Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/preswquq/public_html/nbg/fp-includes/core/core.fpdb.class.php on line 302

US TERRORIST ATTACK BEGINS — The USS Donald Cook launches three Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles towards Iraq, March 20, 2003. That day will forever be known as Iraq’s 9/11 where the US launched an unprovoked surprise terrorist attack against the sovereign state of Iraq and the innocent people of Iraq. On that day the US did not attack the Iraqi military it cowardly attacked and murdered Iraqi civilians while they slept

The CIA is the covert action arm of the President’s foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting “intelligence” justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as foreign countries’ nuclear weapons capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies.

The CIA is a rogue organization, out of control. The CIA’s main mission and purpose is to implement the policies of the President of the United States. The CIA carries out unofficial U.S. government policy. That the CIA is a terrorist organization implies that the United States is a terrorist state. Considering the millions of deaths that the U.S. has caused and the enormous suffering that its international policies produce, its hypocrisy in condemning other countries as “terrorist states” would be ludicrous if it were not so tragic.

The CIA has been a terrorist organization from its beginnings, when it included a large number of former Nazis — former members of the Gestapo and the Nazi military intelligence (such as Reinhard Gehlen). Unlike smaller terrorist organizations such as ETA the CIA does not normally engage in terrorism by sending its own employees to plant bombs, etc. Rather, it tends to act through intermediaries and recruited foreign nationals including mercenaries, agents and operatives. The CIA sometimes makes use of U.S. military personnel - used widely in the Vietnam war and extensively in the US Wars of Terror.

Evidence that the CIA is a terrorist organization is clear from its record of terrorist activities (deceptively called “counterinsurgency” or “low intensity conflict”). Here are just a few easily verified examples:

* During the Vietnam war the CIA conducted Operation Phoenix, an assassination program. The goal was not only to eliminate those Vietnamese who might oppose the U.S. (which in practice meant most of the population of Vietnam) but also to terrorize the entire population of South Vietnam and to suppress opposition to the occupying U.S. forces. Over 20,000 Vietnamese were murdered, often at random.
* The CIA also recruited a mercenary army in Vietnam (financed by profits from the CIA’s heroin smuggling), particularly from among the Hmong villagers, which was used to terrorize the civilian population and to prevent them from assisting the Viet Cong.
* The CIA organized and financed (with the profits from its cocaine smuggling) the activities of the Contras in Nicaragua, who murdered tens of thousands of civilians, and tried to disrupt the economy, in an attempt to destabilize the legitimate Sandinista government. (For this the U.S. was condemned in the World Court for engaging in international terrorism, and it rejected a U.N. security council resolution calling upon it to observe international law.)
* The CIA planned and organized the military coup d’etat in 1973 in Chile which overthrew the legitimately elected government of Salvador Allende (because he would not implement economic policies designed in Washington to favor American corporations doing business in Chile) and brought to power the regime of General Augusto Pinochet; this regime abducted, tortured and killed thousands of Chilean citizens in an attempt to suppress opposition.
* The CIA organized and supported the Turkish government’s persecution of its Kurdish minority during the 1990s, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and millions of refuges; the aim being the suppression of Kurdish culture and the elimination of Kurdish demands for a separate state.
* The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are widely regarded as terrorist acts. There is evidence of CIA involvement.

The concept of “terrorism” is not clear and there is no generally agreed upon definition of the term. It is, however, a tactic, a means to a particular end. A tactic can always be used, and is always a possible course of action for some group or other. Once this is understood it is clear that it is ridiculous to declare a “War on Terrorism” — one cannot defeat a tactic. To declare a war on terrorism is to declare perpetual war (which, in fact, is the intention). When the US declared al-Qaeda a terrorist group they declared themselves to be terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a cover for CIA terrorist activities and attacks against both foreign and domestic civilian populations. 9/11 has already been declared the work of Al-Qaeda. If the accused is widely accepted as being the group that planned for and carried out the attacks of 9/11 then it is equally accepted that the US government attacked its own people on 9/11. There is clear and concrete evidence that the US government ordered the CIA to plan for a terrorist attack against the US and its people. It was already decided on that the US would blame a newly formed CIA terrorist cell named al-Qaeda for the attacks and use this clear act of treason as an excuse to attack any state they fraudulently declared as supporters of their home grown terrorist cell al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda naming is the US tool for initiating any new or forthcoming policies of the US president. al-Qaeda is a phantom terrorist group. The CIA is given $billions to commit terrorist attacks against any nation, including the US. al-Qaeda threats are the US president’s threats. al-Qaeda terrorist attacks are the US president’s attacks.

