"Proof" - Homeland Security was planned way before 9/11!
& The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11

The New World Order Isn't Coming....It is Already here!"

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Homeland Security Bill
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:01:33 -0500
From: "Roger Inman" rwinman@bellsouth.net

Hi folks,

This was sent to me and I am forwarding it on.

Once again we are being ask to "buy a pig in a poke" and so are
our Representatives in the house and senate. It is almost like naming a
bill, passing it then filling it in the blanks later. You would not
drive a new car off the lot with out having a signed contract and
knowing what your cost and monthly payments are. That is what the house
and senate are doing time after time and it started a long long time
before G W Bush and a long time before Ronnie Raygun.

I have friends and family that will say the government would not do
that. Well, Guess What! If you think that, you do not understand
governments idea of it's job roll, Which is to grow it's self and to
become larger and more powerful, that is the elected Representatives and
government workers views. It started along time ago and very slowly
started to in crease in size and power then accelerates until it is
growing by leaps and bounds. Now with the passage of the Patriot Bill
and now the Home Land Security Bill, "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"

Today get a copy of our Constitution & Bill of Rights, and lay them down
beside the Communist Manifesto and compare them. Do it again in 5 years,
then tell me I wrong.

Thanks for listening and staying with me this far, now read what Rep Ron
Paul says below.

Roger Inman

Please FORWARD this message to all e-mail lists and newsgroups. NETWORK
for a Free America!

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Homeland Security Bill Moves to Senate

Wednesday, the Homeland Security Bill was passed by the House "UNREAD,"
again just like the Patriot Act -- Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX refused to
sign it. This is just so un-Constitutional. See his article below.

There are not only serious medical issues, but serious privacy issues.
Every bill should be read, debated, then voted. Read below, then
contact your Senator and tell him/her not to vote for HR-5710,
and inform him of your expectations. Once these tyrannical laws are
vote in, they don't come off. Your life could depend on it. You will
be receiving dangerous mandatory Smallpox vaccine, or quarantined in
some FEMA camp (increasing your exposure), and it's guaranteed to rob
you of your rights to privacy, an Orwellian nightmare. Every bank
deposit, withdrawal, credit card purchase will be recorded and shared
with the global community i.e. the UN, IMF, EU, etc. This will not
fight the "Phony War On Terrorism" it's being done to control you. If
Bush wanted to fight terrorism, he'd close the borders to terrorist. We
are on the cusp of a fascist military takeover. Poindexter (cited in a
NYT article) who is to head up the Information Awareness Program and a
$200 million budget to organize dossiers on 300 million Americans. He
had 5 felonies, drop under plea bargaining for his testimony, then ran
out of DC because he was so unscrupulous, and no one is questioning why
he's being brought back into government service -- connect the dots.
Time is of the essence, and if you really care about your country don't
forget to contact your Senator immediately, before the lines are
jammed. They are voting on that Homeland Security bill today! (800)
648-3516 or (877) 762-8762 or (800) 393-1082

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

The Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943

Homeland Security Bill Moves to Senate

--Concerns about bill multiplying as details are revealed

--Senators express concern about lack of debate

--“Politics is the mother of bureaucracy” – Sen. Byrd

--Tell Senators to wait for debate and pass the bill in sunshine

“HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases
federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were
told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being
rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to
debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this
bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.”

Rep.Ron Paul, M.D. AAPS member on the floor of the House 11/13/02

Read Entire Statement:


Wednesday night the House passed H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security
Bill. The Senate is now debating it, and a vote is expected within
days – possibly as early as Friday.

Now that details of the House version are being made public, we’ve
heard from a number of individuals and organizations about their
concerns about several provisions of this bill in addition to ours
about smallpox countermeasures.

Problems with the bill included centralized database provisions,
airport security, unchecked power to cabinet officials, extent of
the new bureaucracy, concentration of power in the executive branch,
suspension of the rule that prohibits secret advisory committee
meetings, limited public access to information, and failure to
address border security and immigration issues, such as tracking
foreign students.

The bottom line is that there are big problems with this bill. But
the biggest problem may be that almost no one has read the entire
484-page bill. The brand new legislation was dumped in Congress on
Wednesday (with many new provisions) and fast-tracked through the
House in less than 24 hours. Rules were used to limit debate and


We’d like to tell you what the Senate bill says about the smallpox
countermeasures and the powers to be granted to the HHS Secretary –
but there is no copy available to the public. (We finagled the
House version on Wednesday from the Rules Committee.) Staff members
tell us that it is the same as the House version, but without a
document in hand, we can’t comment on the specifics.

