cryer.gif (2599 bytes)


Patriot Act I - 342 pages Download PDF (637k)

Patriot Act I I - 120 pages Download PDF  


Bruce Fein - The Patriot Act: Dispelling the Myths - 05/09/11

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush



road runner mailto:texasroadrunner@hotmail.com
Storm Troopers Have Official Orders Now: Fascism in America
Wed Nov 14 11:55:25 2001

Military Order on Detention, Treatment of Non-Citizens
U.S. Newswire
13 Nov 19:13
White House Military Order On Detention, Treatment and Trial Of
Certain Non-Citizens In The War Against Terrorism
To: National Desk
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was
released today by the White House:


By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, including the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public
Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10,
United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Findings.

(a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida,
have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military
personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within
the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed
conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of
including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the
headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the
national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and
on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a
national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration
of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks).

(c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in
international terrorism possess both the capability and the
intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United
States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths,
mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place
at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States

(d) The ability of the United States to protect the United
States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other
cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from
such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon
using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and
those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to
eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks.

(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the
effective conduct of military operations and prevention of
terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this
order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried,
to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable
laws by military tribunals.

(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the
nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by
and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title
10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in
military commissions under this order the principles of law and the
rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal
cases in the United States district courts.

(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential
injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential
acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability
that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary
emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency
constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that
issuance of this order is necessary to meet the

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any
individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom
I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the
relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit,
acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor,
that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim
to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United
States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy,
or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described
in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of
this order; and

(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such
individual be subject to this order.

(b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of
Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any
individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with
section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such
individual is tried only in accordance with section 4.

(c) It is further the policy of the United States that any
individual subject to this order who is not already under the
control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of
any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall,
upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such
officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the
Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any
individual subject to this order shall be --

(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the
Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on
race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing,
and medical treatment;

(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the
requirements of such detention; and

(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials
of Individuals Subject to this Order.

(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be
tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by
military commission that such individual is alleged to have
committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties
provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or

(b) As a military function and in light of the findings in
section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of
Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders
for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be
necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this
section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct
of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial,
trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of
process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum
provide for --

(1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place,
consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the
Secretary of Defense may provide;

(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting
as the triers of both fact and law;

(3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the
presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any
other member of the commission so requests at the time the
presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the
commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission),
have probative value to a reasonable person;

(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information
classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17,
1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by
statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise
protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of,
and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct,
closure of, and access to proceedings;

(5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys
designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense
by attorneys for the individual subject to this order;

(6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the
members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a
majority being present;

(7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the
members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a
majority being present; and

(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any
conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by
the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that

Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of

Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United
States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to
the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to
implement this order.

Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense.

(a) As a military function and in light of the findings in
section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions
of this order.

(b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or
duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under
this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance
with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to --

(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not
otherwise authorized to have access to them;

(2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief
of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant
reprieves and pardons; or

(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any
military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United
States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an
individual subject to this order.

(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order --

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with
respect to offenses by the individual; and

(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or
maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any
such remedy or proceeding sought on the individuals behalf, in (i)
any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any
court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.

(c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right,
benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or equity by any party, against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or
employees, or any other person.

(d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any
district, territory, or possession of the United States.

(e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense,
at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority
control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this
order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such
governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control
is transferred.

Sec. 8. Publication.

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.


November 13, 2001.



/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
11/13 19:13

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of


  (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--

    (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or
kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or

    (2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

    (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `; and'; and

    (4) by adding at the end the following:

    `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

      `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of
the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

      `(B) appear to be intended--

        `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

        `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion; or

        `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

      `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.'.

  (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

    `(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international
terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.


  (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 2338 the following new section:

`Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

  `(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an
offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or
aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons),
section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to
nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to
arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or
death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy
facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime
navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or
section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national
boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of
nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both.'.

  `(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal
judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in
any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'.

  (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The chapter analysis for chapter 113B of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item for
section 2338 the following:

    `2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists.'.


  Section 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

    `(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of
the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act--

      `(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military
or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign
States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land
appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions
or entities, irrespective of ownership; and

      `(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or
ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those
missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to
those missions or entities.

    Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or
international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This
paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a
person described in section 3261(a) of this title.'.


  (a) IN GENERAL- Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is

    (1) in subsection (a)--

      (A) by striking `, within the United States,';

      (B) by inserting `229,' after `175,';

      (C) by inserting `1993,' after `1992,';

      (D) by inserting `, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2284),' after `of this title';

      (E) by inserting `or 60123(b)' after `46502'; and

      (F) by inserting at the end the following: `A violation of this
section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the
underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial
district as provided by law.'; and

    (2) in subsection (b)--

      (A) by striking `or other financial securities' and inserting `or
monetary instruments or financial securities'; and

      (B) by inserting `expert advice or assistance,' after `training,'.

  (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting `or 2339B' after `2339A'.


  Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end the following:

    `(G) All assets, foreign or domestic--

      `(i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in
planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism
(as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or
residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets,
foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any
such entity or organization;

      `(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for
the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of
domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against
the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their
property; or

      `(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used
to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in
section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the
United States, or their property.'.


  No provision of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
of 2000 (title IX of Public Law 106-387) shall be construed to limit or
otherwise affect section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code.


  Section 2332b of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in subsection (f), by inserting `and any violation of section
351(e), 844(e), 844(f)(1), 956(b), 1361, 1366(b), 1366(c), 1751(e),
2152, or 2156 of this title,' before `and the Secretary'; and

    (2) in subsection (g)(5)(B), by striking clauses (i) through (iii)
and inserting the following:

        `(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft
facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81
(relating to arson within special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229
(relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of
section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court
assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials),
842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3)
(relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing
death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in
interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing
during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon),
956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons
abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers),
1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii)
through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to
killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United
States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials,
official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating
to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication
lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or
property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility),
1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential
staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains),
1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against
mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national
defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence
against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against
maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other
violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United
States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b
(relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339
(relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing
material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material
support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of
this title;

        `(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or
fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or

        `(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second
sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a
dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or
incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons,
on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is
involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on
aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate
gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'.


  (a) IN GENERAL- Section 3286 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism

  `(a) EIGHT-YEAR LIMITATION- Notwithstanding section 3282, no person
shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense
involving a violation of any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B),
or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1751(e) of this title,
or section 46504, 46505, or 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is
found or the information is instituted within 8 years after the offense
was committed. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, offenses listed
in section 3295 are subject to the statute of limitations set forth in
that section.

  `(b) NO LIMITATION- Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may
be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for
any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such
offense resulted in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious
bodily injury to another person.'.

