of the—. [...] She was the first female officer of the National Press Club, first female member and president of the White House Correspondents Association, and in 1975 she was the first female member and later became the president of the Gridiron Club. She's written five books. Her latest, with co-author Craig Crawford, is Listen up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted to Know Your President to Know and Do. [...] Listen up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do. So you've been telling presidents what to do for, like, a long time.

HELEN THOMAS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS, HEARST NEWSPAPERS: They don't take my advice.

JAY: Well, here's an example. President Obama—. First of all, welcome.

THOMAS: Thank you.

JAY: Thanks for joining us. So President Obama had his inaugural Helen Thomas question at his first press conference. And here's a little clip we're going to play from the press conference. [...] You asked the question. He avoids it, ducks. And then the microphone's there, and you're about to say, yeah, but what about an answer, and they take the mic away.

THOMAS: That's correct.

JAY: So President Obama really never answered your question about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and obviously you were asking—.

THOMAS: It would be pitiful if we took his answer truthfully, because he said, "I didn't want to speculate." Well, the president is not supposed to speculate as to who has nuclear arms or not. He's supposed to know.

JAY: Well, obviously, we know he knows, and it's—this is this great "we know, and he knows we know we know."

THOMAS: I was testing his credibility.

JAY: So that's the—it's actually quite a profound question, because it goes to the whole US policy in the Middle East. Not only does the US have a kind of a double standard on nuclear weapons when it comes to Iran and such, but what do you make of Obama's whole Middle East policy? Is there a break with Bush here or not?

THOMAS: Too one-sided in favor of Israel. Ignores all the horrors that have happened to Palestinians—their country's taken away, thousands imprisoned for many, many years. We give them arms, we give the aid to Israel, as it continues to occupy and just treat the Palestinians like they're newcomers—and these are Europeans who come there who have no ties to Israel, to Palestine.

JAY: When President Obama was elected and was first discussing foreign policy, there was a suggestion from him there would be a new approach to the Middle East. He made his speech in Cairo. He suggested—not suggested. He said that Israel should stop any settlement expansion. What's happened since all of that?

THOMAS: He took the easy way out, which is to go along with Israel, which most countries do. They have the power, propaganda, and everything else to sell their point of view. Palestinians have no voice.

JAY: So in terms of understanding—what President Obama's done is nothing new. This has been the White House approach for a long time.

THOMAS: Well, he was accused of being a Muslim, which is, you know, the worst thing that can happen to you, apparently. And I think he was afraid of that kind of tie.

JAY: But you've been covering the White House, as we said, for, like, 58 years. Is there—talk about the whole history of the US approach to Israel and the Palestinian conflict.

THOMAS: I think that we had—when Israel was created and they declared themselves in 1948, I mean, Truman went along. They knocked on his door at three o'clock in the morning. He did the unheard-of thing to get out and recognize the state of Israel—and while we were still debating the whole situation at the UN. Left our own representatives high and dry. Well, every president has been confronted with that. Eisenhower tried to be a little bit more evenhanded. Nixon sent a man, an envoy, to the Middle East as soon as he took office. It was former governor Bill Scranton. And he came back after a fact-finding trip for about one month. He told President Nixon we should be evenhanded in the Middle East. Zionists went out of their mind, saying, what do you mean evenhanded? It's like I'm telling you, why don't you try to be fair? That report has gathered that much dust [inaudible] but it never saw the real light of day. And every president has been confronted with this issue. And it is an issue. People have the right to defend their own country. Two thousand years.

JAY: Now, Jimmy Carter, in the last few years, has actually—he was, I guess, the first person at that level to actually acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons. He visited Gaza, he's talked to Hamas, and he's been saying there should be negotiation.

THOMAS: Hamas won the election. But if you read the news stories, they will say, oh, the Hamas took over Gaza, without ever saying it won an election. And former President Bush said that we would observe democratic elections. As soon as the Hamas won in Gaza, they shut down all aid, closed the doors, and so forth.

JAY: But did Carter—in terms of his policy towards Israel and Palestine, was he any different than all the other American presidents? When Carter was in power?

THOMAS: Yes. He got the first accord in the Camp David Accords, and Begin promised him a lot of things, a letter that will acquiesce to concessions. Never got the letter.

JAY: So President Obama comes to power with what seems like intent to do something different. What are the forces at play here? 'Cause we're winding up, as far as—I mean, you've said, and it seems rather obvious, that it's the same policies we've always seen.

