War and Politics Books

Chapter 5 on Afghanistan, gives the reader an intimate,
close up view of the country and its people. We are so
advantaged in the current war because we cannot have the
the illusion that "the enemy" is a boogey man, whose host country deserves to be obliterated. Not so. In disabling
terrorists networks, may we the people of the world make a
step forward in which we wake up to our oneness. Roger Plunk's book is a "how-to" book for living in a world connected, not only at its unified source, but also through its many venues of
information exchange.

This book tells in common languagge an extrordinary and true story that is both spiritual and pragmatic. An enjoyable easy read that will inform and inspire you, this book is refreshingly honest. The very original theme and information presented is sure to interest anyone tired of the same old stories! I highly recommend this book!

This is one of the most important books for our time. Both diplomacy and power politics in the conventional sense are consistently failing the world. The major powers have only one goal, which is to project their narrow national interest-- usually at the expense of others, whose needs are entirely ignored. The United Nations, once the beacon of hope and a cradle of impartiality, is hopelessly corrupt and driven by a Security Council that is no longer representative of today's realities.

It's high time for a comprehensive change in our approach to foreign policy, and Roger Plunk, with great humility and sound reasoning, shows us the way. If you're concerned with where the world is heading, buy this book and give copies to your friends!

Roger Plunk began a lifetime of wandering as a child. He did stay put long enough as a young man to earn two law degrees, then he began working for the U.S. State Department. He learned that his calling was to be a mediator and that he had the ability and desire to work for peace one-on-one with world leaders.

The Dalai Lama was the first to utilize Plunk's special talents. In The Wandering Peacemaker, his first book, Plunk describes mediation efforts between Tibet and China. From there, he travels to India and Pakistan, Burma, and then to Afghanistan. He not only analyzes the political situation in each dispute, he describes the history of the area and the people involved. Readers get a clear understanding of both sides.

Plunk holds strong spiritual beliefs and says "the common thread running through the stories [in his book] is the dynamic relationship between government and spirituality." Plunk was guided by his belief that one person can make a difference. He says, "I was one person on a very low budget engaging in large international issues [and] I did manage to get my message across."

Is there a place for spiritual insight in the political arena? Plunk says yes, and his stories demonstrate the power of spiritual healing in international relations. Readers concerned with human problems and world peace will find The Wandering Peacemaker engrossing, and encouraging. Like a modern Johnny Appleseed, Roger Plunk is planting seeds of peace worldwide. One person can make a difference.

I love it, very enlightening, especially when Plunk writes about Afghanistan, his work with the Northern Alliance, and his captivating discussions with the Dalai Lama. Plunk writes with great clarity, about his journeys as an independent international mediator, venturing into some of the most complicated and violent political conflicts on the planet to connect directly with the leaders and people of Afghanistan and Tibet, to name just a few of his stops. The Wandering Peacemaker is written with a piercing intelligence and a poetic touch that comes staight from the heart as he shares insights from his own spiritual journey. The bowing gesture of devotion, with forehead to the ground, is a perfect metaphor for this book, as Plunk reminds us with every stop along his path to place the heart higher than the head in our common journey towards peace.

It is extremely rare that I would consider a book a "must read", however, this book is simply outstanding. Anyone with an interest in conflict or international relations will find the authors incredibly insightful. This should be required reading for anyone in the military or anywhere else in the government who is involved in our relations with other peoples and nations.

This book gets six stars out of a possible five. (Yes, you read that correctly.)

An additional plug for Codevilla: having read some of his articles as well, I will say that any of his work is worth searching out and reading.

An instant classic when it was first published, this new edition is even better. A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the causes of war and how to deal with them.
JDW

A great far ranging analysis of military and political strategy; his serious analysis of terrorism and what needs to be done is worth the price of this book. After reading this book, one will know why our efforts are at least partially not working, what needs to be done, and when we know things are going the right way. It also indirectly tells us what we should do about Iran. Another great effort, similar to his columns in the Claremont Review and his previous book, "No Victory, No Peace."

One of the abosolutely best books I've read on the subject of war in years. There are so many good points that I can't possibly mention them here, but two really stand out.

Civilians have become the target. Perhaps 70% of the people killed in World War II were civilians. This includes jews, homosexuals, slavs, gypsys, et al in the death camps, and the people under the bombs in London or Berlin. Since then, perhaps 100,000,000 have been killed in ethnic clensing, deliberate starvation, revolutions and so on.

If you really want to take out the terrorists, go after their directors, not the terrorists themselves.

If a cleric is preaching 'Death to America' in his mosque, when the service ends and the people walk outside they find an orbiting Preadator has dropped leaflets saying that it isn't wise to go to places to hear such talking. The second time they get a stronger message by leaflet. The third time a Hellfire missile ends the sermon.

Oh but can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth among our own liberals, to say nothing of al-Jazeera and the United Nations.

Instead we look for terrorists like we look for other criminals, one at a time, and restricted to the actual perp, not the ones who sent them out.

Read this book and the thought may occur to you: "This is so bloody obvious, who needs to read it in a book?" But then put the book down, read the newspapers, listen to the talking heads on TV, or attend a university lecture on the same subjects, and you quickly realize: none of it is obvious to anyone that matters. On second or third reading, you realize that what it's saying is not "obvious" at all; the book's genius consists in making a radical and controversial thesis sound self-evident.

I have one quibble, but the quibble doesn't detract sufficiently from the book to subtract a star: because the authors discuss warfare out of relation to morality, an incautious reader could easily get the impression that they are "Machiavellian" amoralists whose advice can be dismissed as "amoral realism." It isn't true, but they might have been more explicit about why not.

It really is a sad commentary on our culture that this book is as obscure as it is.

Chossudovski has gathered a tremendous body of literature to make his case against America's mythological war on terrorism.
Creating a myth is essential to manufacture consent and unity. Fear is more essential to manipulate the herd and take away their natural rights. Chossudovsky elucidates America's war on terrorism with overwhelming evidence that would leave the reader angry and flabbergasted.
This book is a must read for every citizen who is concerned about his country's affairs, and for every critical thinker who cares about the truth.