  (b) APPLICATION- The amendments made by this section shall apply to
the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this section.


  (a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in
the second undesignated paragraph by striking `not more than twenty
years' and inserting `for any term of years or for life'.

  (b) DESTRUCTION OF AN ENERGY FACILITY- Section 1366 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a), by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

  `(d) Whoever is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) or (b) that
has resulted in the death of any person shall be subject to imprisonment
for any term of years or life.'.

  (c) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

    (2) by striking the period and inserting `, and, if the death of any
person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

Section 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

    (2) by striking the period after `or both' and inserting `, and, if
the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of
years or for life.'.

title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

    (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death
results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for

  (f) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

    (1) by striking `ten' each place it appears and inserting `20';

    (2) in subsection (a), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned
for any term of years or for life.'; and

    (3) in subsection (b), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned
for any term of years or for life.'.

46505(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

    (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death
results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for

PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is

    (1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

    (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death
results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for


  (a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in
the first undesignated paragraph--

    (1) by striking `, or attempts to set fire to or burn'; and

    (2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' =
before `shall be imprisoned'.

  (b) KILLINGS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES- Section 930(c) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `or attempts to kill';

    (2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,'
before `shall be punished'; and

    (3) by striking `and 1113' and inserting `1113, and 1117'.

18, United States Code, is amended in the first undesignated paragraph--

    (1) by striking `or attempts willfully or maliciously to injure or
destroy'; and

    (2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,'
before `shall be fined'.

JURISDICTION- Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking `or attempts to destroy or injure'; and

    (2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,'
before `shall be fined' the first place it appears.

  (e) WRECKING TRAINS- Section 1992 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

  `(c) A person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this
section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty
of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of
which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

  (f) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do
such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

  (g) TORTURE- Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

  `(c) CONSPIRACY- A person who conspires to commit an offense under
this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the
penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the
commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

  (h) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a)--

      (A) by striking `, or who intentionally and willfully attempts to
destroy or cause physical damage to';

      (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a comma; and

      (C) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,'
before `shall be fined'; and

    (2) in subsection (b)--

      (A) by striking `or attempts to cause'; and

      (B) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,'
before `shall be fined'.

46504 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or
attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

  `(e) CONSPIRACY- If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection
(b) or (c), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall
be punished as provided in such subsection.'.

PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is

    (1) by striking `, or attempting to damage or destroy,'; and


U.S. House of Representatives

Public Servants Going After "Constitutional Terrorists"?

FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg (138882 bytes)

Front Page of flyer

FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg (169336 bytes)
Back Page of flyer


19 November 2001

If You Encounter Any Of The Following,
Call The Joint Terrorism Task Force

Recently someone sent an interesting document to me that caused me to revive the following commentary entitled, "Law Enforcement To Surveillance Right Wing Extremists."

At the time (1997), my interest in this issue was peaked by a series of articles in law enforcement publications. Because some of the groups and individuals sought for targeting by certain enforcement entities in 1997 was so close to the information contained in the document that I just received, I felt that it was worth repeating.

Incidently, this document allegedly came from the FBI office in Phoenix, Arizona. To view the first side of this document, click HERE. To view the other side of this flier, click HERE.

Admittedly, some of these groups may deserve to be listed, but not all of them. Take the Common Law category, for example. If someone does not have plates on their car, they are in violation of the law and they should be treated accordingly, regardless to whatever political ideology they aspire to. In addition, stereotyping, using group profiling to target individuals, is not an effective way to prevent crime, especially since merely holding a certain political ideal is not necessary illegal--at least it wasn't when this country was founded, not to mention the late 40s when I was born.

To better clarify my concern, just because I disagree with the integration of the U.S. Armed Forces, the National Guard, law enforcement, public education, and various other governmental concerns, with the United Nations is no cause to target me for an investigation, whether or not some folks who hold to the same ideals often resort to criminal activities. If this is all it takes for the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force to investigate someone, then they surely have their work cut out for them for I know private citizens and federal employees alike who qualify on that account.

Okay, and my message to those who are looking closely at me... just knock, don't break the door down. I'd be more than glad to sit down over a cup of coffee and chat about whatever it is that you're concerned about....

--Al Colombo, Publisher



Police State

Insight Magazine
Issue Date: December 10, 2001
Police State

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara <komeara@InsightMag.com>

Posted November 9, 2001

R_Paul.gif (55224 bytes)
Ron Paul says the text of the USA PATRIOT bill was not made available for
review before the vote.

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new
coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by
wholesale abrogation of civil liberties?  They cite the Halloween-week
passage of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost
preposterously gimmicky title:
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act).  Critics both
left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental
rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

Rep.  Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the
House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this
legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism
bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents.  Paul tells Insight,
"The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic
because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no.  I thought
it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it - and
therefore I'm somehow not a patriot.  That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law,
with serious implications for each and every American, was not made
available to members of Congress for review before the vote.  "It's my
understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't
get it.  They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all
night, and it was a very complicated bill.  Maybe a handful of staffers
actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members
before the vote."

And why would that be?  "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I
think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well,
we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile,
efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the
committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law?  "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part
of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the
federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper
search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying
Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek"
provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning
when searches of personal property are conducted.  Before the USA PATRIOT
Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person
whose property was to be searched.  With one vote by Congress and the sweep
of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to
be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and
seizures was abrogated.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining
with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the
Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted
for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the
warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or
that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have
no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios
involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept.  3), has a
pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate.  "I don't like the
sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if
the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search
his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced . and he shoots
them.  This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone
who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to
every American citizen."

The only independent in the House, Rep.  Bernie Sanders from Vermont,
couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that
voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath.  And the
contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or
searching examination."

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York
University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peek provision is just one that
will be challenged in the courts.  We're not only talking about the
sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other
places.  It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous
problems with due process.  By not notifying someone about a search, they
don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began
to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions.  A handful of
companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private
business records.  C.L.  "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP
lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this
provision would be a problem.  "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire
any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S.  court.  The
recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that
he has received such a request.  This is a violation of the First Amendment
right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Media Credit: Contributed Rep.  Otter says the PATRIOT law gives federal
agents unconstitutional police powers.

Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of
law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely
compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.  This bill, while
crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I
could not support."

Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen
disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be
unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have
little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism.  "There is no connection,"
insists Strossen, "between the Sept.  11 attacks and what is in this
legislation.  Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes
but to criminal activity generally.  This happened, too, with the 1996
antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been
used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."