In September 2001 President George W. Bush declared a “War on Terrorism” and vowed to destroy all terrorist organizations “with a global reach”. For the good of both America and the rest of the world the US should start with the largest international terrorist organization of them all — their own CIA. To end the US wars of aggressions, every nation on Earth has to only target the CIA. First ban entry of any “suspected” CIA agent from entering ones country, as their mission is always the same - terrorism, namely to recruit and train the people of the country they enter to commit terrorist acts against the US targeted country. The CIA is not and never was a peace keeping organization. Their mandate is to infiltrate and destroy from within the country they illegally enter. They are murders, assassins, saboteurs, kidnappers, thieves and spies. They carry out the illegal orders of the United States president.

Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the “War on Terror”

Human rights groups and several public inquiries in Europe have found the U.S. government, with the complicity of numerous governments worldwide, to be engaged in the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, secret detention, and torture.

The U.S. government-sponsored program of renditions is an unlawful practice in which numerous persons have been illegally detained and secretly flown to third countries, where they have suffered additional human rights abuses including torture and enforced disappearance. No one knows the exact number of persons affected, due to the secrecy under which the operations are carried out.

The existence and locations of the facilities — referred to as “black sites” in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents — are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

“Ninety-five percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is disinformation and deception,” Andreas von Bulow, former parliamentary official responsible for the budget for Germany’s intelligence agencies, told American Free Press in December 2001.

“If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars” and “They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence - that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda - in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation”

Like Nazi Germany of 1933, American news stands today carry a mainstream news dedicated to pushing the government’s version of the truth for 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.

The inactions of US government on 9/11, the investigation that never followed, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the propaganda being disseminated by the mainstream news, are strikingly similar to actions attributed to the Nazi ministers Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Gvring.


What can civilians of any nation do to defend themselves from armed attacks and acts of aggression? Even though the US and Israel may have the most technologically advanced military weaponry on Earth their technology is their weakness. A bomber or fighter jet can be grounded or forced to crash. Civilians being attacked can stop a tank, Humvee or attack vehicle in its tracks and force the soldiers to dismount and leave the protection of their armored vehicles. The modern military machines rely heavily on sensors to both defend themselves and attack innocent people. There are no longer any openings in tanks that would make the tank crewman venerable to attacks. There are sensors and video feeds that keep track and track targets. So to stop them in their tracks all an individual would have to do is blind those sensors. Bank robbers today usually blind the video cameras in a bank when they attempt to rob it. They spray the camera lens with paint or cover it. The same application can be applied to any moving combat vehicle. Paint balls or paint bombs that target the sensors and video will force the tank to stop and the tank will no longer be able to select any new target. Painting or oil spraying the sensors and videos renders a $million tank useless. The same applies for aircraft. Anti aircraft shells with paint or oil canisters can really mess up a canopy of a $billion aircraft. There is no way any pilot can clean the canopy after its just flown through paint or oil bursts. The pilot will be forced to eject.

So to defend yourself, start stocking up on oil based paints. Your life may depend on it. Your freedom will depend on it. Oil based is better as it can also start a fire in the engines or jets of any military aircraft or transport vehicle. Your government is taking away you weapons that you will need to defend yourself. You can still defend yourself using every day household items like kitchen knives, glass, baseball bats, barbecue propane tanks, gas cans, liquor, aerosol air fresheners and paint.