THOMAS: That's right. I think American politics, pro-Israel. If you take a vote in Congress, maybe you might get five people vote against any further aid to Israel as it continues its occupation. That's about it. They control—they have fast power.

JAY: Who's "they"?

THOMAS: The Zionists.

JAY: And Obama went to AIPAC, the main lobby organization of the kind of right wing of the pro-Israel lobby, when he was running for president, and he said to AIPAC more or less what they wanted to hear, with the exception maybe of the no expansion of settlements. So he's actually following through on what he campaigned on. He's never really suggested a different policy, has he?

THOMAS: No, not really. He's following through, that's true. I don't think he's ever made any real commitments to the Palestinians.

JAY: In terms of what you understand about the inner workings of the White House and how decisions are made, are there any forces behind the scenes at play here to try to put pressure on Israel to have a different kind of policy? Or have they kind of given up on it?

THOMAS: I think President Obama gave up totally, early on. I don't think even tried. He realized he's going up against a stone wall. Why take that on when he has so many other problems?

JAY: So do you think that's it for his administration in terms of the policy towards the Middle East?

THOMAS: I think he'd just as soon forget it if he could. But more and more I think you can never escape the Middle East problem, as no modern president has been able to. At some point it'll come back to him.

JAY: At the next press conference with President Obama, assuming he calls on you—I don't know if he liked your first question very much.

THOMAS: I'm sure he didn't.

JAY: What do you want to ask him?

THOMAS: I want to ask him if he ever found out whether anyone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons.

JAY: Well, we'll see if you ever get a chance to ask that again.

THOMAS: I doubt it.

JAY: Thanks for joining us. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. This is the beginning of a series of interviews with Helen Thomas, but they'll be kind of interspersed, not one right after the other. We'll let you know when the next one is.

 Subscribe in a reader

Israel's Nukes

A nuclear conference of over 40 countries begins today in Washington, D.C. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to attend, but canceled on Friday.

JOHN STEINBACH

Steinbach wrote the paper "Israel's Nuclear Arsenal: Implications for the Middle East and the World."

He said today: "It's unfortunate that the administration has not invited Iran, North Korea and Syria to this conference, since it's largely supposed to be about preventing groups from getting nuclear material and the U.S. government has accused each of those countries in one way or another of at least being lax on the subject.

"We'll likely never know the real reason for Netanyahu not coming to the conference, but one reason might be that the U.S. is saying it wants a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and Israel is on record as being against such a treaty. Israel has the most opaque nuclear weapons program -- estimates range from 80 to 500 nuclear weapons. Regardless of the size of its nuclear arsenal, Israel has enough sophisticated nuclear weapons and the delivery system to destroy every country in the Mideast and southwest Asia.

"Contrary to what many are claiming, both Egypt and Turkey have stated that they had no plans to raise the subject of Israel's nuclear weapons at this conference in Washington, though many nations are sure to raise the subject at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] review conference in New York beginning May 1. It's clearly Obama's goal to come out of that conference focusing on Iran. The last NPT review conference ended in chaos when participating nations couldn't even agree on an agenda.

"Israel and the U.S. have had this so-called 'nuclear ambiguity' agreement since Nixon and [Israeli Prime Minister Golda] Meir, which continues to this day -- Obama was asked about Israel's nuclear weapons by Helen Thomas and he refused to answer."

Background: See the following recent interview with Helen Thomas, which includes video of her asking Obama about Mideast nuclear weapons at his first presidential news conference. Obama states he does not want to "speculate" if any nation in the Mideast has nuclear weapons. Thomas has not been called on by Obama since then. She states in this interview that if she is called on "I want to ask him if he ever found out whether anyone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons" but that she "doubts" she will be called upon again.

Steinbach will present his paper "Israel's Nuclear Arsenal: Implications for the Middle East and the World" on Wednesday at the Institute for Policy Studies.

 Subscribe in a reader

Monday, 12 April 2010

The "Pedophile's Paradise"

Alaska Natives are accusing the Catholic Church of using their remote villages as a “dumping ground” for child-molesting priests—and blaming the president of Seattle University for letting it happen.

One spring afternoon in 1977, 15-year-old Rachel Mike tried to kill herself for the third time. An Alaska Native, Rachel was living in a tiny town called Stebbins on a remote island called St. Michael. She lived in a house with three bedrooms and nine siblings. Rachel was a drinker, depressed, and starving. "When my parents were drinking, we didn't eat right," she says. "I just wanted to get away from the drinking."