Michel Chossudovsky's ultimate goal is to serve World peace by revealing extensive war crimes behind the `War on Terror'. His picture of the world and the US is far from rosy. For him, the `War on Terror' is in fact a `War of Conquest'.
This is a very convincing but disturbing book pointing to the criminalization of upper echelons of the US State with the complicity of the media, which upholds the Bush administration's war agenda, camouflages war crimes, floods the world with blatantly distorted facts and disseminates fear amongst the population.
For the author, the US is on the brink of becoming an authoritarian state. Key decisions are taken behind closed doors at the intelligence headquarters and the Pentagon, with the US Congress as a façade and a president as a public relations figurehead. The military/intelligence establishment acts as a parallel government.
The `War on Terror' is used for the repeal of civil liberties and Constitutional government. New legitimacy emerged that undermines the judicial system (`Rule of Law') and that lays the foundation of a totalitarian state: emergency procedures can be used to usher Martial Law, leading to the suspension of Constitutional government.
In the US national budget, state resources are redirected towards financing the military-industrial complex and domestic security, while social programs have been slashed.

Internationally, the `War on Terror' is a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers, establish corporate controls (e.g. Iraq's oil), to encircle Russia (permanent military bases in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and in former USSR republics) or to prevent pipeline ventures with China and Iran.
The US continues to support Islamic fundamentalism (India, China, Chechnya) in order to weaken `enemies', or to disarm social movements against the US (e.g. with the Taliban they try to create a new Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan where the leader of the Northern Alliance backed by Russia, was killed).
Al Qaeda was heavily supported by the CIA and NATO in order to destabilize the Yugoslav federation.

With `private wealth is in fewer and fewer hands', the author sees an upcoming world dominated by big corporations (finance, energy, pharma) and the military/intelligence establishment with the media as their mouthpiece.

The author concludes with very disturbing facts about the London bombings which provided a new legitimacy to those who had ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq and which weakened significantly the antiwar and civil rights movements.

Michel Chossudovsky has written a dark and frightening book.
It is a must read for all those interested in the future of mankind.

I also recommend the works of W.G. Tarpley, W. Engdahl and N.M. Ahmed.

Many of the facts mentioned in the book I knew already, but it was for the first time when my conclusions and assumptions were supported by facts, names and figures.

Chossudovsky is an economics professor and a staunch critic of the New World Order agenda and the ongoing lies and war profiteering connected to that agenda. This book is a well-documented analysis of how the imperial racketeers operate, with an extensive deconstruction of the official mythology of the 9/11 attacks. Chossudovsky makes a solid case that elements with the US Government and the associated military-industrial complex were involved in orchestrating the attacks, using their CIA-created Arab assets as patsies for the official story used to justify the planned wars and freedom repressing legislations such as the PATRIOT Act. Chossudovsky traces the workings of U.S. intelligence operations and policies for many years, showing how the idea that 9/11 was a "make it happen on purpose" affair is most logical and best supported by the evidence. He looks at the long term agenda being pursued and how it will affect us if it continues unchecked. This isn't a difficult book to read and comprehend but it may be difficult for those who have held faith in the government and media establishment to digest. Chossudovsky has studied this subject well and his materials have been available at www.globalresearch.ca for several years. Anyone wishing to learn about the topics of 9/11, American imperialism, and the role of wars in the move toward globalization, is encouraged to read this book.

Michel Chossudovsky has been one of my favorite writers on issues like globalization and the bogus "war o'terror" for some time now. He elegantly documents his meticulous research simply and without sensationalized embellishment. Unlike many other writers, Chossudovsky isn't attempting to entertain you or sell books; rather, he is delineating critical information in a lucid and precise fashion that will make sense for even the most casual reader.

While I personally didn't necessarily glean a great deal of strikingly new information of which I wasn't at least partially previously aware, this book certainly helped me to put the puzzle pieces together and frame a better glimpse of the larger picture, outside of the perception management. It was nice to see this volume tie up loose ends and illustrate a time line of sorts. This is an especially great book for a new student of this topic.

This is an infinitely useful collection of primary sources. Any student of this period should have this on their bookshelf - they will get much more than the $23.10 worth of use.

The editor does a good job of including the best arguments of both sides and does not taint the actual debate with modern biases.

Love the book! Been looking for these debates for years. It's nice to learn the behind-the-scenes arguments for and against the Constitution. Also nice to know that partisan bickering is not new.

Unlike the political commentators of the late 20th and early 21st century (watchers of Sunday public affairs programs and AM radio listeners know who they are), the commentators of the 18th century actually had something of substance to say. This was a time when education was rare, but when done was done well. The New American Library does its usual exceptional job in assembling the material in this book including some of the more important selections from the Federalist Papers as well as some of the writings of the anti-Federalists. Here the role of the government and the nature of freedom are really explored. Life was better before politics became about feeling and emotion. Every American should read this book, but only if he wants to really understand the basis of the American experiment.

I've gathered other collections (i.e., The Federalist Paper, Constitutional Debates) over the years, but this collection (along with Volume 2) is by far the most comprehensive yet affordable collection to date. Given the fact Bernard Bailyn compiled the contents and wrote the background material, the reader can rest assured that a distinguished historian is behind these endeavors. Bailyn's commitment to detail and analysis of primary sources has always been one of his hallmarks. He continues that commitment in these two volumes.

There is more material here than the average person probably ever knew existed regarding the constitutional debates. Letters, newspaper articles, formal treatises, and speeches all provide the documentation. Bailyn wants to show the depth and richness of the discussion, which varies from those who feared loss of personal liberty to those ready to embrace the document. Anyone who picks up these volumes will come away with an idea of how complex the constitution really is - that it will never be all things to all people, but it does ground our national identity. It becomes the task of each succeeding generation to uphold the tradition yet strive to assure the Constitution carries out its intended purpose. Obviously this is no small feat to be taken lightly.

The books are arranged chronologically, more or less, divided into subsections. The reader will get the broad spectrum of constitutional debates (the Federalist Papers are included, the "antifederalist papers" are included) as are the fears, assurances, and the entire range of human emotion regarding the Constitution are all there for the reader to peruse.

The only spoiler I offer is the peculiar selection of a Benjamin Franklin letter as the very first entry of the set. Franklin fears the Constitution yet is willing to embrace it just the same. In a way, this might be the quintessential document of the entire collection as all Americans have reason to heed Franklin's concerns.

