Yet, the Mississippi state coroner has refused to perform an autopsy on the body of Chokwe Lumumba, who was elected by a landslide in June and died last Tuesday after checking into a hospital. The coroner says only that the mayor succumbed of “natural causes.”
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Article 18 of the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution (currently in effect):
Article 18 The foreign political activity of Ukraine is aimed at ensuring its national interests and security by maintaining peaceful and mutually beneficial co-operation with members of the international community, according to generally acknowledged principles and norms of international law.The recent revelations of Victoria Nuland's telephone conversations, among other released communiques puts the US (among other parties) in direct violation of Article 18 of the Ukrainian Constitution. By fomenting the removal of the democratically elected president the the US did notmaintain "peaceful...co-operation with members of the international community nor did it ensure Ukraine's national interests.
Article 105 The President of Ukraine enjoys the right of immunity during the term of authority. Persons guilty of offending the honor and dignity of the President of Ukraine are brought to responsibility on the basis of the law. The title of President of Ukraine is protected by law and is reserved for the President for life, unless the President of Ukraine has been removed from office by the procedure of impeachment.Impeachment you say? What are the legal means of removing the President of Ukraine?
Article 108 The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine. The powers of the President of Ukraine terminate prior to the expiration of term in cases of: resignation; inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health; removal from office by the procedure of impeachment; death.
Article 111 The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime. The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special Prosecutor and special investigators. The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine. The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.Where was the "state treason" or "other crime"? Where was the court case proving either of these? Take a look at Article 106 and tell me what, under those powers Yanukovych violated. Now as far as the protestors:
Article 37 The establishment and activity of political parties and public associations are prohibited if their program goals or actions are aimed at the liquidation of the independence of Ukraine, the change of the constitutional order by violent means, the violation of the sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of the State, the undermining of its security, the unlawful seizure of state power, the propaganda of war and of violence, the incitement of inter-ethnic, racial, or religious enmity, and the encroachment on human rights and freedoms and the health of the population.The evidence speaks for itself on this point.
Political parties and public associations shall not have paramilitary formations.
The creation and activity of organizational structures of political parties shall not be permitted within bodies of executive and judicial power and executive bodies of local self-government, in military formations, and also in state enterprises, educational establishments and other state institutions and organizations.
The prohibition of the activity of associations of citizens is exercised only through judicial procedure.[My emphasis]
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are pushing for harder language on sanctions. The wording on Georgia and Moldova is important for them as a warning to Russia that it will not be allowed to pick off countries wanting closer links to EU. Diplomats tell me that the demand for “quick steps towards the dissolution of any paramilitary structures” could be dropped because it would also apply to Kiev groups, particularly the far-Right nationalist groups that are the backbone of the new government there.[My Emphasis]
You may find it here:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036701?seq=11 Since the US State Department is calling out Russia in part based on the said treaty, let's understand what part of the treaty has Russia concerned.
Each of the Parties shall abstain from in,or High Contracting participation support of,any actions whatsoever directed against the other High Contracting and itself not to enter into with third countries Party, obligates any agreements directed the other Neither of the Parties will its to against Party. permit territory be used to the detriment of the other Party's securityWith some of the "new government" parties cooperation with NATO and NATO aligned countries which have been, since it's inception, directed at one of the "High Contracting Parties" (guess which) the alignment with the US particularly with the taped evidence of one Victoria Nuland puts the current Ukraine government in direct violation of Article 6 of said agreement.
In the event that a situation should arise which,in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties,creates a threat to peace,violates the peace,or affects the interests of its national and territorial security,sovereignty integrity, it may appeal to the other High Contracting Party proposing immediately consultations. The Parties shall exchange information appropriate information and,where necessary ,take agreed-upon or joint measures in order to resolve such a situation.The coup in Ukraine was a definitive "situation" that "creates a threat to peace, violates the peace," and "affects the interests of it's national and territorial sovereignty." The US being caught on tape admitting to spending it's time and money in creating an uprising to overthrow the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine with talk of who it wanted in power in a state that borders Russia pretty much defines, threat to national and territorial sovereignty. Since Russia considers (considered) Yanukovych to be the lawfull leader of Ukraine (as do I) Yanukovych was the "High Contracting Party" legitimately able to confer with Russia. The US is free to dispute that assertion, as it has, but that does not make Russia's claim false. Furthermore claiming that Yanukovych was declared by Russia as politically dead does not make him non-legitimate (under the Ukraine constitution). It does mean that he would not have won a legal and fair democratic election.