At this point we agree with Sen. Byrd who said on Thursday “We’re
making a huge mistake passing the bill at this time…there has not
been a single hearing.” He expressed his concerns about the way the
bill was being pushed through Congress with little debate or
discussion, adding, “If necessity is the mother of invention, then
politics is the mother of bureaucracy.”


Please tell your Senators to vote NO on the Homeland Security Bill.
Instead, let’s wait for a workable bill that also protects our
liberties. One that’s debated and passed in the light of sunshine.

Contact your Senator:
(800) 648-3516 or (877) 762-8762 or (800) 393-1082

Contact the White House:president@whitehouse.gov
mailto: president@whitehouse.gov 

Read the House Bill: http://www.aapsonline.org/confiden/5710.htm

Mirrored at: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/5710.htm

"Proof" - Homeland Security was planned way before 9/11!

National Security Presidential Directives [NSPD]
George W. Bush Administration

In the new Bush Administration, the directives that are used to promulgate
Presidential decisions on national security matters are designated National
Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs).

As discussed in NSPD 1, this new category of directives replaces both the
Presidential Decision Directives and the Presidential Review Directives of
the previous Administration. Unless other otherwise indicated, however,
past Directives remain in effect until they are superseded.

The first directive, dated 13 February 2001, was formally approved for
release by the National Security Council staff on 13 March 2001.

Membership of the National Security Council
(What authority gives them approval power over Congress and/or Judiciary?)

Quote from:
National Security Presidential Directives - NSPD-1 - Dated: Feb. 13, 2001

"Proliferation, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense
(by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);"

SUBJECT: Organization of the National Security Council System
This document is the first in a series of National Security Presidential
Directives. National Security Presidential Directives shall replace both
Presidential Decision Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an
instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the national
security policies of the United States.


The White House

February 13, 2001



SUBJECT: Organization of the National Security Council System

This document is the first in a series of National Security Presidential Directives. National Security Presidential Directives shall replace both Presidential Decision Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the national security policies of the United States.

National security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe. National security also depends on America's opportunity to prosper in the world economy. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, established the National Security Council to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. That remains its purpose. The NSC shall advise and assist me in integrating all aspects of national security policy as it affects the United States - domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and economics (in conjunction with the National Economic Council (NEC)). The National Security Council system is a process to coordinate executive departments and agencies in the effective development and implementation of those national security policies.

The National Security Council (NSC) shall have as its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisors to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. The Chief of Staff to the President and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Counsel to the President shall be consulted regarding the agenda of NSC meetings, and shall attend any meeting when, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, he deems it appropriate. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. For the Attorney General, this includes both those matters within the Justice Department's jurisdiction and those matters implicating the Attorney General's responsibility under 28 U.S.C. 511 to give his advice and opinion on questions of law when required by the President. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, shall be invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall be responsible, at my direction and in consultation with the other regular attendees of the NSC, for determining the agenda, ensuring that necessary papers are prepared, and recording NSC actions and Presidential decisions. When international economic issues are on the agenda of the NSC, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy shall perform these tasks in concert.

The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. For the Attorney General, this includes both those matters within the Justice Department's jurisdiction and those matters implicating the Attorney General's responsibility under 28 U.S.C. 511 to give his advice and opinion on questions of law when required by the President. The Counsel to the President shall be consulted regarding the agenda of NSC/PC meetings, and shall attend any meeting when, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, he deems it appropriate. When international economic issues are on the agenda of the NSC/PC, the Committee's regular attendees will include the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (who shall serve as chair for agenda items that principally pertain to international economics), and, when the issues pertain to her responsibilities, the Secretary of Agriculture. The Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to the Vice President shall attend all meetings of the NSC/PC, as shall the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor (who shall serve as Executive Secretary of the NSC/PC). Other heads of departments and agencies, along with additional senior officials, shall be invited where appropriate.

The NSC/PC shall meet at the call of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in consultation with the regular attendees of the NSC/PC. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall determine the agenda in consultation with the foregoing, and ensure that necessary papers are prepared. When international economic issues are on the agenda of the NSC/PC, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy shall perform these tasks in concert.

The NSC Deputies Committee (NSC/DC) will also continue to serve as the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security. The NSC/DC can prescribe and review the work of the NSC interagency groups discussed later in this directive. The NSC/DC shall also help ensure that issues being brought before the NSC/PC or the NSC have been properly analyzed and prepared for decision. The NSC/DC shall have as its regular members the Deputy Secretary of State or Under Secretary of the Treasury or Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, the Deputy Secretary of Defense or Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President for Policy, the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to the Vice President, the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, and the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor (who shall serve as chair). When international economic issues are on the agenda, the NSC/DC's regular membership will include the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, a Deputy United States Trade Representative, and, when the issues pertain to his responsibilities, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and the NSC/DC shall be chaired by the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs for agenda items that principally pertain to international economics. Other senior officials shall be invited where appropriate.