Rachel walked to the bathroom to fetch the family rifle, propped in the bathtub with the dirty laundry (the house didn't have running water). To make sure the gun worked, Rachel loaded a shell and blew a hole in her bedroom wall. Her father, passed out on his bed, didn't hear the shot. Rachel walked behind their small house. Her arms were too short to put the rifle to her head, so she shot herself in her right leg instead.

Rachel was found screaming in a pool of blood by her Auntie Emily and flown 229 miles to a hospital in Nome. The doctor asked if she wanted to see a priest. She said yes. In walked Father James Poole—a popular priest, radio personality on KNOM, and, according to allegations in at least five lawsuits, serial child rapist. Father Poole has never been convicted of a crime, but the Jesuits have settled numerous sex-abuse claims against him since 2005, in excess of $5 million, according to an attorney involved in four of those five lawsuits. Exact figures aren't available because some of the settlements involve confidentiality agreements. The Jesuits have never let a single case against Father Poole go to trial.

In a 2005 deposition, Rachel testified that she had been molested by Father Poole in 1975, while in Nome for her second suicide attempt, an attempted overdose of alcohol and pills. He'd come sit by her bed, put his hand under the hospital blanket, and fondle her, she said.

She traveled between Stebbins and Nome several times in the late 1970s, spending time in hospitals and receiving homes. By 1977, Rachel testified, Poole had given her gonorrhea, and by 1978 she was pregnant with his child. In an interview with The Stranger, she said Poole encouraged her to get an abortion and tell the doctors she had been raped by her father. She followed his advice. "He brainwashed me," she said. "He messed up my head, man."

Rachel Mike's father died in 2004. A year later, she heard Elsie Boudreau, another survivor of Poole's abuse, being interviewed on the radio. Listening to Boudreau, Rachel was moved to finally tell the truth.

"He's gone, and I'll never have a chance to tell him in person," she said, talking about her father between heaving sobs. "I was scared. In a way he knew, but—he never even touched me."

"This man," says Anchorage-based attorney Ken Roosa, referring to Poole, "has left a trail of carnage behind him."

The only reason Poole is not in jail, Roosa says, is the statute of limitations. And the reason he's still a priest, being cared for by the church?

"Jim Poole is elderly," answered Very Reverend Patrick J. Lee, head of the Northwest Jesuits, by e-mail. "He lives in a Jesuit community under an approved safety plan that includes 24-hour supervision."

Roosa has another theory—that Poole knows too much. "They can't put him on the street and take away his reason for keeping quiet," Roosa says. "He knows all the secrets."

Father James Poole's story is not an isolated case in Alaska. On the morning of January 14 in Seattle, Ken Roosa and a small group Alaska Natives stood on the sidewalk outside Seattle University to announce a new lawsuit against the Jesuits, claiming a widespread conspiracy to dump pedophile priests in isolated Native villages where they could abuse children off the radar.

"They did it because there was no money there, no power, no police," Roosa said to the assembled cameras and microphones. "It was a pedophile's paradise." He described a chain of poor Native villages where priests—many of them serial sex offenders—reigned supreme. "We are going to shine some light on a dark and dirty corner of the Jesuit order."

The suit, filed in the superior court of Bethel, Alaska, the day before, accuses several priests of being offenders and conspirators. Among the alleged conspirators is Father Stephen Sundborg, who is the current president of Seattle University and was Provincial of the Oregon Province of Jesuits from 1990 through 1996. (The Oregon Province includes Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska; as Provincial, Sundborg was head of the entire province.) The suit alleges that while Sundborg was head of the Northwest Jesuits, he had access to the personnel files of several pedophile priests, including one named Father Henry Hargreaves, whom he allowed to remain in the ministry. "As a direct result of Father Sundborg's decision," the suit alleges, "Father Hargreaves was able to continue molesting children, including but not limited to James Doe 94, who was raped by Father Hargreaves in 1992, when James Doe was approximately 6 years old."

Roosa and his associate Patrick Wall (a former Benedictine monk who once worked as a sex-abuse fixer for the Catholic Church) said they knew of 345 cases of molestation in Alaska by 28 perpetrators who came from at least four different countries.

This concentration of abuses is orders of magnitude greater than Catholic sex-abuse cases in other parts of the United States. Today, Roosa said, there are 17,000 Catholics in the diocese of Fairbanks, though there was a much smaller number during the peak of the abuse. Roosa compared this lawsuit to the famous Los Angeles suits of 2001, which claimed 550 victims of abuse in a Catholic population of 3.4 million.