The Parties shall use the necessary means, including ratification of appropriate acts,on their territories for the prevention and termination actions that constitute instigation of violence, or violence against individuals or groups of citizens that is based on national, racial, ethnic,or religious intolerance.Two words: Right Party. The US State Department says that there is no evidence of violence against Russians (or other groups). Given how quickly Russia put it's boots on the ground to prevent such actions I'd say "duh". In the end the facts of what is happening on the ground are really not in dispute for those interested in them. What we are seeing is politics. Personally I cannot understand how a country 5000+ miles away can claim interest in and penalize a country that borders a place that just had a coup for taking actions to protect it's interests. But saying Russia to an American is like waving meat in front of a hungry dog. Never fails in getting them to act a fool.
n a message to Congress, which is working on separate sanctions legislation that would give the president further sanctioning powers, Obama said: “I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the ‘order’) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Ukraine.Do you know where the Ukraine is? Do you know where the United States is? How exactly is what is going on 5,687 miles away from the United States a "threat to the national security" of the United States? And, if what is going on is a "threat to the national security" of the United States then how much more of a security threat is the situation in Ukraine to Moscow which is 500 miles away from Kiev? Who exactly has more at stake, national security wise, from the goings on in Ukraine? Are you an idiot? And what "foreign policy" is threatened? Oh, the overthrow of governments the US does not like? Say, is it now the fact that international law is whatever the US decides it to be? Are you an idiot?
At a press conference in Sevastopol, Rustam Temirgaliev, the Crimean vice-premier, said the referendum was being held purely to ratify the decision of the Crimean parliament to join the Russian Federation, and the parliament had appealed to Russia to assist with this.Since this isn't Russia Times and therefore "unbiased" (hearty laugh) then lets take it for truth shall we. This is a game changer. Remember Kosovo? They up and decided to declare themselves an independent state with the US' blessing. How now can the US make any complaints about this declaration having already approved of the same action done by others? Oh right, it's the whole "governments we approve of" thing. Silly me. And how ironic is it that the "new government" in Kiev, itself a result of a unilateral decision to unconstitutionally oust it's prime minister and breech an agreement brokered with the EU, to up and declare what other parts of Ukraine is or is not legitimate.
He said Crimea was Russian with immediate effect: “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation, the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.”
The referendum was immediately denounced as illegitimate by the new government in Kiev.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
I see. And so the Neo Nazi's walking around Kiev are what then? Hillary Clinton is proving that she is qualified to be president of the US by showing that she too thinks you're an idiot.
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, during a visit Tuesday to the Ukrainian capital, accused Russia of gun-barrel diplomacy and brutish behavior more befitting the war-racked 19th century. Moscow, he said, has chosen aggression rather than one of the "countless outlets that an organized, structured, decent world has struggled to put together to resolve these differences so we don't see a nation unilaterally invade another nation.Really? Really? Kerry truly believes we're all idiots.
"It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve," Kerry [my emphasis]
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
So to round out our analysis of Western "free press" we have the Guardian UK with: Five fibs from Vladimir: how Putin distorted the facts about Ukraine Fib? We're talking about a possible civil war going on in Ukraine and The Guardian uses the term "fib"?
1. The unidentified armed men who took control of Crimea were local self-defence units Although the uniforms did not have insignia, they were easily identified as Russian army issue. The men also seemed suspiciously well trained. Putin argued that anyone could have bought Russian uniforms: "The post-Soviet space is full of such uniforms." Yet the military-grade weapons that the troops were carrying, from Kalashnikovs to Dragunov sniper rifles to bazookas, are not as easy to explain away. Also, Guardian reporters have seen unidentified troops taking over Crimean airbases driving in military vehicles with Russian plates, which the foreign ministry has admitted are moving around the peninsula.I suppose Alec Luhn does not know that: a) Russia has and been had their own soldiers in Crimea. b) That even with Russian troops there that does not mean that self-defense forces made up of locals and defectors are not also engaged. And given the friendly terms between Crimea and Russia, why wouldn't local groups not have access to Russian goods?