The NSC/DC shall meet at the call of its chair, in consultation with the other regular members of the NSC/DC. Any regular member of the NSC/DC may also request a meeting of the Committee for prompt crisis management. For all meetings the chair shall determine the agenda in consultation with the foregoing, and ensure that necessary papers are prepared.

The Vice President and I may attend any and all meetings of any entity established by or under this directive.

Management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple agencies of the United States Government shall usually be accomplished by the NSC Policy Coordination Committees (NSC/PCCs). The NSC/PCCs shall be the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national security policy. They shall provide policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees of the NSC system and ensure timely responses to decisions made by the President. Each NSC/PCC shall include representatives from the executive departments, offices, and agencies represented in the NSC/DC.

Six NSC/PCCs are hereby established for the following regions: Europe and Eurasia, Western Hemisphere, East Asia, South Asia, Near East and North Africa, and Africa. Each of the NSC/PCCs shall be chaired by an official of Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary rank to be designated by the Secretary of State.

Eleven NSC/PCCs are hereby also established for the following functional topics, each to be chaired by a person of Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary rank designated by the indicated authority:

Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);

International Development and Humanitarian Assistance (by the Secretary of State);

Global Environment (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in concert);

International Finance (by the Secretary of the Treasury);

Transnational Economic Issues (by the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy);

Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);

Defense Strategy, Force Structure, and Planning (by the Secretary of Defense);

Arms Control (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);

Proliferation, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);

Intelligence and Counterintelligence (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs); and

Records Access and Information Security (by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs).

The Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) will continue to function as an interagency coordinator of trade policy. Issues considered within the TPRG, as with the PCCs, will flow through the NSC and/or NEC process, as appropriate.

Each NSC/PCC shall also have an Executive Secretary from the staff of the NSC, to be designated by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Executive Secretary shall assist the Chairman in scheduling the meetings of the NSC/PCC, determining the agenda, recording the actions taken and tasks assigned, and ensuring timely responses to the central policymaking committees of the NSC system. The Chairman of each NSC/PCC, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, may invite representatives of other executive departments and agencies to attend meetings of the NSC/PCC where appropriate.

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, at my direction and in consultation with the Vice President and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Defense, may establish additional NSC/PCCs as appropriate.

The Chairman of each NSC/PCC, with the agreement of the Executive Secretary, may establish subordinate working groups to assist the PCC in the performance of its duties.

The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.


Except for those established by statute, other existing NSC interagency groups, ad hoc bodies, and executive committees are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are specifically reestablished as subordinate working groups within the new NSC system as of that date. Cabinet officers, the heads of other executive agencies, and the directors of offices within the Executive Office of the President shall advise the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of those specific NSC interagency groups chaired by their respective departments or agencies that are either mandated by statute or are otherwise of sufficient importance and vitality as to warrant being reestablished. In each case the Cabinet officer, agency head, or office director should describe the scope of the activities proposed for or now carried out by the interagency group, the relevant statutory mandate if any, and the particular NSC/PCC that should coordinate this work. The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee established in E.O. 12870 shall continue its work, however, in the manner specified in that order. As to those committees expressly established in the National Security Act, the NSC/PC and/or NSC/DC shall serve as those committees and perform the functions assigned to those committees by the Act.

To further clarify responsibilities and effective accountability within the NSC system, those positions relating to foreign policy that are designated as special presidential emissaries, special envoys for the President, senior advisors to the President and the Secretary of State, and special advisors to the President and the Secretary of State are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are specifically redesignated or reestablished by the Secretary of State as positions in that Department.

This Directive shall supersede all other existing presidential guidance on the organization of the National Security Council system. With regard to application of this document to economic matters, this document shall be interpreted in concert with any Executive Order governing the National Economic Council and with presidential decision documents signed hereafter that implement either this directive or that Executive Order.

cc: The Executive Clerk

Source Notes
Source: NSC hardcopy
Approved for release: March 13, 2001

We now have six - secret NSPD's
National Security Presidential Directive

On October 29, 2001, President Bush issued the first of a new series of
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) governing homeland
security policy.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive - (Now 3)


Presidential Decision Directives [PDD]
Clinton Administration 1993-2000

What is the National Infrastructure Protection Center? - Miami FBI
On May 22, 1998, President Clinton signed into policy, Presidential
Decision Directive 63, which mandates that the National Infrastructure
Protection Center, also known as NIPC, assures the continuity and
viability of our country's Critical Infrastructures


On May 22, 1998, President Clinton signed into policy, Presidential Decision Directive 63, which
mandates that the National Infrastructure Protection Center, also known as NIPC, assures the
continuity and viability of our country's Critical Infrastructures. Thereby, establishing that the United
States will take all necessary measures to swiftly eliminate any significant vulnerability to both physical
and cyber attacks on our nation's critical infrastructures, especially our nation's cyber-based systems.