"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the
'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are
written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the
new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people
think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down
the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper.
Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can
get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers
without a warrant.
Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to
minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic
terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human
life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to
be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or

The ACLU has posted on its Website, http://www.aclu.org, a comprehensive
list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal
spying.  The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of
the so-called USA PATRIOT Act.  The legislation:

minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet
surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to
designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any
noncitizen who belongs to them.

grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals
without having to show evidence of a crime.

leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence"

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative
Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be
shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA -
in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police.
No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested
information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the
information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted
telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies.  No court
order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the
CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence
operations - in effect, say critics, creating an international political
secret police.

According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of
government.  One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these
provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight.  The executive
branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of
government.  I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have
more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be
shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies.  So,
again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans -
something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s."

Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of
Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National
Security Agency against U.S.  activists and opponents of the war in
Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law
enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics.  Under
Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to
Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can
obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the
bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling
information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply
law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The
police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant
to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards - that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur.  Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge
believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the
requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential
carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled
access to Internet communications.  The contents of e-mail messages are
supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is
what interests law enforcement.  To conduct this process of separation,
however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the
addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested
in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say
is unlikely.  Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI
that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how
hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their
way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems.  While critics
doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is
that homes and places of business will be searched without prior
notice.  And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and
shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of
making America safe from terrorism.

Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the
Sept.  11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same
old.  "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate
during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against
it.  It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it.  In some
ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much
law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and
balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that
Congress just rolled and played dead on this one."

Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in
stopping the Sept.  11 attacks," he says.
"Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't
prove it will do so makes no sense.  I seriously believe this is a
violation of our liberties.  After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has
to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by
our courts as they have been by Congress.  Whether it's Congress being
willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver
them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether
it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and
insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this
law?  "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution.  This is why
they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted
against much more mild oppression."

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.


Who are the traitors that voted for H.R. 3162?

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:53 PM

Subject: Who are the traitors that voted for H.R. 3162?


U.S. House of Representatives 2001 Roll Call Votes

U.S. Senate Roll Call votes 1st Session (2001)


'Arab terrorists' crossing border
Middle Eastern illegals find easy entrance into U.S. from Mexico

By J. Zane Walley
 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

COCHISE COUNTY, Ariz. -- The U.S.-Mexican border here is the most heavily used corridor for illegal alien traffic on America's southern boundary. With its difficult topography that is folded, creased and convoluted, it is a land that yields well to smuggling. The Huachuca, Chiricahua, Dragoon and Whetstone Mountains are riddled with hundreds of deep canyons, caves and arroyos that offer superb concealment for the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens that annually cross here.

The numbers of unauthorized immigrants smuggled across this porous border dumbfound the imagination. To date, the U.S. Border Patrol has apprehended 158,782 illegals in 2001. By the Border Patrol's own admission, it catches one alien in five, and admits that around 800,000 have slipped across the U.S. line this year. The local ranchers, who have been watching the border for several generations, strongly disagree. They contend the agency only nets one in 10, and estimate that in 2001 over 1.5 million unlawful immigrants have crossed into America in what the Border Patrol calls the Tucson Sector.

Many border ranch-owners are validly apprehensive of speaking about their desperate situations because of likely retribution by narco-militarists (drug runners) and coyotes (smugglers of humans). Unsolved murders and arsons are alarmingly ordinary in Cochise County, so pure fear keeps locals from speaking on the record.

linup.jpg (24205 bytes)
Line of illegals moving across a ranch on the Cochise County, Ariz.-Mexican border. Photo by Donald Barnett, Bisbee, Ariz.

The foot traffic is so heavy that the backcountry has the ambience of a garbage dump and smells like an outdoor privy. In places, the land is littered a foot deep with bottles, cans, soiled disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, panties, clothes, backpacks, human feces, used toilet paper, pharmacy bottles and syringes (the drug runners inject stimulants to keep their energy up).

U.S. Border Patrol agents are doing the best they can, considering their sparse numbers and the impossible terrain they patrol in four-wheel-drive vehicles, quad-runners and on foot. Agents of the Border Patrol have their other fears besides being ambushed by rock-chucking illegals and confrontations with assault-rifle-armed narcos: They are not allowed to speak about what they cope with each day.

As one agent who spoke anonymously said, "Look, I can tell you a lot of stories, but I have to remain unnamed or I will be blackballed and might lose my job." Then, worriedly, he added, "I have a family depending on me."

Another agent, of supervisory rank, stated, "The smuggling traffic of Mexicans has really slowed. We are experiencing a tremendous increase in OTMs" – border lingo for "other than Mexicans." When queried about the ethnic make up of the OTMs, he answered, "Central and South Americans, Orientals and Middle-Easterners." Middle-Easterners? "Yeah, it varies, but about one in every 10 that we catch, is from a country like Yemen or Egypt."

Border Patrol spokesperson Rene Noriega stated that the number of other-than-Mexican detentions has grown by 42 percent. Most of the non-Mexican migrants are from El Salvador and other parts of Central America, she said, but added that agents have picked up people from all over the world, including the former Soviet Union, Asia and the Middle East.



pickup.jpg (16395 bytes)
Pick-up truck load of mixed-nationality illegals destined for Tucson or Phoenix, Ariz. Once in those cities, an organized pipeline disburses them across America. The "trucking" is generally handled by street gangs. Photo by Donald Barnett, Bisbee, Ariz.

Arabs have been reported crossing the Arizona border for an unknown period. Border rancher George Morgan encounters thousands of illegals crossing his ranch on a well-used trail. He relates a holiday event: "It was Thanksgiving 1998, and I stepped outside my house and there were over a hundred 'crossers' in my yard. Damnedest bunch of illegals I ever saw. All of them were wearing black pants, white shirts and string ties. Maybe they were hoping to blend in," he chuckled. "They took off, I called the Border Patrol, and a while later, an agent, Dan Green, let me know that they had caught them. He said that they were all Iranians."

According to Border Patrol spokesperson Rob Daniels, "Ten Egyptians were arrested recently near Douglas, Arizona. Each had paid $7,000 to be brought from Guatemala into Mexico and then across the border."

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, hours after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, an anonymous caller led Mexican immigration agents to 41 undocumented Iraqis waiting to cross into the United States.

The Associated Press reported that Mexican immigration police detained 13 citizens of Yemen on Sept. 24, 2001, who were reportedly waiting to cross the border into Arizona. The Yemenis were arrested Sunday in Agua Prieta, across the border from Douglas. Luis Teran Balaguer, assistant head of immigration in the northern state of Sonora, said, "The evidence indicates that they have nothing to do with terrorist activities."



breaktime.jpg (29133 bytes)
Group of unauthorized immigrants take a rest break on a trail that winds across the Barnett ranch near Douglas, Ariz. Amateur photographer Donald Barnett alerted the Border Patrol and was there for the bust. He noted, "There were people in this batch from Brazil, Salvador, Costa Rica and some Arab countries."