Study of the Federalist Papers, of course included in this two volume series, is a conduit for understanding the American ethic. When the Federalist Papers are viewed as included in this chronological deliberation between the Federalists and Antifederalists, they become even more profound than the enormous depth they can achieve when read alone. The concerns of Brutus and Agrippa are answered, the repititive call for a 'Bill of Rights' revealed. Madison wrote to Jefferson in 1825 defining the Federalist Papers as 'may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal constituion, as understood by the Body which prepared & the authority which accepted it.' The enormous insight gained from tracking the arguments and concerns of the proposed Constituion , and the responses of the Federalist cannot be easily estimated, yet the result is a much more informed conscience of the American experience. Madison in the same letter mentioned above stated that Federalist Essays did not foresee all the misconstructions which to that date had occured, nor prevent some it did foresee. For the concerned and deliberate citizen of today many of these issues remain, issues such as Federalism are current topics and all too often the opinions of the few become the conscience of the many, examining these volume will do much to alleviate this vexing condition. More alarming is the realization that many of the fears of the Antifederalists have become a reality in todays polity. An excellent and comprehensive collection thank you Bernard Bailyn.

Carl L. Becker's book on the Declaration of Independence first appeared nearly eighty years ago, and yet it is still a valuable and stimulating study of its subject. It is dated now, for two large reasons:

First, Becker wrote before the revolution in studying the history of ideas, and thus unavoidably predates the close-focus examination of the controversy between Great Britain and her American colonies in the years from 1765 to 1776. Two recent books should be read alongside Becker's monograph -- Pauline Maier's AMERICAN SCRIPTURE: MAKING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (New York: Knopf, 1997; Vintage paperback, 1998), and John Phillip Reid, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, abridged ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).

Second, Becker focuses on Jefferson as *the* author of the Declaration, neglecting that he was actually the draftsman selected by the Continental Congress and his colleagues within the drafting committee. Thus, the Declaration -- no matter what Jefferson said about it in later life -- was not primarily a window into his own thinking about natural rights and democracy, but rather the final statement by Congress as to the reasons for breaking ties with Britain. To be sure, later generations have read it as an expression of Jefferson's mind -- rather than of "the American mind," as he put it. But, as Maier shows in AMERICAN SCRIPTURE, Jefferson's thinking was nowhere near as unique or advanced on these subjects as later hero-worshipping biographers have suggested.

In particular, as Maier has shown, the age-old dispute about whether Jefferson was or was not influenced by Locke is somewhat beside the point. Even so, Becker's fine book is indispensable for deciding whether we should read the Declaration through Lockean or Jeffersonian lenses, and whether we should regard it as a codification of American aspirations or as a hypocritical catalogue of principles we cannot live up to.

R. B. Bernstein, adjunct professor of law, New York Law School

This was a required reading for a graduate humanities class. Carl Becker expertly researched the events leading up to the birth of the Declaration. Carl L. Becker's research on the philosophical influences on the Declaration of Independence is some of the best scholarship on the subject. Becker notes that a by product of the Enlightenment is that "In the eighteenth century as never before, `Nature' had stepped in between man and God; so that there was no longer any way to know God's will except by discovering the `laws' of nature." Not only are the force of the ideas, such as pleas to natural law important, but also how the words sounded to the ear would become equally important for the Declaration to move people to rebellion.

John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Charles de Montesquieu helped form Jefferson's political and philosophical ideas towards government, public service, and leadership. The Declaration is replete with the Natural Law philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704). David Lundberg and Henry F. May conducted a study of the 92 existing library records from before the revolution, to determine which authors colonists were reading. Their research found that John Locke was by far the most read philosopher in their study. Becker postulated that Locke's ideas had made a significant impression on Jefferson, since he found that the general tenor and phraseology of the Declaration closely followed key sentences from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Jefferson must have read Locke's work several times to be able to borrow so liberally from them, and to be able to mirror his language so accurately. To illustrate the point, the following is an example of Locke's writing showing just how closely some of the phrases match from his Second Treatise of Government, and the Declaration of Independence.

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges
every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who
will consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought
to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for men
being all workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.

Jefferson's original draft reads.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are
created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they
derive in rights inherent & inalienable among which are the
preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

The "self evident truths" of the Natural Law philosophy espoused by Locke and enumerated in the Preamble of the Declaration, and found that both, essentially, declared that no person should be subordinated to another because of birth or class standing. In addition, people choose to leave the state of nature on their own free will and consent to be governed by a government of their choosing. Locke's specific concern is, "Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of his estate, and subjugated to the political power of another, without his own consent." Algernon Sidney (1623-1683), a contemporary of Locke's and a political theorist who Jefferson reads, writes in his book, Discourses Concerning Government, "That man is actually free; that he cannot justly be deprived of that liberty without cause, and that he doth not resign it, or any part of it, unless it be in consideration of a greater good." The Declaration's wording is, "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These "self evident truths," that government is by consent of the governed, is the beginning of a political reasoning that all British subjects on both sides of the Atlantic came to understand was their right after the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 in Britain, which was the inspiration for Locke's political philosophy.
The other reason for Jefferson to turn to Locke's writings, is his well-known ideas among the colonists regarding the rights and duties of citizens to overthrow an existing government when it ceases to provide for the proper welfare of its citizens. Locke, near the end of his treatise writes:
But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all
tending the same way, make the design visible to the people,
and they cannot but feel what they lie under and see whither
they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then
rouse themselves and endeavor to put the rule into such hands
which may secure to them the ends for which government was
at first erected.


Jefferson, in the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Declaration takes Locke's words and constructs them thusly:
But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a
distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government &
to provide new guards for their future security.