These abusers in Alaska, Wall said, were specifically sent to Alaska "to get them off the grid, where they could do the least amount of damage" to the church's public image.

One by one, the Alaska Natives—including Elsie Boudreau, the woman whom Rachel Mike had heard on the radio—took their turns before the cameras and microphones, talking softly and nervously and choking back tears. "I am Flo Kenny," a woman with a gray ponytail and sunglasses said carefully. "I am 74 years old. And I've kept silent for 60 years. I am here for all the ones who cannot speak—who are dead, who committed suicide, who are homeless, who are drug addicts. There's always been a time, an end of secrets. This is the time."

Alphonsus Abouchuk, wearing a black leather jacket and sunglasses, talked about how poor his family was and how the priests used to give him quarters after abusing him.

Rena Abouchuk, his sister, cried while she read a letter to a Franciscan monk named Anton Smario (currently living in Concord, California) who taught her catechism classes. "You did so many evil things to young children," she read, gripping her letter in one hand and an eagle feather tied to a small red sachet in the other. "God will never forgive you... You took a lot of lives." Six of her cousins, she later said, committed suicide because of Brother Smario.

The lawsuit states that Brother Smario offered children food and juice to coax them to stay after class: "He then would unzip his pants, and completely expose his genitals to these children, and masturbate to ejaculation as he walked around the classroom. He would ask the girls to touch his penis and would rub his erect penis on their backs, necks, and arms. Sometimes he would wipe or rub his semen on the girls after he ejaculated."

According to the allegations, Father Joseph Lundowski molested or raped James Does 29, 59–71, and 73–94, plus Janet Does 4–7—a total of 40 children—giving them "hard candy, money he stole from the collection plate, cooked food, baked goods, beer, sacramental wine, brandy, and/or better grades (silver, blue, or gold stars) on their catechism assignments in exchange for sexual favors."

The lawsuit also alleges Father George Endal raped and molested several boys—and, as Smario and Lundowski's boss, was the person who put Lundowski in charge of the boys dormitory in the Holy Rosary Mission School in Dillingham, Alaska, where catechism classes were split between Smario (in charge of the girls) and Lundowski (in charge of the boys). On separate occasions, Father Endal and another priest named Norman E. Donohue—who allegedly raped James Doe 69—walked in on Lundowski while he was molesting children and either quietly left the room or did nothing to stop it.

Father Francis Fallert, principal of the Copper Valley School and head of the all the Alaska Jesuits from 1976 to 1982, is accused of molesting Janet Doe 6.

The sheer concentration of known sex offenders in these isolated communities begins to look less like an accident than a plan. Their institutional protection looks less like an embarrassed cover-up than aiding and abetting. And the way the church has settled case after case across the country, refusing to let most of them go to trial for a public airing, is starting to look like an admission of guilt.

When Patrick Wall wore monk's robes, he must've looked like Friar Tuck. A former all-state football lineman, Wall has broad shoulders, a brawny neck, short reddish hair, and a habit of calling people "bro."

We met last week in Sea-Tac Airport's Alaska Airlines Board Room—a two-story business lounge, just past the security check, with conference tables, ergonomic chairs next to computer stations, and free espresso. He and Ken Roosa were there to meet with a client. Wall lives in California, Roosa lives in Anchorage, and many of their clients are on the West Coast, so they've done a lot of business in the Board Room. "I like to spend the night at home," Wall says, setting his airplane reading—The Name of the Rose—on the conference-room table.

Wall's first call as a sex-abuse fixer knocked on his door one morning in 1991, while he was brushing his teeth. Wall was not yet a priest, just a monk studying at St. John's University in Minnesota. The abbot came to his room before class with an urgent matter regarding another monk and said Wall would be moving into the boy's prep-school dormitory—immediately. The other monk "had an incident with a 14-year-old in the shower." Wall was to take his place.

Taken aback, Wall threw up every objection he could think of. He didn't own a computer and used the communal ones in the monastery. "We'll buy you a laptop." He helped with mass at a local parish. "We'll reassign you to campus ministry." He was on call for the volunteer fire department. "Not anymore." The abbot wouldn't take no for an answer.

So Wall packed up, moved into the boys dormitory, quickly intuited who else on the floor had been abused (5 out of the 90 residents), and coaxed them into talking about what had happened. Those cases never became public and were settled out of court. "If you're good," Wall says, "the assignments build." Wall was so good, he was ordained a year early and kept busy, working as many as 13 cases per month.