The Agua Prieta, Mexico newspaper, El Ciarin, clearly did not agree with Balaguer's assessment. The editor, Jose Noriega Durazo, claimed in a front-page El Ciarin headline, "ESTUVIERON AQUI TERRORISTAS ARABES!" (The Arab terrorists were here!) El Ciarin quoted Agua Prieta police officials as identifying the 13 Yemenis as terrorists. Reportedly, the Mexican immigration police returned the Yemenis to a federal detention center near Mexico City, but new information would indicate that they were "released" and returned to Agua Prieta.

Carlos X. Carrillo, assistant chief U. S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, told WorldNetDaily in a telephone interview Monday that nine Yemenis were reportedly holed up in a hotel in the border town of Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico, across the border from Douglas, Ariz.

"We have passed this tip to the FBI," said Carrillo.

When pressed for more information, he said he could not confirm the number of OTMs or Middle-Easterners apprehended while crossing the American/Mexican border. "We are under OP/SEC and cannot divulge this," the chief said. (OP/SEC is a counter-intelligence acronym for operations security.)

A Border Patrol field patrol agent, who spoke anonymously, confirmed the presence of the nine Yemenis. The agent said, "They can't get a coyote to transport them and they are offering $30,000 per person with no takers."

On Oct. 12, a Mexican national, associated with the hotel in Agua Prieta, abandoned it and moved to Arizona -- to hide out. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he told WND: "There were 13 Arabs there when I left. They were paying the coyotes 30 to 50,000 bucks, apiece, to transport them safely into the U.S. I became so frightened I left. They are genuinely bad hombres." Since Carrillo had reported only nine Arabs at the hotel, it is unclear if the missing five Yemenis made it into the U.S. as reported.



behindbars.jpg (25301 bytes)
Like most ranching families on the Arizona-Mexico border, the Winklers live behind protective bars. "We are having steel gates like this made for all our doors." says Doris Winkler as she peers through an armored entrance. "We never know what kinda people will try to bust in our home." Photo provided by the Paragon Foundation.

Potential terrorists, stealing across the border, had been predicted well in advance of the World Trade Center disaster. In a May 1, 2000, Report to Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, the General Accounting Office reported, "Alien smuggling is a significant and growing problem. Some are smuggled as part of a criminal or terrorist enterprise that can pose a serious threat to U.S. national security."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., in an Oct. 9 speech to the House of Representatives, stated, "It's almost incredible to recognize, as part of the overall strategy this government is going to employ to deal with the issue of terrorism, that we would not concentrate heavily on securing our borders and try to do everything humanly possible to stop people, who have evil intent, from coming into the United States."

Terrorists are well aware that the 4,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico is easy to cross, with its vast unmonitored stretches. Their crossing directly into Arizona is of special concern. Arizona appears to have been the home of a "sleeper cell" of Osama bin Laden's worldwide terrorist organization, with a select group of operatives living quietly in bland apartment complexes and obtaining flight training, in preparation for the Sept. 11 attack. The organization's known history in the state goes back nine years. Terror experts say the activities of at least three part-time Arizona residents fit the pattern of the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Sealing the border is a daunting task. Perhaps the most valuable asset that the Border Patrol has is the aid of rural Cochise County citizens. Many have attempted to help, in accordance with Arizona law. Through that legal process, landowners may execute a citizen's arrest for individuals or groups trespassing on their property. However, even that has been nullified. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, backed by the American and Mexican media, have characterized citizens who have legally detained aliens as "racist xenophobic vigilantes."


tracks.jpg (31839 bytes)
Not a cattle or game trail, but a well-defined human path across the IGO ranch. Photo provided by the Paragon Foundation.

Rural citizens here have met with savage recriminations for exerting their legal rights. Immigration advocacy groups howl in protest, as does the Mexican government. Their lawyers have demanded that the ranchers be prosecuted for false arrest, kidnapping, intimidation, criminal assault and violation of civil rights – anything lawyers can come up with to advance their clients' interests. Illegal immigrants have now sued some Cochise County citizens in American courts.

Ben Anderson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who lives in Sierra Vista, Ariz., has made a detailed study of the border danger since the flood of illegals began through Cochise County in 1997.

"There is only one way to handle this," the colonel says firmly. "In a world now filled with biowarfare agents, backpack nuclear devices and chemical weapons like Sarin gas, we must militarize the border. There is no other way to stop the flow."

Reporter's personal note: "I do not see how the folks living along this border keep going. I am a former U.S. Marine sergeant, and yet the presence of so much apparent violence spooked me. In researching this story, I went backcountry on quad-runners with a goodly couple, Larry and Toni Vance. The first thing they asked me was if I brought a sidearm. When I said, 'no,' they promptly gave me a wheel-gun to strap on. To tell you the truth, that lump of metal was comforting. It's not wise to travel unarmed in a war zone."



USA Patriot Act establishes a socialist dictatorship

From: "spiker" <spiker@ev1.net>

To: <Recipient list suppressed>

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:17 AM

Subject: USA Patriot Act establishes a socialist dictatorship


By Justin Raimondo AntiWar.com

November 26, 2001

Bullied and herded by the leaders of both parties, our witless Solons in
Washington passed the "USA PATRIOT Act" by a huge margin. Since the bill
wasn't even printed before the vote, they couldn't possibly have read this
372-page document. But even if they had read it, it's doubtful they would
have balked at passing the most draconian wartime measure since the infamous
Alien and Sedition Acts. In the wake of 9/11, none but a few brave souls
wanted to be seen as "soft on terrorism," and, in any case, the politicians'
instinctive impulse to gather more power unto themselves was automatic, in
this instance, as in any other. The big problem, however, is that a number of
surprises are beginning to surface, as our congressional "patriots" realize
that blindly playing follow-the-leader can often lead one over a cliff.


Much attention has been paid to the "civil libertarian" aspects of this
hideous bill: it would permit indefinite detention of non-citizens; and give
the authorities carte blanche to read email, open snail-mail, and eavesdrop
on phone conversations - all without a warrant, and without having to answer
to anyone. The Orwellian possibilities of a national chip-implanted ID card,
and a national database to match, are pretty obvious, and these, too, are
promised in the bill. But one key yet so far overlooked aspect of the
"Patriot" Act is the draconian controls it imposes on American business, both
large transnational mega-corporations and local mom-and-pop stores. Mr. and
Mrs. Bourgeoisie tend to be GOP types, but what will these stolid Republican
burghers say when they realize that they, too, are being "pressed into
service on the home front in the war on terrorism," as the Boston Globe put


In the name of "patriotism" and the "war on terrorism," retailers are being
conscripted into an army of informants whose job it is to spy on their
customers. Under the terms of this legislation, all businesses must report
"suspicious transactions" to the Treasury Department. What makes a
transaction "suspicious"? You can bet there will be a 500-page manual to
answer all your questions, and if you want to stay in business you had better
commit it to memory - or find yourself accused of aiding and abetting


According to the text of the Act, "any person engaged in trade or business"
must report all transactions over $10,000 to Washington bureaucrats: failure
to do so could result in punishment far worse than a mere fine. Here is a
perfect example of how the principle of incrementalism works in favor of the
expansion of state power.