To prove to the world that rebellion was finally justifiable within the framework of Natural Law, Jefferson included a list of twenty-seven "abuses and usurpations" by the king in the Declaration.
The list of abuses by King George III, are an integral part of the Declaration, which proves that the king has, "in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States." Becker wrote that the list not only delineates the continued abuses by the king against the colonists, but it also "comprises a list of American political commitments." The next few sentences are a few examples of the twenty-seven charges leveled against the king, and the political commitments that the delegates enacted during their tenure in the Continental Congress. The king was accused of impeding and disrupting the legislative process, and in some cases, dissolving them in the first six charges. These charges are especially important to the colonists, considering their penchant for legislative authority above any other branch of government. The eighth and ninth accusations charge the king with not protecting the judiciary from the interference by the executive branch of government. This idea of a separate judicial branch of government was an idea that was picked up from the French philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755), and would be incorporated in the U. S. Constitution. The king was accused of forcing the colonists to quarter British soldiers in their homes and with disbanding the local militias. Both of these acts were so egregious to the colonists, that they would not soon be forgotten, and a prohibition on quartering soldiers and supporting the militias would become a part of the U. S. Constitution. One can easily see that reading through the list of grievances reveals that it also reads like a bill of rights, which the Continental Congress is declaring to the patriots as values that it will protect. The Declaration also takes umbrage with the king for disregarding the years of legal pleas made to him by the colonists to prevent this long train of abuses from causing such drastic actions as breaking away from the mother country. Becker astutely notes that nowhere in the Declaration is the word Parliament mentioned. All of the grievances listed are blamed on the king, even though they refer to laws enacted by Parliament. This important omission proves that the colonists were never given representation in Parliament. They created their own legislatures in the colonies, since they believed it was the natural right of any group of British subjects under British law to do so. Therefore, on July 4, 1776, after adopting the Declaration unanimously, congress resolves that the title read "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that every member of Congress sign it. Thus, this summary or compact of the eighteenth century American political mind and Enlightenment ideals burst into the world screaming for attention.

As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I heartily recommend this timeless classic to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.

I have read this book, off and on, several times. It never ceases to amaze me. I tend to be a controversialist and rely upon this book often to help those who seem convinced that the Founding Fathers were of a particular religious persuasion. While foundationally on a personal level this may be true, in general they bowed down to a higher power: Reason. Yet this was not new to them nor were their political theories. Their roots came from somewhere else and that somewhere else was from the European soil they had left.

Becker does an awesome job dissecting the Declaration and its influences primarily from Jefferson through Locke. The natural rights philosophy chapter is awesome. This book is over seventy five years old and its arguments have been revisited and even countered but the book is still foundationally necessary for anyone who seeks to study the Declaration of Independence. In terms of studying the Declaration, there is before Becker's book and there is after.

There are many revealing insights and oddities that appear when Becker displays the lines that have been cut from the original draft (e.g. notice there is no mention of slavery in the final version; the reasons for its excision are included in the book). These little tidbits opened my eyes a bit to the relatively benign history of this document that I had been taught. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing so have a little fun and check this book out.

In high school, kids spend time reviewing the Declaration of Independence and learning its meaning. This book goes well beyond that to inspect the thoughts and ideas that were prevalent in the late 18th century and how they influenced the document. Becker goes into great detail about natural rights theory according to John Locke and explores the ins and outs of its implications. This to me was the strongest and most enjoyable part of the book. He also explores the thoughts and ideas that were circulating Britain at the time.

Building on this foundation, he weaves a tale as to why certain things were worded as they were (like Britain being run as a ruthless tyrant), and why certain things were left out altogether (like slavery). He also closely examines the changes that took place in the drafts and attributes them to individuals who proofread Jefferson's draft. I really could have done without his granularity in this area.

In all, this was a fascinating read. For those of you who want to extend your knowledge beyond the simple presentation of the document you received in high school, I highly recommend buying this book!

This easy to read book disects the wording and phrases in all the various drafts of the declaration. It explores the origins of the ideas and phrasing used, and discusses why individual words or complete phrases were changed, added or removed as they were debated first in committee and later by the Continental Congress. This book is commonly cited by other authors. As an example, it serves both as a source for and wonderful companion to Bernard Bailyn's book "The Ideological Origins to the American Revolution"

Tragic book, very well written. I suspect all of it is true. If 10% is true, people who care about America need to tell our leaders that things must change now. We must respect the rights of people we have in custody, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or people without a country. Our leaders have embarrassed our country by doing the things outlined here. Respect for human rights should be our starting point.

In vivid, engaging prose uncommon among attorney authors, Clive Stafford Smith offers a startling first-hand account of America's most well-known gulag: the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay. Smith's volume places the U.S. Government's hypocrisy in the Bush II era on full display, with the prisoners there -- very few of whom, it appears, guilty of any crime at all (let alone legitimate involvement in Islamist terrorism) -- tragic protagonists in a prolonged tour through hell. Despite assiduous compliance with strict military classification and censorship requirements, Smith gives a stark account of torture, rendition, legal tricks, and a relentless war on due process -- by the same folks supposedly spreading "democracy" to the Middle East. With new precision details and personal prisoner histories, Smith's book is shocking even to those who never believed the news coverage. Read it with anger; the outrage is still going on.

If you haven't read Robert Conquest's seminal work The Great Terror about the purges, the show trials, law, and justice under Stalin, you might want to consider reading that first. Perhaps visit the Amazon site which has a quote from Harrison Salisbury saying the book is "an odyssey of madness, tragedy, and sadism". Then read Smith's eloquent book. Much is different, of course, but there is a lot that seems eerily similar. In Russia it was a crime to be suspected of anti-Soviet activities. This did not mean that you were actually guilty of such activities--it just meant that someone thought you might possibly be guilty, and being thought possibly guilty was a crime in itself, worthy of torture, a one-way trip to the cellars, or death in the labor camps. Evidence of guilt seemed to take a back seat to suspicion of guilt. Then read Smith's book.

The Russian show trials were carefully scripted, and designed to give the mostly leftist press in attendance and the rest of the world through media coverage the impression that the rules of law were being followed and that justice was indeed being carried out. Much of the world wanted to believe that the deviationist wreckers were truly guilty and deserved the ultimate punishment for trying to sabotage the workers' paradise. Reading Smith's book will show that the Stalinists were not the only ones who loved carefully scripted show trials before handpicked judges.

There is, as I've said, much that is different. In Russia, a popular sentence was "exile, without right of communication", a hypocritical euphemism for being shot in the cellars. In Guantanamo, as you'll see in the book, "detention, without right of communication", is not a sentence from a judge at a two-minute hearing, as in Russia. The criminal isn't taken to the cellars and shot, at least not at Guantanamo. Prior to some Supreme Court decisions, a prisoner could be held without right of communication for the duration of the war on terror, and since terrorism has been going on for thousands of years, there is no reason to think that many of the prisoners would have ever had a hearing or seen a lawyer for the rest of their life.