The job was harrowing and frustrating. "If you're the cleaner, you rarely find out the resolution to these things," Wall says. "Because survivors had to sign confidentiality agreements." The ultimate objective, for a cleaner, was to keep things quiet so the details never became public or went to trial. Wall slowly came to believe that his superiors were more concerned with protecting their public image than caring for survivors. It was, he says, a dark time, not least because he was struggling with his own vows of celibacy. In 1998, he asked to be laicized. By 2001, he was married to a ballet dancer and had a newborn daughter. By 2002, he was hired as a full-time researcher for the law firm Manly and Stewart investigating clerical sex-abuse cases.

Since then, he and Roosa—who often collaborate on cases with attorney John Manly—have worked over 250 cases together, all of them settled without going to trial. "I would like to see any of these cases go to trial to expose the corruption of the system," Wall says. But the church would rather pay the money than subject itself to public scrutiny, and survivors generally prefer to avoid the increased emotional turmoil of a trial. "There was one survivor who went through 11 days of questioning, of deposition," Roosa says. "The defense lawyers can make it so painful."

"If you bend a young plant, it grows at an angle," Roosa says. "Child sex abuse bends the character and maturation of a person—the abuse isn't the injury as much as the effect it has on people."

Father Poole's alleged abuses are particularly egregious, earning him a special place in Roosa's and Wall's hearts. He is their archetypal bad guy, their Dr. Mengele of the clerical sex-abuse world: Their clients have described, in sworn testimony, Poole pressing his erections against girls during junior-high dances, being caught by his own mother while masturbating in front of young girls, and much worse. "The defense lawyers have been so disgusted with Poole," Roosa says, "that they've told me off the record, 'anything you tell me about Poole, I'd believe.'"

According to a victim identified as Jane Doe 5 in a 2006 complaint, Poole first raped her during a private catechism class when she was 6 years old. From a direct transcript of her testimony:

He started fidget—finger—started to touch me digitally with his fingers. And at that time, when he started getting closer to me, I—there's a picture—I'm on the desk, a picture to the left of me is a picture of Jesus who's at the rock praying, and to my left I look at the picture to my left, and I look into James Poole's eyes. I turned away from the picture, looked into his eyes, and asked 'Not in front of Jesus, please.'... He kept telling me that in order to be a good little girl for God, I had to do this. That God wanted me to do this. And I remember a burning...

Then, she says, he raped her.

Roosa tells a story about Poole molesting a 9-year-old girl in Portland, Oregon, while simultaneously having an affair with the girl's mother. Poole supposedly told the girl's mother he would quit the priesthood and marry her, but abruptly returned to Alaska. The girl's mother committed suicide. According to Wall and Roosa, that same girl says she was molested by another priest, one who has been listed in at least three settlements in cases that reach back to the 1960s. They say that, in one incident, this priest was called to a house in Yakima to administer last rites to a dying woman in 1989. "He raped the woman on her deathbed," Roosa says. "He told the family to go into the other room, the husband heard a weird noise, went into the bedroom, and caught him raping his unconscious wife."

The woman didn't die, and by the time Roosa and Wall caught up with her family last May, the church had offered the family half a million dollars. The family said they'd file a legal complaint if Roosa and Wall could guarantee more than half a million dollars in compensation.

"No," Wall said. "Take it, bro."

Within hours of the press conference on the sidewalk in front of Seattle University on January 14—which essentially alleges that Father Stephen Sundborg allowed molester priests to minister freely as members of the Northwest Jesuits when it was his responsibility, as Provincial, to keep them away from children—Sundborg denied having any information about the Jesuit "dumping ground" in Northwest Alaska:

The allegations brought against me are false. I firmly deny them. I want the victims and the entire community to know that. The complaint filed by the plaintiffs' lawyers represents an unprincipled and irresponsible attack on my reputation. Let me be clear—my commitment to justice and reconciliation for all victims remains steadfast.

On January 31, Father Sundborg, through his spokesperson, responded to questions from The Stranger with this statement:

I want to be very clear: As Provincial of the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, I would never have put a child at risk. I was never aware of any claim of child abuse concerning either Fr. James Poole or Fr. Henry Hargreaves.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, as a member of the Society of Jesus, I personally and sincerely apologize for the pain that has been suffered through the actions of some members of our order.
I am disappointed that the plaintiffs' attorneys are attempting to use falsehoods and innuendo to fuel a media campaign. Their attack on my reputation is unprincipled and irresponsible.
Nonetheless, I remain firm in my resolve to seek justice and reconciliation for all victims.