Before the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, this requirement
previously applied only to pawnbrokers and car dealers, as a way to track
down stolen goods. The Banking Secrecy Act, passed in the name of fighting
the "war on drugs," extended the reporting system to banking institutions of
one sort or another. The USA PATRIOT Act universalizes this surveillance,
and, in the process, gives government officials a key weapon that may be
utterly useless in fighting terrorism, but may prove invaluable in the
government's perpetual battle to expropriate wealth and centralize power.


If I buy three $4,000 shipments of, say, tea imported from Japan, the fight
against terrorism is not going to be helped one whit if I report it to the
Economic Surveillance Unit of the Office of Homeland Security. Who may be
helped, however, is my competitor in the tea trade who, perhaps, has a
"friend" in the bureaucracy with access to this information. To know what the
competition is buying, and how much they're paying - what business rival
wouldn't pay through the nose to obtain this vital information? If you think
corruption is already endemic, wait until you see what life in wartime is


Aside from the corruption angle, this little-known aspect of the "Patriot"
Act practically fulfills one of the key demands in the old Marxist program:
back in the old days, the Commies would always demand of "big business" that
they "open the books" - that is, reveal the details of their business
operations. The idea was that once the profit margins of the capitalists were
exposed to public view, such a display of wealth and greed would seem so
obviously obscene and exploitative that it would inevitably lead to a
socialist revolution. What the Commies never managed to pull off, George W.
Bush and his fellow Republicans have accomplished in a single day's session
of Congress and the stroke of a presidential pen. The books of American
business have been pried open, not by the proletariat, but by the leaders of
the world's leading capitalist country.


Headlines proclaim the glorious "liberation" of Afghanistan, as the progress
of our noble allies from one victory to another is breathlessly analyzed and
celebrated. Has Kunduz fallen? Will the Northern Alliance keep Kabul? And
what of Herat? The fate of cities half a world away is trumpeted from the
rooftops, but news of another sort of sneak attack, this time against our
free enterprise system, is barely heard above a whisper. "This is a big deal,
and a big change, for the vast majority of American businesses," says Joe
Rubin, chief lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce. "But I don't think
anybody realizes it's happened."


Oh god, I can't wait until they find out! Let us anticipate the following
scenario with unalloyed and unapologetic glee: pro-war blowhard Joe Everyman,
who runs a small electronics business out of his home, is suddenly confronted
with reams of paperwork before he can purchase or sell anything of
consequence. As he encounters costly delays, and watches his small savings
melt away against the backdrop of a general economic downturn, perhaps he'll
stop railing against "ragheads" long enough to realize he's been had.

Or, then again, if he's a real dumbo, maybe he'll just scream all the louder
that we have to start bombing Iraq, and perhaps Syria, funneling his inchoate
anger at an acceptably "patriotic" target. This, at any rate, is what the War
Party is hoping for, as they gear up for "phase two" of Operation Enduring
Freedom - not to mention phases three through three-hundred-and-ten.


This war is oh so convenient for so many people that it is no wonder they're
telling us it could last a whole generation. If we ask the key question -
"Who benefits?" - the results are like doing a Google-search on the phrase
"grassy knoll" - the results are too numerous to even list, let alone
describe. One overlooked political benefit to the current administration is
that the war is an excellent diversion from the bad economic news on the home
front. An economic downturn that can always be blamed on Osama Bin Laden
would have come, anyway: the "almost official" declaration that we are in a
recession hardly comes as news to the markets, which have been in a radical
downswing that shows no signs of abating anytime soon. And here we come to
the economic uses of this war, as the real meaning of what our rulers have in
store for us becomes all too apparent.


The War Party is fond of referring to what is essentially a police action
against a ragtag band of fanatics as the moral and military equivalent of
World War II: the propaganda purposes of this sort of hyperbole are manifold.
Not only does it demonize the other side as the modern-day equivalent of
Hitler and the Nazis - "Islamic fascism," you'll recall, is the source of the
New Popular Front's ire - but it also gives a sense of scale to the struggle.

Clearly, in their minds, this is a gigantic battle that must not be confined
to the wilds of Afghanistan, or Somalia, or wherever they decide to go next.
It must permeate every aspect of American life: we must be perpetually "on
alert," and not only against young Middle Eastern-looking men and their
ubiquitous box-cutters. We must also be on guard against "suspicious
transactions" - and those who fail to report them. Oh, what a field day
politically-connected business interests are going to have against their less
influential competitors! In addition to the toll-free "Report-a-Raghead"
hotlines opened up by the FBI and Homeland Security, we'll have an economic
saboteur hotline, where stool pigeons can rat on their rivals and the whole
system of bribery and outright thievery that characterized the Clinton era
can metastasize into a permanent condition.


The economic regulations enshrined in the "Patriot" Act have more to do with
the government's war on American business than with any "war on terrorism."
The war spirit, transferred to the economy, gives us - socialism, or
something damn near it. Who can doubt that this information - encoded, of
course, in a national database - will be put to other uses, such as "economic
planning"? That the Sovietization of the American economy was accomplished,
not by a Leninist vanguard party, but by two ostensibly capitalist parties,
the Republicans and the Democrats, is an irony that few will note - until it
is too late.


Oh, and don't let them tell you that these are only "emergency" measures, and
will be repealed once the war is over. To begin with, if we take the
overblown rhetoric of the War Party at face value, we may not live to see the
end of this war. Secondly, since when has any government ever surrendered
power voluntarily?: a government prerogative, once granted during wartime,
tends to stay encoded in law. Look at New York City's rent control laws,
enacted as an emergency wartime measure, still in force after all these
years. No, the longer the "Patriot" Act is allowed to subvert the
Constitution, and trample on our liberty, the more likely it is to become a
permanent feature of American life. Congress must be forced - forced by a
popular outcry - to take a second look. This onerous legislation, which lays
the foundations for a Soviet socialist America, must be repealed.


As the first phase of a campaign to get rid of this Orwellian monstrosity,
and warn our rulers that we won't put up with it, it is high time to turn the
propaganda of the War Party on its head: that is, to use their own tactics
against them. Our ruling elites are overjoyed, of course, that patriotism is
"in," and do their best to ensure that any expression of dissent is angrily
dismissed as disloyalty or worse. The popularity of displaying the American
flag is being touted as proof of the blind loyalty of the masses to anything
the government says or does, when, of course, it is nothing of the kind.