In Russia, family members could wait in long lines outside the Butyrka and other prisons with packages of food and clothing for their loved ones: if the package was accepted, it meant the spouse, brother, etc, was still alive there. If refused, they had been taken to the cellars or sent to a labor camp. No such bleeding-heart tenderness at Guantanamo.

Smith's book shows that there are some truly dangerous prisoners at Guantanamo--but there are too many who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. 11-year-old boys, 93-year-old men, goatherders (how do you prove that while herding goats you didn't meet with Bin Laden?),etc. Pakistan was happy to show it was doing its part in the war on terror by turning in Arabs and collecting nice bounties no questions asked. Kafka's novel The Trial is appropriate reading here. In Russia, the populace, as a whole, heartily endorsed Stalin's war on the wrecker saboteurs: someone, after all, must be to blame for all the problems, and an alternative obvious source to blame was not conducive to good health and long life. The people were not concerned about the rights of the accused, or legal niceties. In America, there is not widespread concern about legal niceties for a bunch of Moslems in Guantanamo and other places of detention. So if you read Smith's book, you'll find it quite depressing, especially if you've read The Great Terror. There's too much in Smith's book that most of us would prefer not to hear about or think about: we'd rather turn on the TV and see Happy News or a nice patriotic CSI TV show or something. It's a fine book, but not a fun one.

Imagine that you have been swept away to a prison, kept in solitary confinement and when taken out for questioning you are continually asked about the tomatoes you were carrying ( the translators don't always have a full command of dialects )and you have no idea what your interrogators want or if they are totally insane. Because this book is written from a lawyer's point of view and lays out only the facts ( only what he has been able to ascertain and what he is allowed to make known ) it takes some reflection and imagination to put yourself in the place of the detainees and savour the experience that they have had and continue to have.
In other words this isn't "Midnight Express", but a look at guantanamo, its rules, the U.S. military, the stories of a few of the detainees and the constitutional and humanitarian issues involved.

From various newspaper articles, I had heard that many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were innocent and that torture happens there. But all of that seemed very abstract until I read this book. I was frequently upset by the things I read in this book. It is difficult to read about torture, as well as your own goverment's ability to waste time, tax-payer money and other people's lives for information that bears no fruit, or worse, fruit that meets their pre-conceived notions. I think that is the saddest aspect of reading this book. Why is the government still detaining people for which there is hard evidence of their innocence? How can we be spending bllions of $$ on the war on terror, yet not get the detainees' ages and names correct?

Highlights of the book:

- How politically-charged the words 'terror' and 'torture' are.
- The account of Binyam Mohamed's 18-month torture abroad and his military trial.
- The discussion of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, which is often used to justify torture, and why the detention and torture of people held longer than a day, let alone 3+ years, will likely give obsolete or false information.
- The discussion of how the US has given far more dangerous enemies of the past the benefit of a public trial, and our part in ensuring fair trials for Nazi war crime criminals.
- Portraits of people in Guantanamo, both detainess and Americans stationed there.
- Arguments for fair trials and open society versus the current policy of secrecy, torture and secret prisons, even for the baddest of the bad.

The last chapter, where Mr. Smith talks about the effect of the US's decisions on terrorism recruitment, reads more like political rant. I am sympathetic to the argument, but it is speculation. And frankly, not needed. The preceding chapters are powerful on their own. I would encourage people to read this book.

Although published in 2004, this book is a timely read. It makes a compelling case why the recent Supreme Court decision (in June 2008) about Guantanamo prisoner's rights is indeed in line with the United State's Constitution, why the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo has been unconstitutional, and how the denial of their human rights is another example of the Bush administration's war and constitutional crimes.

Anyone who cares about American morals, and the importance of upholding human and Constitutional rights, will appreciate this book.

With the exception of those on the payroll of the United States Government, Michael Ratner (with staff he directs at the Center for Constitutional Rights and volunteer lawyers he assembled) knows more about Guantánamo than anyone.

The book is a quick read at 93 pages of text.

For those who have grown up believing that the rule of law is central to our democracy, it is a chilling read.

Published in mid-2004 it reviews a broad array of the issues which had arisen as of that time and which continue to inform the realities on the ground at Gitmo today. It provides a careful analysis of the ways in which "rule by executive fiat" deviated from the U.S. Constitution, the entirety of the Anglo-American legal tradition, the Geneva Conventions, and international law.

He discusses how a great percentage of persons were selected to be prisoners at Guantánamo, a great many by bounty hunters capturing persons far from any battlefield, the bounties paid for by U.S. tax dollars. He discusses extraordinary rendition of prisoners rendered to countries known to torture, the "outsourcing" of torture.

He recounts the abuse and torture suffered meted out to those interrogated at Guantánamo and links the methods used there to those later made infamous by the exposé of interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

The more serious reader will appreciate the 66-pages of primary source documents collected in the appendix covering a broad range of topics from the original lease of Guantánamo from the Cuba to relevant parts of Geneva Conventions to a series of memoranda issued by various departments of the executive branch which framed some of the major issues that the detentions at Guantánamo present for our country.

For anyone concerned about the state of our democracy, this is an important book.

This book provides a really concise, clear and powerful explanation of the American interrogation camp at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The author who represents some of the detainees and has interviewed them paints a vivid picture of their hideous treamtment. He demonstrates that the camp is not only outside the law, but a threat to the safety of us all. If you want to know why Guantanamo has become iconic in the Muslism world for everything wrong with the US, read this book.

This book consists of interviews of Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, by writer Ellen Ray, plus relevant UN and other documents. Ratner was co-counsel in Rasul v Bush, which the New York Times called "the most important civil rights case in half a century" because on 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court ruled against President Bush that the US military could not hold what it called `enemy combatants' indefinitely, without charge and without access to legal representation. The Court ruled that the prisoners had the right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts.

The Bush government then set up `combatant status review tribunals', supposedly to decide whether the detainees had been correctly designated as enemy combatants and therefore were being rightfully detained according to the laws of combat. However, the administration breached the Supreme Court's ruling that the prisoners had the right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts, since all the tribunals' members are military officers.