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. ” - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

US Air Force Predator Drone. Fitting name as the US is no longer a peacekeeping nation. The US is now a predator - One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one’s own gain

There is absolutely no need, cause or justification for anyone to start a war. We are after all civilized human beings. Any international incident can be resolved peacefully. Those who start wars are nothing more than criminals with a criminal intent to cause the death of another human being. The most effective course of action to end any war is to go after the person or persons who gave the order to attack another country. One person does not have the authority to launch a war against another especially in a democratic society. If a leader of one country decides to go to war with another country that leader is committing crimes that include crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In the game of chess the objective is to remove your opponent’s king in as few moves as possible. The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent’s king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in “check”) and there is no way to remove it from attack on the next move. The game is over as soon as you capture your opponent’s king and your opponent surrenders to you. Wars of aggression can be ended quickly simply by applying the game of chess to your self-defense strategy. Defend your people by taking the course of action that will quickly capture and remove your opponent’s leadership.

International law and domestic law allow lethal force to be used in self-defense against armed attacks.

Whether it’s George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama engaged in an unprovoked attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan or the United States own terrorist cell, the CIA, kidnapping foreign citizens from around the World, it’s legal to use lethal force in response to those kinds of attacks. There’s no special protection given to heads of state that protects them from the otherwise lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. Nuremberg established that heads of state have no immunity from responsibility for aggressive war. There’s no logical legal principle that says it’s better to spare George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama’s life, when they are the head war criminals who started the war and continue to wage wars of aggressions against sovereign foreign states and kill and continue to kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Laws of armed conflict

Any uniformed member of the Military is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. If he is the head policy maker (commander-in-chief, prime minister, president, emperor, chancellor, king or queen) in deciding to launch an aggressive war, then he’s committing an international crime; denying him any right to the kind of protection we give hospital workers or Red Cross workers or the like. If we want to deter aggression, we have to extract a cost from those who are making the decisions. A warmongering leader is not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that we have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression. George W Bush needlessly and recklessly sacrificed over 4000 of his country’s young men and women in his war against Iraq. He and Obama are certainly willing to give up thousands more in their wars of terrorism and aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan and threats and acts of aggression against Iran, Pakistan and Yemen. George W Bush was not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that the US people and the international community have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta gave testimony that vice-president Dick Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding to the 9/11 attacks – evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason ~ “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

The Nuremberg Trial established “Legal Self-Defense” against wars of aggression, kidnappings, torture and any and all acts of aggression by any state against another state.

The only logical and legal course of action to defend ones country and countrymen from an unlawful military attack from another country is to hold the person or persons who gave the order to attack, accountable for their criminal acts. Instead of retaliating against the people of the country whose leader ordered the attack on your country and countrymen one should only attack those leaders who gave the order. No one else should suffer or pay for the crimes of the war leaders. Only the leaders who order their country to attack and murder the people of another country should suffer and pay with their lives. The Nuremberg Trial established “Legal Self-Defense” against wars of aggression, kidnappings, torture and acts of aggression against another state. The honorable and patriotic course of action to end illegal wars is to target those criminal leaders. Every country and their people has the right to self-defense and their legal rights include only attacks against the criminal leadership, not against innocent civilians. As soon as the leader or leaders who gave the order to attack and kill your people are eliminated then the war will end. If someone takes over command of the military forces after the war leaders are eliminated and they too order more attacks against you and your country and your people, then they too are legal and legitimate targets. Infiltrating the enemy’s country and attacking only the leadership will end the war quickly and deter future leaders from ordering their people to attack and kill another.