The red-white-and-blue hangs outside my door, and I am certainly not giving
the US government a blank check to go on a rampage, either at home or abroad.
People are literally waving the flag out of sheer defiance, and legitimate
anger at the sheer unspeakable horror of the 9/11 attack, not out of
knee-jerk support for any particular government policies. One way to visibly
register dissent from the all-out assault on our civil liberties is to bring
out another, older flag, the one that preceded Old Glory. A banner showing a
coiled snake - the Gadsden flag - was popular during the American Revolution,
because it was emblazoned with a message to King George and any potential
oppressor or attacker: "Don't Tread on Me"!


This raises exactly the right slogan at exactly the right moment, to whomever
may care to take heed. There's a shortage of American flags, due to the flag
craze, and you can be the first on your block to show your colors by
displaying the revolutionary flag right next to Old Glory. "Don't Tread on
Me" - and that goes for you, too, John Ashcroft.



Monday, December 03, 2001 8:26 AM


From: Don Jaynes gypsydr@toast.net

Here they are Brothers and Sisters! There will come a time when you need
this list.

Some were heroic because of their love of country.

Some were ignorant for they knew not what they voted for.

Some were forthright for they stood tall when the pressure was on.

Some were specious for they knew what they voted for.

Some were gallant when others lost their sensibility.

Some were vile for they welcome the end of Liberty.

Some were the epitome of the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave."

You decide which is which.

But whatever you do, never forget, lest you regret,

To know who they were and how they voted!


       H R 3162     2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      24-OCT-2001   11:05 AM
       QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
       BILL TITLE: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States
and around the world

                                    YEAS            NAYS       PRES     NV

       REPUBLICAN                     211                3                5

       DEMOCRATIC                    145               62                4

       INDEPENDENT                      1                1

       TOTALS                              357               66                9

                                      --- YEAS    357 ---

Ackerman                     Gordon                           Northup

Aderholt                        Goss                               Norwood

Akin                              Graham                           Nussle

Allen                             Granger                           Obey

Andrews                        Graves                            Ortiz

Armey                            Green (TX)                     Osborne

Baca                              Green (WI)                      Ose

Bachus                           Greenwood                     Oxley

Baird                              Grucci                             Pallone

Baker                             Gutierrez                         Pascrell

Baldacci                         Gutknecht                        Pelosi

Ballenger                        Hall (OH)                        Pence

Barcia                            Hall (TX)                         Peterson

Barr                               Harman                            Petri

Bartlett                           Hart                                 Phelps

Barton                            Hastings (WA)                 Pickering

Bass                               Hayes                              Pitts

Becerra                          Hayworth                        Platts

Bentsen                          Hefley                              Pombo

Bereuter                         Herger                             Pomeroy

Berkley                          Hilleary                             Portman

Berman                          Hinchey                            Price (NC)

Berry                             Hinojosa                           Pryce (OH)

Biggert                           Hobson                             Putnam

Bishop                           Hoeffel                              Quinn

Blagojevich                    Hoekstra                           Radanovich

Blunt                             Holden                               Ramstad

Boehlert                        Holt                                   Rangel

Boehner                        Hooley                               Regula

Bonilla                          Horn                                   Rehberg

Bono                            Hostettler                            Reyes

Borski                          Houghton                            Reynolds

Boswell                        Hoyer                                 Riley

Boyd                            Hulshof                               Rodriguez

Brady (PA )                  Hunter                               Roemer

Brady (TX)                   Hyde                                 Rogers (KY)

Brown (FL)                   Inslee                                Rogers (MI)

Brown (SC)                   Isakson                            Rohrabacher

Bryant                            Israel

Burr                               Issa                                  Ross

Buyer                            Istook                               Rothman

Callahan                        Jefferson                           Roukema

Calvert                          Jenkins

Camp                            John                                  Royce

Cannon                          Johnson (CT)                    Ryan (WI)

Cantor                           Johnson (IL)                      Ryun (KS)

Capito                           Johnson, Sam                    Sandlin

Capps                            Jones (NC)                       Sawyer

Cardin                            Kanjorski                          Saxton

Carson (IN)                   Kaptur                               Schaffer

Carson (OK)                 Keller                                Schiff

Castle                            Kelly                                 Schrock

Chabot                          Kennedy (MN)                  Sensenbrenner

Chambliss                      Kennedy (RI)                     Sessions

Clement                         Kerns                                 Shadegg

Clyburn                         Kildee                                Shaw

Coble                            Kind (WI)                          Shays

Collins                           King (NY)                         Sherman

Combest                        Kingston                           Sherwood

Condit                            Kirk                                 Shimkus

Cooksey                        Kleczka                            Shows

Costello                          Knollenberg                      Shuster

Cox                                Kolbe                               Simmons

Cramer                           LaFalce                            Simpson

Crane                             LaHood                           Skeen

Crenshaw                       Lampson                          Skelton

Crowley                         Langevin                           Slaughter

Culberson                       Lantos                              Smith (MI)

Cunningham                    Largent                             Smith (NJ)

Davis (CA )                    Larsen (WA)                    Smith (TX)

Davis (FL)                      Larson (CT)                     Smith (WA)

Davis, Jo Ann                  Latham                            Snyder

Davis, Tom                     LaTourette                       Solis

Deal                                Leach                              Souder

Delahunt                          Levin                               Spratt

DeLauro                          Lewis (CA)                     Stearns

DeLay                             Lewis (KY)                      Stenholm

DeMint                            Linder                              Strickland

Deutsch                           Lipinski                            Stump

Diaz-Balart                      LoBiondo                         Stupak

Dicks                              Lofgren                             Sununu

Doggett                           Lowey                              Sweeney

Dooley                            Lucas (KY)                      Tancredo

Doolittle                          Lucas (OK)                      Tanner

Doyle                              Luther                               Tauscher

Dreier                             Lynch                                Tauzin

Duncan                           Maloney (CT)                    Taylor (MS)

Dunn                              Maloney (NY)                    Taylor (NC)

Edwards                        Manzullo                             Terry

Ehlers                            Markey                               Thomas

Ehrlich                           Mascara
Thompson (CA)

Emerson                        Matheson                            Thornberry

Engel                             Matsui                                 Thune

English                          McCarthy (MO)                   Thurman

Eshoo                           McCarthy (NY)                    Tiahrt

Etheridge                      McCollum                             Tiberi

Evans                           McCrery                               Toomey

Everett                         McHugh                                Towns

Fattah                          McInnis

Ferguson                      McIntyre                              Turner

Flake                           McKeon                               Upton

Fletcher                       McNulty                               Vitter

Foley                           Meehan                                Walden

Forbes                         Meeks (NY)                        Walsh

Ford                            Menendez                             Wamp

Fossella                       Mica
Watkins (OK)

Frelinghuysen               Millender-McDonald             Watts (OK)