Guantanamo is `an interrogation camp', which is flatly illegal, under US and international law. It harks back to Stuart Britain's offshore penal colonies which were beyond the reach of law, forms of executive imprisonment which the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act made illegal. The US detention centres in Iraq, Afghanistan and Diego Garcia and on board US aircraft carriers are modern Devil's Islands.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has reported that US forces had inflicted on the 550 prisoners illegally held at Guantanamo Bay psychological and physical coercion that was `tantamount to torture'. It said, "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." At least three children, between 11 and 13, were held at Guantanamo; some are still there today.

The British state is guilty of collaboration and connivance with these illegal US state actions. British courts, like US courts, are using as evidence statements made under duress and torture in these US-run camps, thereby condoning the use of torture.

You need to read this book. Since the suicides of last week, the US government has sealed off Gtmo from the world - no lawyers, no press. It is vitally important that we understand what is going on there and close Gtmo down. Michael Ratner and Ellen Ray have collaborated to produce a highly readable "primer" on this disgraceful period in US history. I used this book in my human rights courses.
Susan Gzesh, Director, Human Rights Program, the University of Chicago

This book is not only exquisitely written but extremely informative as well. The utter incompetence of high-level government employees that is exposed by Cassara is enough to make your blood boil. If you thought the government was infallible, think again. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned with the well-being of our country.

I'm sort of a government/spy stories buff, and I really enjoyed this book. The first half is sort of a story, almost like reading a novel, while the second half is almost instructional. The author makes a lot of good recommendations in the last chapter. This guy should go into politics!

What a great book! My husband somehow was able to get a copy of the book a few days before it came out (he lives for this type of stuff), and I picked it up the other day while he was at work. Four hours later, I was finished. I couldn't put it down. My reading usually consists of romance novels (I'm not ashamed), and to be honest, I only picked up this book out of sheer boredome. Boredom turned to fascination very quickly, and I was hooked after reading just one chapter. While there is a good deal of government jargon, the auther does a great job of explaining everything. Still, what I liked most about the book were his stories. This guy has had an amazing life! So many adventures, I'd love to meet this guy just to hear him tell some stories. Not to diminish the importance of the book, as he does say a lot of things that our government should be paying attention to, but he's a great storyteller. He definitely puts a personal touch on a sticky subject. Anyway, it's a great book, and believe me, I usually stay away from these types of books. My husband and I actually sat down and discussed the book for almost 2 hours last night...he was very impressed with my knowledge. Great book, I hope he writes another one.

The author provides an insightful and at time intense criticism of inner governmental workings. Depicting through first hand experience the bureaucratic failures that have resulted in the continued operation of many criminal and terrorist financial networks. The removal of these "financial networks" is crucial, to ensure our victory in the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror". These failures can cost lives, as so dramatically depicted by the author. To someone who seeks to pursue a career in government service, like myself; this book is an invaluable tool. In depicting the failures of previous generations of government employees, it serves as a "wake up" call to both current and future governmental employees. This will help to prevent these errors from continuing to happen in the future. Finally, the authors' career serves as an example of excellence in government service, that the new generation of government service employees should aim for in their career.

HIDE AND SEEK: INTELLIGENCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THE STALLED WAR ON TERRORIST FINANCE is a 'must' for any who would understand one of the failures of the U.S. in 9/11. John Cassara is an expert in terrorist financing and money laundering and here surveys the lack of reporting requirements before 9/11, efforts since, and how the failures of law enforcement have helped foster terrorist efforts. HIDE AND SEEK could not have been written without an insider's knowledge of how foreign intelligence, domestic efforts, and international finance works: the fact that John Cassara has such knowledge lends authority and depth to a survey which encourages law to follow the unusual paths of international terrorism's money networks.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

The War in Iraq rages on - but the rebuilding has already begun. "Howling in Mesopotamia: An Iraqi-American Memoir" is the story of one Haider Ala Hamoudi, one who has dedicated his life and well being to restoring the country he loves. He tells his story of rebuilding and how the events of these past few years have changed his life and the lives of the people around him. A different look at the Iraq conflict, "Howling in Mesopotamia: An Iraqi-American Memoir" is highly recommended to community library current events shelves.

'Howling in Mesopotamia: An Iraqi-American Memoir' will remind you that Iraqis are individuals just like everyone else in this world and even though the US government and media will many times make it sound like they are lesser people because of the harsh world that they live in, this book is a stark reminder that given the right opportunities they are no different than anyone else. Read this book and learn more about Iraq and decision that were made which put the country in the state it it currently in. A thoughtful and interesting piece of work that is well worth the time.

**** RECOMMENDED

Written with disarming honesty, this memoir of an Iraqi American is a fascinating look at the Iraqi people during the American occupation. Professor Hamoudi returned to the land of his family after the invasion in 2003 with high hopes. As a bilingual lawyer from a prominent Shi'a family, he was in a good position to help with the building of the hoped for democracy. He is obviously a privileged and highly educated man, idealistic and religious but also secular. He hated Saddam Hussein and what the psychopathic dictator had done to his country. But Hamoudi is not just some ex-pat returning to his homeland in other to reap the spoils of war. Instead, as one cannot help but know from reading his engaging account, Hamoudi sincerely believed in the American effort and wanted nothing more than to be an instrumental part of bringing about a secure, happy and prosperous life for Iraqis.

In this he failed as he tells us in the final pages. He tells us why candidly. He writes: "...between air conditioning failures, power cuts, limited grocery options, appallingly slow internet connections, a near entire lack of recreation, and, of course, a constant fear of annihilation, life was becoming unbearable, my ability to write limited, and my efforts to teach Iraqi students psychologically exhausting, I felt myself wasting away." (p. 271)

Note well the practical and personal nature of his concerns. How easy it would have been--and how empty--for Professor Hamoudi to say he could not achieve success because the American occupation had been so poorly planned and executed, because the uneducated and warring Iraqi fractions were at one another's throats and were not ready for democracy. How easy it would have been to blame others, but characteristically Hamoudi blames himself and accepts personal responsibility for his "failure."

But it was not a failure because one of the things that came from his experience was this book. It is a great success itself because it shows the Iraqi people--and especially this particular Iraqi, himself--in a genuinely human way, complete with shortcomings and strengths, complete with differing ideas and beliefs, but with very much the same humanity that we all share.