Had the Allied nations succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler at the beginning of WWII the War would have ended a lot sooner and millions of lives would have been spared. A war that needlessly killed 23,100,000 Soviets, 449,800 English, 418,500 US, 5,600,000 Polish, 2,700,000 Japanese, 7,233,000 Germans, 567,600 French, 20,000,000 Chinese, 45,300 Canadians for an estimated death toll of roughly 72 million. If a team of snipers had been sent into Germany with the sole mission of killing Adolf Hilter six million European Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust. Snipers are the biggest psychological deterrent on the battlefield. The mere rumor they’re on the battlefield can send shivers through the enemy ranks. Imagine what a team of snipers inserted behind enemy lines could do to the aggressor’s chain of command. It does not matter how powerful a country might be. It would not matter if the aggressor had the most technologically advanced fighter jets, bombers, tank, or warships, once a sniper is able to infiltrate the aggressor’s country there is nowhere to hide. A good sniper could gain entry as a diplomat, tourist or business person. A good sniper would not need to smuggle in his or her weapon as he or she would have been trained to use the weapon of choice of the aggressive nation and acquire their weapon from the aggressive nation’s own police and military or even from citizens with hunting rifles. It took 3 weeks for the US law enforcement agencies to find and capture the Beltway sniper in October 2002 in Washington, D.C. How long would it take to find a team of highly trained and motivated snipers? That is if you even knew they were already in country.

The Nuremberg trials sets legal precedents in order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

Sixty-two years ago, four judges met to deliberate the fate of the first men ever tried for war crimes in an international court of law.

After Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945, the major victorious allies (the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) convened a trial of 21 of the most prominent Nazi government, military and media figures in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, the spiritual home of Nazism.

Another German, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia.

The Allies drew up a charter establishing an International Military Tribunal (IMT) as the legal basis for prosecution of these men for three distinct categories of crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The defendants were also charged with “participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy” to commit these crimes.

The bench was made up of one judge from each of the four allied countries. The trial began on 20 November 1945. Nine months later, on 31 August 1946 the trial closed as the defendants made their final statements.

The judges announced their verdicts on 1 October. They found nineteen of the defendants guilty of one, some, or all of these crimes. Twelve, including Martin Bormann, were sentenced to death. One, Herman Goering, Germany’s number two Nazi, committed suicide before his scheduled execution.

Three were acquitted and seven received prison sentences. Ten were hung.

The 1946 trial was the first of a series of thirteen Nuremberg trials which continued until April 1949.

While the Nuremberg trials are, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, they were and still are, in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, “unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world”. Among the most groundbreaking aspects was the drive to formally criminalise the three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for these crimes. This was simply unprecedented.

The effort to try the Germans in an international forum was directed in large part by the United States. The chief U.S. prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, opened the prosecution.

Today, when the Nuremberg trials are remembered, they are remembered primarily for the prosecution and punishment of individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time though, especially in the first trial, was the focus on aggressive war.

Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson’s opening statement: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility.”

Crimes against peace and the responsibility for them were defined in Article 6, the heart of the Charter of the IMT: “The tribunal…shall have the power to try and punish persons who…whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes…for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.”

Founded in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations invoked in the first sentence of the preamble, the single most fundamental goal: “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

To this end the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and the Allies at Nuremberg, there can be no doubt that the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to American security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

As a war of aggression, the invasion falls into the Nuremberg category of Crimes Against Peace. As such, there is individual responsibility for this crime.

Thus, if Americans chose to be bound by the precedent which they helped set and for which they punished leaders of World War II Germany, they would arrest and prosecute those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and their enablers in government and in the media.

Those who justify the invasion of Iraq, invoking the U.S. self-declared mission to rid the world of evil, would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.

And, for those who have difficulty visualising American leaders as defendants in a criminal trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “(T)he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgement. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours.”

The Bush and Blair administrations commenced a war against Iraq and its people in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The Iraq war is unlawful because it was waged in contravention of international law. The relevant articles that prohibit one nation or alliance of nations waging war against any other nation or nations are embodied in Chapter VII of the 1945 United Nations Charter under the caption “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”. No member or members of the United Nations are entitled to wage a war against any nation in defiance of the UN Security Council. It is also clear that a “war of choice” is not permitted. A “war of necessity” in self defense if attacked by another country is permitted under Article 51 – this too is a temporary measure till the Security Council takes steps necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 does not legitimize a pre-emptive war against any nation on the pretext that there is an imminent threat of attack by the said nation.