With the exception of Father Hargreaves allegedly raping James Doe 94 in 1992, no abuses—at least none that have been reported—occurred while Sundborg was Provincial.

Still, Wall says, "Stevie has a little problem."

Hargreaves, Poole, and other problem priests continued to work in the ministry during Sundborg's tenure between 1990 and 1996 and, in Elsie Boudreau's words, "We know that he knew."

Father Poole came under scrutiny as early as 1961, when complaints about his behavior reached Rome and the Father-General of the Jesuits initiated an investigation.

In 1994, Poole was sent to the Servants of the Paraclete—a Jesuit-run psychiatric facility for troubled priests in Jemez Springs, New Mexico—where, he later testified in a 2004 deposition, he learned that he had boundary issues, that he "wasn't this great king and lover," and that "French-kissing" a 12-year-old girl is "wrong."

Poole denies raping anyone but admits to "French-kissing" Boudreau—and emphatically denies that French-kissing her was in any way sexual. "With Elsie, I have never had any sexual impulse," he said in the 2004 deposition, "never had any sexual temptation." Later in this same testimony, John Manly asked Poole whether he had ever French-kissed his own niece.

"No," Poole replied.

"Why?" Manly asked.

Poole hesitated.

"Why not?" Manly insisted. "I think I know the answer, but I want you to say it."

"We were not that close, for one thing," Poole replied. "My brother had always lived away from us."

"Any other reason?" Manly asked.

"No," Poole said.

Monthly progress reports were sent to Sundborg during Poole's treatment in Jemez Springs. After his release, Poole continued to work as a hospital chaplain in Alaska until November of 2003, when Roosa threatened to sue the Bishop of Fairbanks over the childhood abuse of Elsie Boudreau. Poole retired shortly thereafter and was sent to Spokane, to live in an apartment near Gonzaga University. (Attempts to contact Father Poole for comment were unsuccessful.)

Father Sundborg testified in 2005 that he sent at least eight priests—including Father Poole, Father James Laudwein, and Father Craig Boly—for psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Stuart Greenberg, a leading consultant on clerical sex abuse for the Northwest Jesuits. After their visits with Dr. Greenberg, Poole, Laudwein, and Boly were returned to active ministry.

At the time of Sundborg's 2005 testimony, Father Laudwein was a defendant in a sex-abuse suit that ended in 2007 with a $50 million settlement, according to the Anchorage Daily News. And, in 1992, Father Boly wrote an essay for a book called Jesuits in Profile: Alive and Well in the U.S. about his attraction to high-school girls:

I remember being reprimanded more than once for spending too much time with visiting coeds from other local high schools. My rationalization was that if attractive young women brought their problems to me, it must be an opportunity for apostolic service. What I neglected to consider was what needs of my own the interactions with the women students were meeting.

Sundborg also contributed an essay to Jesuits in Profile, but testified in 2005 that he had no recollection of reading the book.

Dr. Greenberg—the counselor to whom Sundborg had sent Poole, Laudwein, Boly, and others for evaluation—was arrested in the summer of 2007 for surreptitiously filming staff members and patients using the bathroom at his office and, according to Roosa, filming himself masturbating while watching the films. A few weeks later, he rented a room at a motel in Renton, where he committed suicide. Police found him with a bunch of bottles of prescription pills and two slashed wrists.

"I wish I could offer you some adequate explanation," his suicide note read. "I just don't know. I deeply and profoundly apologize."

This isn't Sundborg's first go-around with fending off a sex-abuse case. In 2006, the Jesuits settled a $350,000 suit against Father Michael Toulouse, a philosophy professor at Seattle University accused of abusing a 12-year-old boy in his residence in 1968. At the time of the settlement, Father Sundborg argued that Seattle University wasn't liable, even though the abuse happened on campus, because the abuse occurred outside of his official duties as a teacher—a rare Catholic argument for the separation of church and sex.

Complaints against Toulouse (who died in 1976) date from 1950, when a Spokane father threatened to shoot Toulouse, who was then teaching at Gonzaga High School. Toulouse was transferred to Seattle, where he allegedly molested several boys, including the son of a widow in 1967. The widow and another Jesuit wrote to the province in 1968 requesting action. (Father Toulouse continued teaching at Seattle University until 1976.) When the widow's son sought compensation in 1993, Sundborg wrote back, according to the Seattle Times: "There is nothing about this matter in the provincial files, in the personnel files of Fr. Toulouse, or in the files of Seattle University."