2. Western-backed forces carried out the coup Putin said that the downfall of former president Viktor Yanukovych's government had been backed by western countries and incited by people "sitting in America doing experiments, like on rats", adding: "I think that this was all well prepared. Of course there are military units and they are there to this day, they are well-prepared and in this the western instructors did well." While western donors have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups campaigning against Yanukovych's regime, there is no evidence that either the US or UK have trained opposition forces militarily. The so-called "self-defence units" which took part in the pro-European protests did not appear to have any military training, displaying instead some poor discipline and relying on improvised equipment such as motorcycle helmets and table legs.Two words: Victoria Nuland. And the amount SHE said was $5 billion. Next!
3. Protesters in Ukraine were killed by former opposition snipers The president said that the dozens of anti-Russian protesters killed by sniper bullets were victims of their own leaders. "There is the opinion that [snipers shot] on the orders of one of the opposition parties," he said, despite eyewitness accounts of police snipers shooting protesters. While Putin cited "freely available information" to back his claim, there is also video footage of snipers in police uniforms shooting at people.I have read similar rumors that there were plants in the protestors (or state agencies) that also did sniping. I actually don't even understand the point of this one. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on violence so if they have been authorized to shoot then they have been. But in regards to the "fog of war" I point the reader to the following:
As it turns out, political analyst, F. William Engdahl has done a bit of research on the group and gives a rundown in a recent article titled “The Rape of Ukraine; Phase Two Begins”. Here’s what he says: “The question unanswered until now is who deployed the snipers? (who shot into the crowd in Maidan Square) According to veteran US intelligence sources, the snipers came from an ultra-right-wing military organization known as Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO).And I'll leave you to judge for yourself.
4. Pro-Europe demonstrators shot and burned former ruling party employees Putin claimed that protesters had shot one employee of the former ruling party and set another on fire. In reality, protestors threw stones and Molotov cocktails at a Party of Regions office on 18 February, after which a fire broke out. Emergency services rescued several people but were not able to save one office worker who died in the blaze. There were no credible reports that anyone had been shotSo Putin was lying, but this guy then runs down the scenario but tries to discredit it by saying the reports were "not credible". Essentially this guy is saying that because he chooses to not believe the reports therefore Putin is a liar. No. For Putin to be lying (in this instance) he would have to know that the report was false and still present it as truth.
5. Yanukovych is the legitimate president of Ukraine When it came to the ousted Yanukovych government, Putin seemed to want to have his cake and eat it . On the one hand, the Russian president said he agreed with protesters that Ukraine's previous regimes were all "crooks" and admitted Yanukovych had no power and no political future. On the other, he still insisted Yanukovych remained the legitimate president.Does this guy know what a coup d' etat is? So yup. The Guardian UK thinks you're an idiot. Are you? [Update 3-5 9:26AM] Apparently someone at the Guardian decided to "fix" the headline to make it more professional. They dropped the "fibs" and replaced it with "untruths" (as is in the original html link). That does not change the fact that the information [sic] that was presented is any better with the new title.
Time Magazine has posted an article on the situation in Ukraine 4 Reasons Putin Is Already Losing in Ukraine. First thing: A publication with the longevity and reputation such as Time ought NEVER, EVER post an "X things why" article. That shit belongs in tabloids and other pop culture, IQ lowering publications. Anyway lets looks at the list:
At home, this intervention looks to be one of the most unpopular decisions Putin has ever made. The Kremlin’s own pollster released a survey on Monday that showed 73% of Russians reject it. In phrasing its question posed in early February to 1,600 respondents across the country, the state-funded sociologists at WCIOM were clearly trying to get as much support for the intervention as possible: “Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?” they asked. Only 15% said yes — hardly a national consensus.What is this? What. Is. This? Of course the citizens of Russia reject the notion of overthrowing the legally elected authorities in Ukraine. Of course since what we just witnessed in Ukraine was a coup, the current "authorities" in that country are not the "legal authorities". Small and minor detail I'm sure. I'm sure they learned the meaning of the word coup from the same school that the NY times did.
That seems astounding in light of all the brainwashing Russians have faced on the issue of Ukraine. For weeks, the Kremlin’s effective monopoly on television news has been sounding the alarm over Ukraine. Its revolution, they claimed, is the result of an American alliance with Nazis intended to weaken Russia.This is brainwashing? Time REALLY thinks you're an idiot. If the Kremlin has been sounding alarms about an impending coup in Ukraine and it happens. How is that "brainwashing"? Seriously, explain that to me. Since we have Victoria Nuland ON VIDEO claiming how the US has spent $5 billion or so on "opposition parties" which include [neo] nazis; how is that "brainwashing"? The real question here is WHO is trying to brainwash who? Are you an idiot?