Frost                           Miller, Dan                             Waxman

Gallegly                       Miller, Gary                           Weiner

Ganske                        Miller, Jeff                             Weldon

Gekas                          Moore                                  Weldon

Gephardt                      Moran (KS)                         Weller

Gibbons                       Moran (VA)                         Wexler

Gilchrest                       Morella                                Whitfield

Gillmor                         Murtha                                 Wicker

Gilman                         Myrick                                 Wilson

Gonzalez                      Napolitano                            Wolf

Goode                         Neal                                      Wynn

Goodlatte                     Nethercutt                            Young (FL)

                                          -- NAYS    66 ---

Baldwin                         Jackson-Lee (TX)                 Peterson (MN)

Barrett                           Johnson, E. B.                       Rahall

Blumenauer                    Jones (OH)                            Rivers

Bonior                           Kucinich                               Rush

Boucher                         Lee                                      Sabo

Brown (OH)                  Lewis (GA)                          Sanchez

Capuano                        McDermott                          Sanders

Clayton                          McGovern                           Schakowsky

Conyers                         McKinney                            Scott

Coyne                            Meek (FL)                           Serrano

Cummings                       Miller, George                     Stark

(IL)                       Mink                                   Thompson (MS)

DeFazio                          Mollohan                            Tierney

DeGette                          Nadler                               Udall (CO)

Dingell                            Ney
Udall (NM)

Farr                                Oberstar

Filner                              Olver

Frank                             Otter                                   Waters

Hastings (FL)                 Owens                                 Watson (CA)

Hilliard                           Pastor
Watt (NC)

Honda                           Paul

Jackson (IL)                  Payne                                    Wu

                                     -- NOT VOTING    9---

Abercrombie                   Clay                                   Hill

Bilirakis                           Cubin

Burton                             Hansen                              Young

Bush Team Seeks Broader Surveillance Powers
By Jim McGee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page A25

The Bush administration is asking Congress for a second major expansion of federal surveillance powers that legal experts say would radically change laws that have long protected the rights of Americans.

A Justice Department proposal would eliminate the chief legal safeguard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A CIA proposal seeks legal authority to gather telephone and Internet records from domestic communication companies.

The still-secret proposals would build upon and expand new intelligence-gathering powers that were granted to the FBI and the CIA under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Signed into law Oct. 26, that anti-terrorism bill laid the foundation for a larger and more powerful domestic intelligence-gathering system.

The legislative changes submitted to the House and Senate intelligence committees are consistent with Bush administration efforts to make fundamental changes to improve the FBI's intelligence-gathering capabilities. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has favored the "disruption" of what he calls suspected terrorist groups.

The new proposals are part of a broader effort by the administration to change a complex legal framework that was built after the Watergate scandal to govern domestic intelligence gathering.

At the Justice Department, lawyers are working on a proposed revision of the attorney general guidelines, a set of rules that governs FBI domestic security and foreign counterintelligence operations, a senior government official said. For 25 years, the guidelines have served as the FBI's operational template.

The Justice Department asked Congress to remove the key legal restriction on obtaining wiretaps under the FISA law. The law permits extensive use of listening devices in espionage and international terrorism cases so long as the target is connected to a foreign power or international terrorist group.

FISA wiretaps are considered especially sensitive because agents who obtain them need not have any proof that crimes are being committed, only probable cause that the target is working on behalf of the foreign power or terrorists. By contrast, agents who wiretap suspected mob figures or drug lords must show a judge persuasive evidence that specific crimes are being committed.

By removing the requirement of a foreign connection, the administration proposal would make it far easier to mount surveillance on people who have no known connection to actors overseas.

"This amendment would fill a gap that has become increasingly apparent since September 11," said the Justice Department proposal, because the requirement to show a connection with a foreign power "limits the ability of the President to use this statute against, for example, hijackers or other terrorists without affiliation or known affiliation with a specific group or foreign state."

The CIA's proposal would give the agency the same legal authority the FBI now has to obtain information on foreign intelligence targets from domestic telephone and Internet service providers.

The new proposals came at the invitation of the Senate and House intelligence panels, which asked the agencies to submit technical corrections to the anti-terrorism bill or suggest laws that would help combat terrorism, according to an informed source.

Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert M. Mueller III declined to be interviewed for this article, as did CIA Director George J. Tenet. "What is being done is because of the congressional initiative," said Justice spokeswoman Susan Dryden. "The Department of Justice has simply provided technical guidance upon request as we do regularly on countless issues."

Experts in intelligence law say the proposed change to FISA would gut the law's rationale. "That is an absurd and unnecessary change in my view," said Kenneth Bass, who oversaw FISA surveillance applications at the Justice Department. "That is a radical change."

Stuart Baker, a former general counsel at the National Security Agency, said: "That is a big step. This blurs the line between intelligence and law enforcement."

The CIA asked for authority to force telephone and Internet service providers to hand over without a court order information on foreign intelligence targets living outside the United States who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents.

The FBI already has this authority. Under the law, the CIA would have the same authority if the CIA director declares "there is a substantial likelihood that the communications of the target contain intelligence information" relating to international terrorism.

"This is pretty audacious," said James X. Dempsey, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology and an expert on the legal aspects of electronic surveillance. "What they are asking for is the ability to carry out e-mail interceptions without a court order, upon the say-so of the director of central intelligence."

The proposed new authority for the CIA would be added to new powers granted under the U.S.A. Patriot Act that gave the CIA access to foreign intelligence information gathered by domestic grand juries, wiretaps and criminal investigations conducted by the FBI and other agencies.

A senior U.S. official said this second wave of anti-terrorism measures reflects the administration's belief that it can harness the political energy of wartime to gain even more power and autonomy for federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

"A lot of this is not being driven by problems that prosecutors or investigators are having," the official said. "It is just a good time to get everything. It is totally politically and public-perception-driven."

"It is turning FISA into a one-stop shop for wiretaps," said Jerry Berman, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology who participated in the drafting of the FISA statute in 1979. "Joe Six Pack thinks they [FISA wiretaps] are carefully targeted on foreigners and terrorists."



Religious groups face monitoring

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) warned Sunday that religious or political groups normally free from government intrusion could be monitored by agents if they are suspected of engaging in terrorism.

``People who hijack a religion and make out of it an implement of war will not be free from our interest,'' he declared as officials took to the Sunday news shows to debate America's new anti-terrorism police powers.

The Senate's top Democrat said he might support the narrow use of one of the most controversial tactics - secret military tribunals to try terrorists.

``Under certain circumstances, very, very restricted circumstances, depending on how it's handled, I'm willing to look at it,'' Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said.

``With regard to the situation in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in particular, trying a Taliban or terrorist or ... people involved in terrorist activity, clearly there's at least the possibility that something like that might have merit,'' Daschle said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

The debate offered a preview of a Senate hearing this week at which Ashcroft will address criticisms of both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans concerned the new tactics will erode civil liberties.