That may be. But Father Thomas Royce, Provincial of the Northwest Jesuits from 1980 to 1986, just four years before Sundborg became Provincial, has testified that similar information about Jesuits does exist in the personnel files—that they contain information that is "special," "not public," and "not good."

He called them "the hell files."

Elsie Bourdreau is a Yu'pik Eskimo with short brown hair, plump cheeks, and, when she is not testifying at grim press conferences, a radiant smile. As Janet Doe 1, Boudreau was the first person to speak publicly about being abused by Father Poole. She kept silent about her abuse until 2005, when her daughter turned 10. "I was 10 when the abuse started," she says. "And I just couldn't shield it from my consciousness anymore." She's now employed as a consultant to law firms pursuing clerical sex-abuse cases, including the firms where Wall and Roosa work.

When Boudreau was a child, the villages of Northwest Alaska were only accessible by plane, boat, or dog sled. Many still are. For the most part, they didn't have public schools, cops, or telephones. Many of the houses were one room and lacked food and consistent heat in the below-zero weather. "The perps would soften up their victims with food and warmth," Wall says, "because that's what the kids didn't have. 'It was always warmer in the rectory,' they say. 'There was always food in the rectory. There was always candy.'"

In those villages, the priests had unusual authority. "In the village, our elders loved the church and the priests so much," Boudreau says. "They were like honored guests in our land. The priest had the utmost power, power that historically the village shaman would have had." If children complained about the priests, it was tantamount to complaining about the village shaman. "I've talked to hundreds of victims in Alaska," Boudreau says, "and many were physically hurt by parents for speaking about this."

The priests came to occupy the role of shamans by a weird confluence of history and microbiology. In the early 1900s, a Spanish-influenza epidemic ripped through Northwest Alaska, sometimes killing entire villages. They called it "the Big Sickness" or "the Big Death."

Winton Weyapuk was a child in Wales, Alaska, and was orphaned by the epidemic. In an interview from 1997, he recalled that the flu came on a dog sled. The mailman, on his monthly delivery, brought the corpse of a man who'd died on the way to Wales. Curious villagers crowded around the corpse. "The men, women, and children who came to see this body went home, and many got sick and most of them died before the next morning."

Weyapuk's father died that first night, so the family moved into an uncle's house. Most everyone in the uncle's house died, and Weyapuk and his brother Dwight lived in a one-room sod house with four corpses until someone found them. He recalls seeing white men building tripods over the sod houses, using block and tackle to pull frozen bodies up through the skylights, then blasting holes in the frozen ground with dynamite for mass graves. Family sled dogs, neglected and starving, roamed the streets and fought over human remains.

The shamans, normally counted on as healers, were helpless. The population was decimated, and the social structure had to be created from nothing: Another Wales resident remembers that, in the aftermath, so many families had been destroyed that an official from Nome came to the village with a stack of notarized wedding licenses. He lined up all the surviving men, all the surviving women, and all the surviving children, and built families at random.

Catholic missionaries made major inroads into these communities in the aftermath of the Big Sickness. (Along with the Baptists and Orthodox churches. The major churches had a summit in Sitka years prior and divided up their geographical spheres of influence.) The missionaries brought flour and coffee, built orphanages and schools. "They looked at the shamans as evil and of the devil," Boudreau says. A new social order was created. In the villages of Northwest Alaska, the Jesuits stepped into a tailor-made power vacuum.

The history of child molestation in the Catholic Church goes back centuries. The first official decree on the subject was written at the Council of Elvira, held around A.D. 305 near Granada, Spain. The precise history is complicated, but the council is traditionally believed to have set down 81 rules for behavior, the 71st of which is: "Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches." It was the harshest one-strike policy: If you're caught abusing a child, you are not only laicized, but permanently excommunicated—damned for all time.

The other major condemnation of clerical sex abuse was The Book of Gomorrah, completed by radical church reformer Father Peter Damian (a Benedictine monk, as it happens, who became a cardinal) in 1051. He appealed directly to the pope about the abuse of children, as well as consensual sex among clergy—in howling language: "O unheard of crime! O outrage to be mourned with a whole fountain of tears!... What fruitfulness can still be found in the flocks when the shepherd is so deeply sunk in the belly of the devil!"