The blatant misinformation and demagoguery on Russian television coverage of Ukraine seems to have pushed Russians to go online for their information.Seriously? Someone at Time Inc. thought that this was actually acceptable journalism? I have a whole slew of posts that shows that John Kerry, Obama, the NY Times and now Time Magazine are in fact the purveyors of actual misinformation and demagoguery. Again. Time thinks you are an idiot. Are you an idiot?
The economic impact on Russia is already staggering. When markets opened on Monday morning, investors got their first chance to react to the Russian intervention in Ukraine over the weekend, and as a result, the key Russian stock indexes tanked by more than 10%.This is called economic warfare. Look it up. Prepare to see more of it. Ukraine is in such dire straights and as far as I know has no businesses that would have a significant impact on any fortune 100, 500 or 100 company. Ukraine could disappear as a country tomorrow and very, very few people outside the country would see any change in their ability to make a lot of money. Are you an idiot?
Even Russia’s closest allies want no part of this. The oil-rich state of Kazakhstan, the most important member of every regional alliance Russia has going in the former Soviet space, put out a damning statement on Monday, marking the first time its leaders have ever turned against Russia on such a major strategic issue: “Kazakhstan expresses deep concern over the developments in Ukraine,” the Foreign Ministry said. “Kazakhstan calls on all sides to stop the use of force in the resolution of this situation.”What the Kazakhstan Foreign Ministry said is dead on and the desire of any sane observer of this situation. That includes Russia who I must remind the idiots at Time, removed themselves from Ossetia when the threat there was over.*ahem* Are you an idiot? As I've said before, the US based media has shown itself to be totally inept during the events in Ukraine. I have yet to read a single factual and unbiased article on the subject from any large mainstream publication or video news [sic] outlet. It makes it a joke when these so called news [sic] outlets talk about "state controlled media" of other countries when these same news [sic] organizations engage in the same misinformation they claim to be free of. Shame on Time Inc. for posting that bullshit. They need to get the uneducated, misinformed tabloid writers off their staff and pay some real journalists and scholars to write for them.
The loans will be part of a larger international aid package coordinated by the U.S. and European allies, and distributed largely through the International Monetary Fund. The money is needed to close a gaping budget hole left when the Ukraine opposition deposed President Viktor Yanukovich and rejected a loan package from Moscow. Experts say the new government needs roughly $20 billion to fill the gap in the current fiscal year. In a statement released Tuesday, Lew said the U.S. and its partners will work to “provide as much support as Ukraine needs to restore financial stability and return to economic growth, if the new government implements the necessary reforms.” Obama on Monday said a speedy approval of the deal would send a strong message to Russia, which the U.S. has accused of breaching international law by seizing control of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in the wake of the coup.[My Emphasis]In comes the International Money Fuckers with their "necessary reforms".
Yesterday I posted the definition of a coup d'etat known commonly as a coup:
coup d'état noun \ˌkü-(ˌ)dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ)dā-ˌ, -də-\ : a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence.Ukraine had a democratically elected president and representatives in parliament. It had/has a constitution with specific rules on how and when elections are held. It has rules for removing a president or any other member of parliament. Ukraine had elections scheduled in 12 months. All those democratic means for removing the president were bypassed by a crowd of protestors with grievances (valid or not) that were latched upon by the US to bypass the democratic processes of removing the president. The crowd brought arms in Maidan (and were bringing much more) in order to force the government to capitulate. Now go back and read that coup d' etat definition. What we saw was a definitive coup. No If, ands, buts or maybes. So why is it that the NY Times put "coup" in quotes as if that was not in fact what happened?
Monday, March 03, 2014
Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that the putsch government in Kiev is absolutely illegal under international law. Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?… Of course, the fundamental question with regard to all these conflicts is the question of US interests. Were there Americans directly under threat by the Gaddafi government? Certainly not. Was the US Navy in danger of being seized by hostile forces in Somalia or Nicaragua? Of course not. Were the American people under threat from Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic? Undeniably no. And yet, somehow these “interventions” were deemed acceptable, but Russia’s attempt to protect its own people and military installations in the face of a clear and present danger is a crime and breach of international law?A point not even in the discussion in so called "free" and "independent" "western" mainstream media. How is it that such a "free", "independent" media in the US is incapable of stating these obvious facts to the citizenry? We expect the governments of the EU, Russia and the US to state whatever their political positions are. We expect those bodies to put forth whatever propaganda best suits their wants. What we should NOT expect is for so called "free" and "independent" "news" bodies to parrot those propaganda pieces as fact. It's pretty sad that I have to read no less than 4 different news outlets in order to get actual information and I get the least information from so called "free" and "independent" news media. You'd think it would be the other way around.