Consequently, the FBI's Miami Office Cyber Crimes Investigation Team in conjunction with the
National Infrastructure Protection Center, and with the concurrence of the United States Attorney's
Office, investigates violations of:

18 U.S.C. 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computer systems
18 U.S.C. 1029 - Fraud and related activities in connection with access devices
18 U.S.C. 1362 - Malicious mischief as it relates to communication lines, stations, or systems
18 U.S.C. 1366 - Malicious mischief as it relates to the damage or destruction of energy facilities
18 U.S.C. 2319 - Criminal infringement of copyright
18 U.S.C. 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services
The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986
The National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996

Examples of such a violation could include, but are not limited to, the impairment, intrusion or theft of a
governmental, financial, or most medical and federal interest computer system, by traditional criminal means,
or by a foreign power or terrorist groups. Other types of computer violations which the FBI investigates
Intrusions of public switched networks (telephonic systems)
Network integrity violations
Industrial espionage
Crimes where the computer is a major factor in committing a criminal offense

Miami's Computer Analysis Response Team (CART)

The Miami Computer Analysis Response Team is made up of some of the finest computer
forensic professionals in the country. This team is responsible for the collection, processing
and the preservation of computer and computer related evidence related to both FBI and
other law enforcement agency case work.

I n f r a G a r d

The National InfraGard Program began as a pilot project in 1996, when the Cleveland FBI
Field Office asked local computer security professionals to assist the FBI in determining how
to better protect critical information systems in the public and private sectors. From this new
partnership, the first InfraGard Chapter was formed to address both cyber and physical
threats. Thus, InfraGard is a membership organization which enhances relationships, trust, and
two way information sharing between industry and law enforcement through a Neighborhood
Watch" environment.

Benefits of participating in the InfraGard Program are:

Forum for members to communicate
Prompt dissemination of threat warnings
Help in protecting computer systems
Education and training on infrastructure vulnerabilities
A community that shares information in a trusted environment

What can you do. . .?

If you have information concerning:
an instance where a computer was the target of an apparent criminal act?
an instance in which someone accessed or damaged a computer, or stole information from a computer?
an instance where a computer was used as a tool to commit a crime (i.e. bank fraud, interstate
transportation of obscene material, or espionage)?

or any other matter related to knowledge of computer fraud and abuse, please contact the Miami Office of the
FBI by calling (305) 944-9101 or (954)-463-9111 and ask to speak to a computer crimes investigator.

Terms and Definitions

Critical Infrastructures:
Those physical and cyber-based systems essential to the minimum operation of the economy and government
of the United States of America. These include, but are not limited to the following:
Electric Energy
Banking and Finance
Water Supply Systems
Emergency Services
Governmental Operations
Gas and Oil Storage and Delivery

Return to the section containing the term: "Critical Infrastructures"

Federal Interest:
Those computers defined by law as; two or more computers, each located in different states, utilized in a
criminal offense.
Return to the section containing the term: "Federal Interest"


I prefer terrorism to tyranny

Jim McMichael jmcm5@lycos.com

America is screwed!

Mon Jul 29 16:06:58 2002

Subject: America is screwed!
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:10:48 -0700
From: "Jim McMichael" - jmcm5@lycos.com

Not everyone will be as gleeful as Zahid on the prospects of
American falling down its own privy hole, but it is difficult to
imagine any other way to stop the American War Leviathan.

Zahid raises a very interesting question: How is it that the
Soviets ground away at Afghanistan for 10 years and eventually
foundered, but the US was able to conquer it in just a few

The first answer might be that the US supplied the Afghanis with
weapons for the war with the Soviets. But that answer does not
address the stockpiles of leftovers, prized and guarded, you may
be sure, by a people too often at war. Those leftovers would be
available for fighting off the US.

The second answer might be that the advancing "war fighting"
technologies in the US military overwhelmed the technologies of
15 years ago, both in armament and surveillance. Maybe.

But from what I have seen of "Mighty GI Joe" in action, the third
answer is more likely: Pentagon information services is simply
lying about the progress of the war. Who would call them on it?
Who would not believe them?

America is in the land of Virtual Reality, glued to a headset full
of fantasy pictures, one of the more highly controlled news nets
in the world. Even knowing that CNN, The New York Times, and
Dan Rather "probably tell lies" in some cases, many Americas will
not believe a story if it is NOT on CNN, etc. You can't
force-feed America the truth because you can't get CNN to run it.