Meanwhile, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that investigators have gathered evidence showing similarities among the last three terrorist attacks against Americans by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s supporters.

Those attacks include the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole (news - web sites) in Yemen and the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the similarities included the way the attacks were planned, communicated and carried out, and the way the attackers were trained. The officials declined to be more specific.

``There are certainly similarities among the three, some of which have emerged more clearly in the last few weeks,'' one official said.

The investigators said they also are examining whether some of the same people were involved in planning and assisting the three attacks. One official said authorities are waiting for more information from authorities in Yemen and other countries about certain suspects.

On the news shows, Ashcroft previewed his appearance Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), where he will confront criticism about some of his department's hardest line tactics.

``We're going to do what we need to do to protect the American people,'' Ashcroft said on ABC's ``This Week'' when asked whether restrictions designed in the 1970s to protect religious and political groups from government monitoring were being eased.

``If a religion is hijacked and used as a cover for killing thousands of Americans, we're interested in that,'' he said.

He added, ``We will respect the rights of political freedom and religious freedom, and we are deeply committed to that. But for so-called terrorists to gather over themselves some robe of clericism ... and claim immunity from being observed, people who hijack a religion and make out of it an implement of war will not be free from our interest.''

Ashcroft told ``Fox News Sunday'' that military tribunals would be limited to non-U.S. citizens and ``not just normal criminal activity, but war crimes.'' He refused to rule out military tribunals for any foreigners detained on U.S. soil.

``Can you imagine apprehending a terrorist, either in the deserts of Afghanistan or on the way to the United States to commit a crime, and having to take them through the traditional justice system?'' Ashcroft asked.

``Reading them the Miranda Rights? Hiring a flamboyant lawyer at public expense? Having sort of Osama television ... allowing that kind of propaganda to go out, jeopardizing American assets in the intelligence community and in the war? Putting a courthouse and a community as a target for terrorism?''

Rep. Bob Barr (news - bio - voting record), R-Ga., a conservative former federal prosecutor, said he opposed tribunals for any suspect detained on U.S. soil. ``I'm not worried about tribunals, for example, overseas, but domestically we have to abide by the Bill of Rights,'' he told ABC.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news - bio - voting record), D-Conn., the former vice presidential candidate, said he supported using tribunals for terrorists who engaged in acts of war but opposed them if used against people legally in the United States.

In other developments:

-Ashcroft said there continues to be no evidence the deadly anthrax mailed in four recent letters was the work of foreign terrorists or a foreign government. Investigators believe a single person who lived in the United States was behind all four attacks. Agents have delayed opening the most recent letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (news - bio - voting record), D-Vt., until scientists are fully ready to analyze it.

-Several hundred National Guard members have been asked to assist inspections at U.S.-Canadian crossings. Ashcroft said he also wants military helicopters to patrol the 4,000-mile border. He said the moves were ``not militarizing our border with Canada'' but rather designed to fill gaps created when agents who traditionally patrol the border were shifted to inspecting cars, trucks and cargo after Sept. 11.


FBI agents rebel over new powers
FBI agents revolt against Ashcroft’s new police-state surveillance
The US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was yesterday reported to be ready to relax restrictions on the FBI's powers to spy on religious and church-based political organisations.
Liberty Watch: Observer campaign

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer

The US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was yesterday reported to be ready to relax restrictions on the FBI's powers to spy on religious and church-based political organisations.
His proposal, leaked to the New York Times, would loosen limits on the FBI's surveillance powers, imposed in the 1970s after the death of its founder J. Edgar Hoover.

The plan has caused outrage within the FBI itself with agents expected to act upon new surveillance powers describing themselves as 'very, very angry'.

The spying, wiretapping and surveillance campaign unleashed by Hoover against church and political groups was called 'Cointelpro', and was aimed mainly at the movement behind civil rights activist Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers, the anti-Vietnam war movement and, on the other wing, the Ku Klux Klan.

When the system was revealed, upon Hoover's death, restrictions were put on the security bureau, in the form of two sets of regulations pertaining to foreign-based and domestic groups. The rules forbade FBI agents from sending undercover agents into churches, synagogues or mosques unless they found 'probable cause or evidence' that someone in them had broken the law.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Susan Dryden, said no final decision had been made on their reintroduction.

According to sources, the plan has caused a sharp rift within the department and the FBI. Ashcroft and the new FBI director, Robert Mueller, are pushing the plan eagerly, but there is strong opposition among officials inside both the bureau and the Justice Department.

Internal opposition to the plan will exacerbate an already fractious atmosphere in the FBI since President Bush took office.

Some agents told the New York Times that they considered any weakening of the guidelines 'a serious mistake', and that the Justice Department had 'not clearly described' the proposed changes. 'People are furious right now,' said one agent.

The changes would become part of what civil liberties groups regard as a dangerously changing legal landscape in the US: 1,200 people with connections to Islamic groups have been taken into custody, and Draconian security measures, such as wiretapping of lawyers, pushed through Congress.

Further plans are now afoot to seek out and interview some 5,000 immigrants, mostly Muslims, who have entered the US since January.


Executive Order l2333 - United States Intelligence Activities


Subject: "Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks on Google Video
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:33:17 -0700
From: Marc Perkel <marc@perkel.com>
To: APFN@apfn.org
CC: news@ctyme.com

Here is a link to a Google video that I made of myself explaining a lot of the technical details of Bush's wire tapping program and why it will never work. It explains that terrorists would use private voice over IP networks (Internet phones) that can not be tapped. It is explained in a manner that the average viewer can get a good idea of how it works. Feel free to use this and pass it around. It puts a new light on the whole "we need NSA wiretapping to fight the terrorists" excuse. Show this to as many people as possible.

Marc Perkel
Uber Geek

Your friend, marc@perkel.com, has sent you the following video from Google Video and included this message:

check this out

Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks

13 min 29 sec - Oct 20, 2006
Description: Bush claims he needs NSA wire tapping to break up terrorist networks but terrorists are not using the phone network Bush is tapping. They are using private voice over IP internet phones (VoIP) that can't be tapped. This video explains how it works.


From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53


 flag-22.gif (30226 bytes)


I was born an American. I live as an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard to personal consequences. What are the personal consequences?

What is the individual man with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good and evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless, No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and Constitution of his country.

...Daniel Webster

Attack on America

Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution of the United States

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

American citizens aren't exempt\

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

The Declaration of Independence


The Secret oath

Secret Court - Secret Laws

Original 13th Amendment




Secrets of the Federal Reserve and the London Connection

Police searches & Seizures

Police State

starsbar.gif (6525 bytes)

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

starsbar.gif (6525 bytes)

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net workers...."

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

mai4_anm.gif (5537 bytes)

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org

Hit Counter

Last updated 05/10/2011