Curiously enough this memoir is also a charming love story that takes the reader by surprise. Here is how Hamoudi recalls the first conversion with his future wife, Sara, whom he met while working in Kurdistan Iraq.

"'I am sorry, remind me of your name one more time?' I asked.
"She looked confused, but replied, `Sara.'
"'Sara, Professor Saman said you were interested in applying for a Fulbright, and I would like to help you. Have you completed the application?'
Sara is confused. They are conversing in Arabic, but that is not Sara's native tongue. After some further confusion, Hamoudi asks again, "'Did you not actually apply for the Fulbright? Do I have the wrong person?'
"She shook her head from side to side and stared at me, unsure of what I was saying."
At this point Hamoudi decides to go and fetch Professor Saman.
"I turned to the door. Suddenly I heard a lovely voice.
"'O thou Professor, dost thou refer to the application whose pages must be completed in full along with the most favorable recommendations sent by professors that doth hold me in the highest regard?'"
Hamoudi says, "Huh?" And then gets an inspiration: "'What dost thou say?'
"With this the most beautiful smile I had ever seen appeared on Sara's face. `I understandeth thy latest utterance thou professor of wisdom!'
"'Dost thou understand only classical Arabic?' I was feeling rather stupid speaking this way but had no alternative." (p. 200)

As they say in Hollywood: Boy meets girl, cute!

Of course love in Islamic lands is rather formal. They can hardly be together and certainly not alone. He can buy her a friendship present, maybe, but not a romantic one! And to use the word "love"--well, here is how they managed it over the telephone:
"'Haider?' she asked, as I was preparing to hang up the telephone.
"'Yes, Sara?'
"'I want to teach you a new Kurdish word before you go.'
"'Okay.'
"'In case one day you want to tell your mother, or maybe your aunt, "I love you" in Kurdish, this is how you say it--Khoshem Ewet.'
"'Got it. I am sure my Arab mother and aunt will like that.'
"'Goodbye again, then, Haider.'
"'Khoshem Ewet, Sara Khan.'
"A pause, then, in English, a language she did not know well, `I love you too.'" (p. 217)

I came away from reading this book with a new understanding and appreciation of the Iraqi people. Initially I was disposed to question Professor Hamoudi's motives, figuring that he was just another of those privileged exiled Iraqis, like Ahmad Chalabi, who promoted the invasion of Iraqi for personal gain. But Hamoudi reveals himself (as one must in telling such a long and personal story) to be sincere, hardworking, intelligent, diplomatic (very! and patient), vulnerable, more heroic than he knows, a man of the world who understands better than most of us not only what has happened and is happening in Iraq, but a man who has that understanding as both an American and an Iraqi who is an Arab Muslim. If we had more people like Professor Hamoudi in this world, the quarrels, the misunderstandings, the suspicions and hatreds that exist among people would be largely quelled and the world would be a better place.

I hope this book is widely read, as it deserves to be.

Whether you were for the initial invasion of Iraq, against the initial invasion, for a continuing large military presence in Iraq, against continuing a large military presence, for some type of military presence in Iraq, against any type of military presence, or just not sure, this book is a must read. It gives an account of what it was like, and probably still is like, to be an ordinary person living in Iraq. The author uses superb analogies of American culture to explain Iraqi culture. When reading the book, keep in mind Robert McNamara's rationale for why we lost in Vietnam, in that we did not understand the history and culture of that Southeast Asian nation. History does repeat itself, but never in the same way.
This is an intriguing book which is hard to put down.

Howling in Mesopotamia is a very good book written by an Iraqi- American who decided to revisit Iraqi during its initial post- Saddam Hussein years. Author Haider Ala Hamoudi was sent to Iraq on official university business with one main goal in mind: To educate the people of Iraq on the rule of law and help the nation transform itself to a democratic and just society. During his two years in the land of his forefathers, he does get to work with educators but he also has time to spend with his family, explore the different areas of Iraq, and witness first- hand what Iraq is like now that Saddam Hussein is gone and the nation is controlled by the American military.

Hamoudi traverses the Iraqi nation and gets to talk and interact with Iraqi natives and Americans who are there to help rebuild the nation. He listens closely to the personal stories of Iraqis and gets a perspective on how they feel about the changes that have taken place in the past few years. He takes part in different Iraqi festivals and soaks up the culture. He exchanges words with Iraqis who don't quite understand the American way of life and cannot understand why Americans speak and act the way they do. He comes away from his experience with a feeling of despair but also a glimmer of hope. Conditions are bad, and many Iraqis fear for their lives every day. But there is always that small chance that, one day, Iraqi will be able to stand on its own, defend itself, and offer a stable government for its people.

The collective mood of the Iraqi people is certainly foul, but there are a few bright spots. One is the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge of the government. The book is quick to point out the jubilation that was felt by the majority of Iraqis when Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat and the equally joyous occasion when Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a gunfight. Hussein's brutal regime was largely feared and despised in Iraq, and few if any tears were shed when Hussein and his boys were eliminated from the country. But does this mean that Iraq a safe place to be?- Far from it, in the eyes of the author and those living in Iraq. Even though Saddam is gone, the country is in complete disarray and frequent mention is made of the seemingly indifferent attitude of the Americans in Iraq and how they have done little to nothing to help transition the nation from dictatorship to democracy. In the minds of the Iraqi people, the American forces either do not care or do not know what to do. With people dying from gunfire on a daily basis, Iraqis don't feel much safer than they did under Saddam and they long for the day when the U.S. forces are gone and they can reclaim their land.

This book offers many personal stories about the time Hamoudi spent in Iraq and he lets his own feelings shine forth on many occasions. His whirlwind of emotions is one of the book's many strong points. He feels for his family and misses them dearly. He is saddened by the tragedy that has befallen his nation and wishes it would improve quickly. He is appalled by the sight of filth in the cities and in the countryside. But he is also very excited at the book's end when he meets the woman he will eventually marry. Still, the overall feeling is bleak. Hamoudi came to Iraq hoping to offer a helping hand in the reconstruction of his homeland but his optimism gradually diminishes with each passing day as he bears witness to the ruined nation around him- a nation no closer to political stability than it was in the days of Saddam.