Here are Zahid's words:

America is screwed!
by Zahid Altaf - zahidaltaf@yahoo.com

This alleged superpower is heading in the same direction as
Russia of the 1980’s. In fact, many are doubting whether it
really was a superpower, it has been made into a superpower by
its media and Hollywood, who even at the time of going to war
with Vietnam said it had far superior weapons and exceptional
military fire power -- America lost the war to of farmers and the
common man, with no or limited weaponry, and certainly no
military training.

The history of the Vietnam war is repeating itself in Afghanistan
for America. Though this time the Zionist controlled media has
become a lot stronger and the American public has become a lot
more dumber, who accept whatever the media throws at them without

The American public is being kept in the dark about the stark
realities of the war in Afghanistan, where the war in fact is
going EXACTLY to plan for the Talibans -- they defeated the
Russians in precisely the same manner. The Talibans were never
expected to hold onto their government in Afghanistan, they had
neither the infrastructure nor the military power to do so. Lets
not forget it was then and still is one of the most poorest
countries in the world, the fact is that it took Russia two days
to invade and to take 'control' of the whole of Afghanistan, and
10 years later it left bruised and battered and subsequently
divided into 16 different countries.

For America, it has been a lot worse so far. It took America 6
weeks to break down the Taliban control of Afghanistan –- and
even that with the help of the Northern Alliance, who have now
proved to be exactly what everyone had predicted -- stupid paid
criminals. America still to this day does not even have control
of the whole of Kabul, let alone the whole of Afghanistan! The
puppet Karzai’s days are surely numbered as America declines into
an economic quagmire, and is no doubt heading towards a total
collapse, which most likely will result in 51 different countries
being formed in North America.

The war in Afghanistan is costing America billions of dollars a
month, to ensure a total American economic collapse, it must be
kept pre-occupied in Afghanistan for as long as possible, it is
impossible to win a guerrilla war against the Talibans, where
they still command such huge respect and the laws they introduced
are still being practiced and upheld, no one is forcing the women
now to discard their burqas, in fact the Americans have been
paying huge amounts of money to the Afghan women to discard their
burqas but they have not! Islamic Shariah law is still being
practiced in most parts of Afghanistan. Obviously, it is only a
matter of time before the Talibans are back in power in

America also knows this, so it cannot withdraw its troops from
Afghanistan, so as to continue its carnage in other parts of the
world, so everything must be done to keep them in Afghanistan.
This is a war they CANNOT and WILL NOT win!

The way the Muslim world leaders have so far 'supported' this
laughable 'war on terror' has also been exemplary. President
Musharraf of Pakistan cannot be faulted for his stance, he had
and still has no other option. But we must understand, and I am
sure most of the leaders of the Muslim world do understand is
that American economy, which is its strength, is in rapid
decline, and left to its own devices it will collapse and this
so-called 'superpower' will be no more.

America has spent its last 35 years building a fake economy, it
manufactures little or nothing, it gets Asian countries, such as
China, to make products for its markets, which anyone with any
business sense will tell you is catastrophic in the long run.
Secondly, it is an entirely loan and interest based society, i.e.
everything is owned by the banks, most of whom are owned by
Zionists! The Zionists do not have American interest at heart, to
them their priority is Israel and Israel alone!

The spectacular collapse of the American economy is what the
American enemies (perhaps 90% of the world population) must
concentrate on prolonging. America can be defeated without
firing a single shot! Without killing a single American! Though
some of them deserve to be shot, for being so stupid as to
believe without question everything their Zionist media tells

The civilized world must ensure that America does not get a
chance to use the huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
that it possesses. The Muslim world in particular must let
America have its way for the time being, do whatever it says.


The world must not oblige by giving America a war, which it so
desperately wants.

It has already tried to start a war between India and Pakistan!
Now it wants a war with Iraq!

As long as America does not get the war, that it so craves, it
will no doubt collapse, just like Russia did, within the next 2-3
years. Russia had an enormous stockpile of weapons which it
never got to use, and which have now been rendered useless as
they not been maintained and are now rusting away in their
military warehouses. We must ensure that America goes the same
way. This is what the civilized world must concentrate on. Once
this happens, there will be no doubt peace in the world,
Palestine issue will automatically resolve itself, and the land
thieves (also called 'settlers’ by the Zionist media) of Israel
will no longer have American military support.

The Boycott of American products must continue, which has so far
made a huge impact and has been such a catalyst in the economic
destruction of America. Let us continue to support the world
leaders who do NOT want a war with America. Let us get behind
President Musharraf of Pakistan, the man who so far has done so
exceptionally well to avoid any military confrontation with the
rogue state. Let us concentrate on the economic collapse of
America, NOT on a military confrontation.