In the 1930s, a priest-psychiatrist—and also a Benedictine—named Reverend Thomas Verner Moore researched the higher-than-usual rates of insanity and alcoholism among Catholic clergy. He suggested the church build an asylum for priests. The U.S. Catholic Bishops turned down his request in 1936. Father Moore became a Carthusian hermit.

In 1947, Father Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez, New Mexico—the same institution Father Poole was to visit almost 50 years later.

In a 1957 letter to the Bishop of Manchester, Father Fitzgerald wrote that predatory priests (who he euphemistically refers to as "schizophrenic") cannot be effectively treated and should not be allowed to continue in the ministry:

Their repentance and amendment is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures... We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the cure, or care, of souls].

By the early 1960s, Father Fitzgerald had seen enough chronic pedophiles that he did not want to treat them and have them rereleased into the ministry, but, as he proposed in a letter to Archbishop Davis, to build an "island retreat... but even an island is too good for these vipers."

In 16 centuries, church policy had evolved from one strike you're out to 30 strikes and you're sent to an island in the Caribbean.

In 1965, according to an affidavit from Fitzgerald successor Father Joseph McNamara: "Father Gerald purchased an island in [the Caribbean], near Carriacou, which had an abandoned hotel, damaged by fire, on it. This hotel was entirely removed from any civilization... This was to be Father Gerald's long sought after 'island refuge,' but it did not come to be. As is described below, Archbishop Davis ordered Father Gerald to sell the island."

Shortly thereafter, Father Fitzgerald was asked to step down. "It all became too public," Wall says. "The Holy See would never be able to explain Father Fitzgerald's leper island for pedophile priests."

In 1985, two priests and a lawyer—Father Michael Peterson, Dominican Father Thomas Doyle, and Ray Mouton—presented a report to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The report, which reads more like concerned advice than a condemnation, warns that high rates of abuse and high rates of recidivism for "treated" priests could cost the church over $1 billion and a major loss of credibility in the coming decade.

Later that year, in the first highly publicized case of a pedophile priest in the United States, Father Gilbert Gauthe admitted to abusing 37 boys in Louisiana. He accepted a plea bargain, was sentenced to 20 years, and served 10. By 1997, according to the New York Times, he had moved to Texas, where he was "arrested for fondling a 3-year-old boy" and put on supervised probation. (According to the Times, "Texas authorities did not know of his criminal record in Louisiana.") In April 2008, he was arrested again for failing to register as a sex offender.

In 1993, Canice Connors, the director of St. Luke's, a psychiatric institute for troubled clergy, told the Los Angeles Times: "The Catholic Church in North America possesses the greatest data bank of evaluation and treatment of nonincarcerated pedophiles on the continent. That data should be analyzed scientifically and shared with others studying the problem." He was in Milwaukee to present his findings to the U.S. Conference of Bishops.

In 2003, the Archdiocese of Boston agreed to pay out $85 million to 552 victims of clerical sex abuse.

Also in 2003, in the midst of negotiations to settle four claims of clerical sex abuse with the Diocese of Fairbanks, one of the church's mediators told Ken Roosa that the dioceses didn't want to offer more than $10,000. "They said they couldn't offer more money to an Alaska Native because they'd just get drunk and hurt each other," Roosa said. "And it would just encourage more victims to come forward. Unbelievable."

In September 2005, former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—who'd just become the pope—asked the justice department of the Bush administration to grant him immunity from prosecution in sex-abuse cases in the United States. Ratzinger, the onetime head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was accused of "conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian" in Texas, according to the Associated Press. Ratzinger had "written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that 'grave' crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation. The proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to 'pontifical secret,'" Ratzinger's letter said. The Bush administration granted Ratzinger the immunity.

In 2007, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of clerical sex abuse.

Why does the church keep sending these priests, who have come to be such a major liability, back into ministry? "It's all about keeping the stores open, keeping the revenue rolling," Wall says. The Alaskan provinces in particular, Wall says, were a source of revenue—not from the Native population living there, but from parishioners in the lower 48 who were encouraged to donate for the Native ministry up north. "You could raise thousands to fund a mission that cost very little to run," Wall says. "The profit margin is huge."

T he lawsuits against the Northwest Jesuits regarding abuses of Alaska Natives are not over. Within the coming weeks, Roosa and Wall say, more claims will be filed, more press conferences will be held, and more stories will come out.

"We talk about how we feel like we're doing God's work," says Boudreau. "It's something bigger than all of us. We're working to reveal the truth of what happened."

 Subscribe in a reader