Sunday, March 02, 2014
“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” John Kerry said during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.”I saw Kerry make the same statement on ABC's This Week. He wasn't referring to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction either. I do believe that speech and the war that followed occurred in the 21st century. Please do feel free to correct me on that.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Ten years ago Spain spent more than 30 million euros building up the barriers around Melilla and Ceuta, its two enclaves surrounded by Morocco on the northern coast of Africa, which offer the only land borders between the promise of Europe and the despair of Africa. And for a while the investment seemed to work.[my emphasis]Harsh quote ain' it?
But few had any idea of going home. “I have spent two years traveling by land from Cameroon to here, and almost two years more hiding here in the woods,” said Musa Bankura, 36. “My family has spent all their savings. I can’t go back home now with nothing.”Question: Is there anything else that this 36 year old and all the others in "despair" Africa could have done in the 4 years this fellow was trying to get to Europe? Question: What does it say about how we run things that it is preferable to be on the move for 2 years and to camp out at an embassy for another 2 than it is to create an environment where you come from that negates any such desire for such a trip? Question: Who is to blame if our countries are in such a state that people would rather effectively waste 4 years of their lives trying to get to another country? Question: Exactly what are the families who were left behind doing in "desperate" Africa?
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.Years ago I told folks we in the US were seeing the development of a police state. I wrote then:
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
As I said on Twitter; I think a lot of people have an idea about what a police state is based on movies and from dictators in the middle east, etc. They fail to realize to recognize the purpose of a police state is population control. Particularly the control of dissident voices and actions within the population. it is the ability to track citizens against their wishes, and it usually accompanied by claims of security and safety. A soft police state is still a police state.Yes, I said that in 2011. A "soft" police state is still a police state. [Update] In regard to the following:
GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans' images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.It has long been known in certain circles that the US and Britain use each other to circumvent the rights and laws of the other country. If the NSA is barred from listening to communications it will get the Brits to do it and vice-versa. Old news to those of use who have been paying attention all these years.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
So if you've watched any TV or read anything in a "news"paper (online or actual print) you know that Uganda just passed a law which makes for stiff penalties for being gay (or being caught in "gay acts"). Now like I said in regards to Arizona's recent brush with legal stupid, one does not (and in this case should not) pass laws for things that can be best handled by individuals with their own personal behavior. However; Uganda in it's apparent fascination with homosexuality has gone and made the situation in that country worse. In a free country one has free association or not association. You don't like homosexuals then you are free to not deal with them in your private life. Don't befriend none. Don't invite them to your home. etc. Nobody is or should be forced to be around or deal with people they simply do not like, no matter how sane or insane the reasoning. They are free people. But when you decide to pass a law with stiff penalties for free people living their lives you open the door to abuse.
The English-language tabloid Red Pepper published a list this morning of the country's alleged 200 top gay individuals under the headline "Exposed!" just a day after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed a sweeping anti-gay bill into law.You see, now a person or organization that has it out for a person simply has to accuse that person of being gay and the legal system is put on them and they risk having mobs of people come after them. So in addition to targeting the stated object of the law it has put the entire citizenry under threat. I'm sure that the legislators who came up with this dumb law never considered that they or anyone else could be blackmailed by anyone who would claim that they have "evidence" that so and so is gay (photoshop is a powerful tool and GIMP is free). And how exactly does one defend oneself against such an accusation? Silly law created by silly people. I'm sure Uganda has far more important things to deal with.
"Publishing information about these people certainly puts them at risk in their local communities," said Maria Burnett, Senior Africa Researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Whether or not we're going to see violence, it's a possible byproduct of this bill and the rhetoric politicians have been churning out."
"We haven't seen the large-scale vigilante mob attacks that have marked the last couple of months in Nigeria, but we are certainly concerned that could be the case," Burnett said…
The well-known Ugandans accused in the report included a Catholic priest, a hip-hop star, and an activist.