You can conclude from these NSPD's that we have lost the authority of the
three Branches of Government. The Judicial Branch and the Congressional
Branch now have no authority over the Executive Branch.
Three Branches of Government

If these conclusions are in fact, "FACT"! We do indeed have TYRANNY!


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, no question about it." --
George Walker Bush, July 26, 2000

Are Americans Ready to Crown a King? - 
By Chuck Baldwin - chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com


APFN apfn@apfn.org
Secrecy and Security News
Mon Jul 29 21:51:56 2002

Secrecy and Security News

The Spy Who Reads Your Meter
Ashcroft's Plan To Turn Your Neighbors Into Snoops

Jennifer Bauduy is the associate editor at TomPaine.com.

Six months ago the Bush administration quietly
announced a domestic informants program that would
involve mail carriers, truck drivers, and utility workers,
among others. But soon after the media focused a
spotlight on the project, just weeks before it was
supposed to begin, the Justice Department began
backpedaling, downplaying the program.

The Terrorism Information and Prevention System
(Operation TIPS), is scheduled to begin in August. In its
pilot stage, TIPS involves training one million Americans
to report suspicious "terrorist" activity, according to the
original statement on its Web site.

Legal experts, intelligence analysts and civil liberties
groups likened TIPS to a civilian-spying program likely to
spread mass paranoia and silence political dissent.

"This is one more alarming step that the government is
taking to make it easier to surveil people, to intimidate
people and then cut back on civil liberties," said Marjorie
Cohn, associate professor at the Thomas Jefferson
School of Law in San Diego and member of the national
executive committee of the National Lawyers Guild. "It's
asking neighbors to spy on each other and inform."

In a sign that even Republicans are distancing themselves
from the administration's plan, House Majority Leader
Dick Armey recently rejected Operation TIPS in his
markup of a bill to create a Homeland Security

Information on the TIPS Web site said it is slated to begin
in 10 American cities. But little other details were
available on the massive undertaking. The Web site did
not say how much training volunteers would get, nor did it
define "suspicious activity."

Since the terrorist attacks last fall, fear has caused many
people to imagine suspicious activity at every corner. On
July 16, CNN reported that fighter jets escorted an airline
to New York, after a passenger reported "suspicious"
activity by other passengers. The suspicious activity? A
traveling entertainment troupe was passing notes, and
changing seats.

"Anything that, within the normal stream of America, is
not 'regular,' which is to say anything politically, either
presumably right or left, could be picked up and reported
as suspicious activity," said Michael Ratner, president of
the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

The TIPS project, part of the Citizen Corps, announced by
President Bush in his State of the Union address, is
intended to enlist public participation in homeland
security. TIPS received little attention until a July 14
Washington Post editorial raised questions about its
feasibility or purpose.

At that time, the project's Web site gave only a brief
three-paragraph description, one of which announced with
much fanfare a sticker with the toll-free reporting number,
which informants would get to stick on their car.

"It's altogether amateurish," said Steven Aftergood, of the
Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government
Secrecy, chuckling about the sticker announcement. "I
can easily imagine the program being overwhelmed by
spurious or unproductive leads. I wouldn't want to be the
person who answers the phone."

With the spotlight suddenly on TIPS, the Internet
description was expanded to five paragraphs, and
reference to the sticker deleted. In another sign that
support for the project was crumbling, the Postal Service
announced on July 17 that it would not be participating in
the program at this time, according to an Associated
Press report.

A Justice Department spokesman said the project was
still in its beginning stages and no further information was

Others echoed Aftergood's concern about the FBI's ability
to process the millions of so-called tips likely to pour in
from informants.

"The FBI should first look to their own house and correct
what's wrong and have a public hearing on what happened
-- that they missed 9/11 -- before they start giving new
powers, and certainly before they start making spies out
of your service people," Ratner said.

Once an informant has reported a "suspicious" activity --
perhaps an Arabic book on a bookshelf, or a poster of
Che Guevara -- that information will be noted in a
computer file accessible to a web of agencies,
presumably without the individual's knowledge. Ratner
questioned how this would affect the lives of individuals on
a daily basis; for example, would the database be
accessible to prospective employers?

"People's suspicions and reports depend very much on
'the length of their own arm,'" Ratner said. "So if a guy
comes into my house in the city and sees an Arab head
dress, or a scarf of my wife's, he's going to say, 'Jesus,
there's Muslims in this house, maybe I ought to report
Michael Ratner."

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial on July 18 noted that
libertarians from the political left, like the American Civil
Liberties Union, and right, like the Rutherford Institute,
had come out against Operation TIPS.