Howling in Mesopotamia is a very personal and powerful book about one man's journey to his homeland and his interactions with his family and fellow countrymen. The writing in this book is impeccable, and it makes for a great companion when you're in the mood for some reading that almost seems too surreal to be true. Some parts read like a work of fiction. But make no mistake: this is a work of non- fiction through and through, even though the author probably wishes it was a fictional novel rather than the cold, hard truth.

Regime change in Iraq hasn't been easy. Saddam is gone, but chaos and disorder are still part of life in this ancient land. The poor living conditions of the people, the turmoil of the government, and the ruinous state of the economy are all realities in post- Saddam Iraq and while the situation looks gloomy, there is still an iota of hope that Iraq might be a stable country once again. Howling in Mesopotamia explains it all, from the perspective of a man who grew up in Ohio to Iraqi parents and still hopes his homeland will be safe and secure in the not- too- distant future. Hope is all that many have left, as the war continues to drag on and on with no end in sight and little or no progress toward stability. This book explains the current situation well, and it ranks as one of the best books I have read on this subject.

Written by Terry D. Turchie and Dr. Kathleen M. Puckett this book chronicles the hunt for several American terrorists. Unlike traditional terrorists who operate in cells and therefore by sheer numbers could make mistakes leading to their capture, the American terrorist proceeds as a "lone wolf." Folks like Theodore Kaczynski better known as the "Unabomber" and Eric Rudolph, the bomber of several abortion clinics and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics are two examples of this different kind of terrorist. While these individuals may share ideological beliefs with various organizations, they never fit in with those organizations primarily because of their personalities. As such, ostracized and alone, they carry a one person war against their targets.

Being one person as opposed to a group makes them harder to catch assuming they don't make mistakes. This means that psychological profiles are of huge importance and must change as the suspect and the case evolves. That is where the work of co-author Dr. Kathleen M. Puckett and others involved in profiling or behavioral sciences becomes so important.

While the Unabomber began in 1978, the person still wasn't caught when Terry D. Turchie took over the case in 1994. It had been a little over a year since the latest violent attacks and the task force was no closer to solving the case. The book chronicles the next seven years of the hunt as Mr. Turchie leads the task force. Seven years that were fraught with some success, bureaucratic power struggles, and inaccurate profiling until Special Agent and Behavioral Expert, Dr. Puckett was added to the task force among other issues. As the Unabomber Task Force evolves to hunt this new type of criminal, it makes waves inside the FBI and outside making the bureaucracy almost a bigger problem than the Unabomber.

While Mr. Turchie chronicles the bureaucratic side of things, in the second half of the book Special Agent Dr. Kathleen M. Puckett shares her thoughts from the behavioral analyst point of view. One of the things made clear is that the analysis must change as the events happen. The original profile offered by analysts at Quantico regarding the Unabomber was fundamentally wrong from the very start. Sixteen years later, the profile hadn't changed when Mr. Turchie took over the task force and that grossly incorrect profile had failed the case for years. Through her section, Dr. Puckett chronicles the case and how she looked at things differently than others did over the years.

Also covered in smaller pieces are the hunts for Eric Rudolph and Timonthy Mcveigh. Also covered and discussed is the study Dr. Puckett provided for the Counter Terrorism division, regarding the profile of the lone terrorist. A phenomenon that could create an international lone terrorist just as easily as an American lone terrorist. The implications of that are chilling.

This 294 page book including index provides an interesting look into some of the most notorious cases in American history. While there is a tone of self congratulatory praise running through the work, the book through text and photographs explains well how two high level insiders considered the cases and the events and people surrounding them. It is not a totally objective view of events nor is it intended to be as accounts by insiders are always biased towards the authors. The book recounts in interesting detail the author's perspectives on these cases and serves as an example of how such these types of investigations will most likely be conducted in the future when another one strikes.


Kevin R. Tipple (copyright) 2008

The Terrorist is not something of strictly Arabic manufacture. "Hunting the American Terrorist: The FBI's War on Homegrown Terror" is a look at what many Americans don't know exists - those who would call themselves American citizens and do harm upon their own people. A look at these bizarre individuals and the acts they have visited upon us, such as Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, it also gives the optimistic light on how these individuals are cracked down upon daily. A frightening and eye opening look at a subject not often talked about, "Hunting the American Terrorist" is a must for anyone who would truly understand Terror.

Hunting the American Terrorist: The FBI's War on Homegrown Terror

An amazing journey through a top FBI case. Can't wait until the next book by these authors comes out--HOMELAND INSECURITY!

As a retired FBI agent, I am finally impressed with a realistic presentation of a multiagency task force investigation. Hunting the American Terrorist captures the array of human emotions that motivate and complicate big cases. Readers will be able to enter the bull pen and proceed through the complex world of colorful personalities and bewildering puzzles that make up the daily successes and failures of an actual investigation. HAT should be required reading for anyone considering a career in law enforcement.

As a forensic psychiatrist, I believe this is an extremely important book, which works on many levels. First of all, it is the ultimate page-turner true life crime story, told by the ultimate insiders. Turchie and Puckett let their tale of hunting the Unabomber and other domestic terrorists unfold as they experienced it, allowing us a rare view of the politics and personalities that presented assistance and obstacles along the way. Told in a matter-of-fact voice, and absent the rigid and self-congratulatory tone that rightly diminishes lesser "insider" true crime books, the authors reveal their methods to us: pain-staking attention to detail, thinking outside the ultimate bureaucratic box, and, in the Unabomb case, the careful maintenance of an inquisitive and open mind in the face of FBI profilers unwilling to adapt to new evidence.

The first half of the book concentrates on the successful search for and arrest of Theodore Kaczynski, with a fascinating look at the relationship developed by Agent Puckett and Kaczynski's brother, which has evidently remained intact as David Kaczynski provides a back cover review. Puckett served as the Behavioral Analyst on the Unabomb task force, and provides unique insights into Kaczynski's personality, decision-making, and motives.

The second half of the book discusses Puckett's study of American Lone Wolf Domestic Terrorists. The reader learns the value and method of taking a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding these offenders, as Puckett takes us on an investigative "road trip," visiting law enforecment officers, forensic scientists, and mental health experts who worked on the cases. It is rare that these disciplines reach out to each other, but each could benefit from the others knowledge and expertise. Puckett's study is the template for this type of collaboration. This is the heart of the book, and is an invaluable manual for those who hunt terrorists, domestic and foreign.