Historians likened the program to techniques used in the
former Soviet Union, or by the East German Stasi secret
police, which encouraged civilian spying.

"Stalin made it clear in World War II that the Germans
were trying to corrupt the Soviet Union and called on
citizens to report any secret activity -- wives were
informing on husbands, children on parents, neighbors on
neighbors," Melvin Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center
for International Policy and a professor of international
security at the National War College. He said such
programs fueled a culture of paranoia. "We could create
paranoia. Sometimes I think the government is trying to
create paranoia," he said.

Ratner and other legal experts questioned the Justice
Department's motives, saying the government may be
attempting to circumvent the fourth amendment, which
requires authorities to get a warrant before searching a

"If a meter reader comes to your house, if he has one of
those stickers, I think you have an argument to keep him
out, under the fourth amendment -- that he's been
essentially deputized and is a police agent, and he needs
a warrant to come into your house," Ratner said.

The Justice Department issued a statement on July 16
defending the project, as public concern spread. "None of
the Operation TIPS materials published on the Web or
elsewhere have made reference to entry or access to the
homes of individuals," the statement said.

But for a program slated to begin within weeks, and
expected to involve one million Americans, too many
questions remain unanswered.

"I think it's going to hold back the attempt to prevent
terrorism," Ratner said. "It's going to actually impede it,
because it's going to put agents on all kinds of wild goose

Related links:
The TIPS Web site.

`In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
Without Justice, their is JUST_US!



911 - Attack on America

Find elected officials, including the president, members of
Congress, governors, state legislators, local officials, and more.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
     -- Theodore Roosevelt

"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny"
---- Thomas Jefferson


The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
by Jennifer Van Bergen
t r u t h o u t | 20 May, 2002

Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th. Recent criticism of Bush's admission that he had received warnings only weeks before September 11th has made it more important to understand the origins of the USAPA.

The USA PATRIOT Act - the so-called "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," a.k.a. the USAPA -- was enacted in the immediate wake of 9/11, riding a wave of fear that spread over the nation. This Act has caused much concern amongst civil rights advocates. The Administration, however, responded to such concerns by calling critics unpatriotic. Now, the White House has had a similar response to critics of Bush's recent admission of early warnings.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday: "I think that any time anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this president had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11, that crosses the lines."

Dick Cheney came out on Thursday with the statement that Democratic criticism of Bush's handling of pre-Sept. 11 terror warnings was "thoroughly irresponsible." Cheney added an ominous remark to his "Democratic friends ... that they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions."

Cynthia McKinney responded: "If committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for disclosure, today's revelations would have been hidden by the White House," she says. "Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those who have been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people."

House Minority leader Dick Gephardt said: "Our nation is not well served when the charge of 'partisan politics' is leveled at those who simply seek information that the American people need and deserve to know."

Oddly, following Democratic criticism of Bush's admission, came the weekend news that the White House now anticipates an even terrorist greater attack on American soil. Intrepid investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, best known for his reports claiming government's prior knowledge of 9/11, states that Fox TV cancelled his Saturday appearance on the Geraldo Rivera Show due to these reports.

These may be mere coincidences. Time Magazine just released a lengthy article by Michael Elliott, "How the U.S. Missed the Clues," in which he states: "Last summer the White House suspected that a terrorist attack was coming. But four key mistakes kept the U.S. from knowing what to do."

Whether the Administration could have anticipated 9/11 or not, the proponents of the USAPA were waiting to go long before that day. Similar antiterrorism legislation was enacted in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which however did little to prevent the events of 9/11, and many provisions had either been declared unconstitutional or were about to be repealed when 9/11 occurred.

James X. Dempsey and David Cole state in their book, "Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security," that the most troubling provisions of the pre-USAPA anti-terrorism laws, enacted in 1996 and expanded now by the USAPA, "were developed long before the bombings that triggered their final enactment."

Dempsey is the former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and Deputy Director at the Center for Democracy & Technology, and Cole is professor of law at Georgetown University and an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Looking back at the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, Dempsey and Cole declare that "the much-touted gains in law enforcement powers" under that Act, "produced no visible concrete results in the fight against terrorism." They add that the principles espoused in the Act "were shown in case after case to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in the fight against terrorism." And importantly, the authors comment that the United States government has not shown that the expanded powers it has asserted in the USAPA are necessary to fight terrorism.

Dempsey and Cole trace the origins of the national security trend back to the "intolerant approaches of the 1950s," when association with Communist or anarchist groups was made a ground for exclusion and deportation. Congress removed the guilt by association law in 1990, but it was revived only six years later by law enforcement proponents in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, immediately following the Oklahoma City Bombing.

More specifically, however, Dempsey and Cole show that it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)

The troublesome provisions proposed by Reagan and the first Bush included the resurrection of guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review.

Despite the Reagan and Bush proposals and one-sided hearings, there was broad-based opposition to such legislation. According to Dempsey and Cole, "several members of the House Judiciary Committee, both Democrat and Republican, questioned the need for the legislation." Lawmakers repeatedly asked why new legislation was needed and how it would help. Administration witnesses literally refused to answer lawmakers' questions, finally causing Representative John Conyers to exclaim, "I've never seen this much law created as a result of prosecutions that we agree worked very effectively!"

"The legislation languished and seemed headed for defeat," say Dempsey and Cole. Until Oklahoma City.

The Oklahoma City bombing, for which there exists a significant body of evidence of a shadow government operation, was used as justification for the enactment of the very provisions lawmakers had previously found most constitutionally troublesome.

Included in the resulting 1996 Antiterrorism Act, although it had nothing to do with terrorism at all, was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's long-sought provision to limit the right of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the procedure whereby a person convicted by a state court can challenge that conviction in a federal court. The thing is, terrorism cases are brought in federal, not state, courts. "Senator Hatch wanted to make it more difficult for federal courts to order retrials of prisoners where state courts had violated the U.S. Constitution," according to Dempsey and Cole.

The USAPA clearly furthers the goals of making it more difficult for anyone to review or appeal government wrongdoing. It allows for indefinite detention of suspected (not "proven") alien terrorists, without probable cause of a crime, without a hearing or an opportunity to defend or challenge the evidence against them, when they have not even been proven to be a threat and have already established a legal right to remain here. The only process allowed the suspected alien is the "right" to go to federal court and sue the government for its actions.

The USAPA expands the Secretary of State's power to designate terrorist groups without any court or congressional review and allows for secret searches without probable cause. Dempsey and Cole state that these changes "go far beyond what was needed to respond to terrorism." Indeed, they point out that in many instances, "the changes are not limited to terrorist investigations at all, but apply across the board to all criminal investigations."

A good example of the kind of change brought about under the USAPA, which illustrates the underlying and pre-existing agenda of its proponents, is section 218, which amends a single phrase in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The purpose of FISA was to allow intelligence agencies to gather information about foreign powers without the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. The reasoning for this was that the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering is not to detect crimes but to gather information about foreign agents.

Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret physical searches, a designated official of the executive office had to certify that "the purpose" for the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 218 of the USAPA modifies that clause so that intelligence gathering need not be "the purpose," - in other words, it need no longer be the primary purpose, -- but may be only "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

This means that if an official can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence is a significant purpose of a surveillance action (the other purpose clearly being criminal investigation), he can avoid the requirement that he first show probable cause of criminal activity. It means the FBI, the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, can surveil you without probable cause, as long as they say the surveillance has something to do with a foreign intelligence investigation of some sort (which may otherwise not even involve you directly).

Because courts have consistently refused to "second guess" FISA surveillance certifications, there is effectively no judicial review of such activities. This small change has enormous ramifications. For all practical purposes, the section 218 USAPA amendment of FISA allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens (not just immigrants).

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress notes: "From the beginning, defendants have questioned whether authorities had used a FISA surveillance order against them in order to avoid the predicate crime threshold..."

In 1980, the 4th Circuit court stated in the landmark case of U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung that "the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Another circuit court declared in 1991 that "the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance."

In other words, courts have pretty consistently thrown out intelligence information gathered under FISA where it has been established that foreign intelligence gathering was not the primary purpose of the surveillance.

It is clear that intelligence agencies have wanted to change this law for some time. It is clear that they have been frustrated by the "primary purpose rule." However, it is not merely the result of intelligence agency wishes or a matter of history that this restriction has now been overridden. History shows that Congress has consistently resisted enacting these types of changes. History also shows that the Reagan and Bush I Administrations repeatedly attempted to push such laws through. Oklahoma City proved that only a "real" terrorist attack would convince Congress.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the proponents of this amendment know it is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. They have had many years to think about it and have repeatedly shown their willingness to enact carefully crafted, unconstitutional laws. They know the amendment allows intelligence to conduct criminal investigations on American citizens without adherence to basic constitutional protections. Furthermore, under the information sharing provision of section 203 of the USAPA, information gathered in this way can now be shared with other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, for whatever uses they want.

Most significantly, it is clear that the events of 9/11 gave the proponents of this amendment the opportunity they needed to slip it by Congress.


Just click "search" for more information on 9/11:

Web www.apfn.org

9-11 Attack on America

Oklahoma Bombing Cover-Up

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

American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
"...a network of net workers..."

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org

Hit Counter