Aggressors do not have the legal right or authority to declare self-defense. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked by the US. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of the US wars of aggression. The civilian population have been and are still being attacked by the US military - clearly defined as war crimes according to International and US laws. The Taliban are not terrorists. They were the legal governing political party of Afghanistan before the unlawful war of aggression by the US and NATO forces. The Taliban are doing what every patriotic citizen would do to defend their country and countrymen when attacked by a foreign state - they are resisting. The Taliban are Afghan civilians who have been forced to take up arms against the invaders in order to defend their country and fellow countrymen from the brutal and unlawful occupation. The Taliban did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. The US named hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirate. bin Laden was not a Taliban or Afghan citizen, he was a rich Saudi Arabian who worked for the US (recruited, trained and lead the US financed mujahideen insurgency that fought against the Soviet and Afghan government troops during the Soviet war in Afghanistan). The majority of hijackers and the alleged master mind are not citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq, they are Saudi. The US could have claimed legal self-defense if they had attacked and now occupy Saudi Arabia because according to the evidence presented by the US FBI Saudi Arabia was the country that attacked the US on September 11, 2001.

Abraham Lincoln - “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Bill of Rights Amendment XIV
Section 1. … “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government’s lies and deceptions.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks the US Government requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the “terrorists”.

The response of the United States Government to a frightened and enraged U.S. citizenry over the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center has been eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s strategy following the burning of the Reichstag. As well, the rapidity and recklessness with which the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress have abrogated the Bill of Rights places the U.S. Government squarely in the same camp with the “enemies of freedom” they purport to oppose.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee steam rolled through the US Congress a bill which would dramatically increase the power of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Attorney General John Ashcroft insisted that the FBI needed additional surveillance and enforcement powers immediately and the Department of Justice demanded the bill be enacted by September 28. The House Judiciary committee was scheduled to vote on the Bush administration’s bill on the morning of September 25; however, in response to an outcry the vote was rescheduled to take place only two days after the catastrophic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Senate voted for anti-terrorist legislation which increased Internet surveillance after senators were given just 30 minutes to read the measure.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 eliminated the legal requirement for government agents to obtain permission from a judge before being allowed to search homes and download computer files. Under the law, the information gathered could be used in court, a legal change which presently violates constitutional protections against search and seizure. The bill would also eliminate the requirement for a judge to sign a warrant in order for government agents to obtain billing records from hotels, phone companies, and other businesses, replacing judicial review with an administrative subpoena. Essentially, agencies would be able to sign their own search warrants and conduct searches in routine secrecy, without having to notify the subject of the search.

Additionally, this law gives broad surveillance powers to the federal government, and authorizes the issuance of wiretaps by a secret seven-judge court in Washington, D.C. The DOJ bill imposes a host of Wiretap Act expansions which are not limited to terrorism investigations, and which vastly increase the power of the federal government to conduct surveillance of the reading habits and correspondence of the American people. The DOJ bill expanded the power of the police to record the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing phone calls on a phone line to include surveillance of Internet surfing and e-mail.

Coverage on Monday, September 24, of the Anti-Terrorism Act was limited to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s testimony urging hasty passage of the sweeping new police powers sought by the Bush administration. Although Ashcroft’s testimony was open to television cameras, the committee’s Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave when civil liberties and free-speech advocates were called to testify. This happened in violation of House rules which state, “Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means.”

“The Patriot Act: The Most Abominable, Unconstitutional, Hateful Law from the Point of Freedom since the Alien & Sedtion Act of 1798!” - unconstitutionality of the act is that it violated the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Office of Homeland Security

On the evening of September 20, 2001 President Bush allied himself with the worst enemies of freedom. He made a seemingly innocuous — even a comforting-sounding — announcement. He said he had created the cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security, with Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as its head.

Most people were utterly unaware of the significance of Bush’s new bureaucracy. But for anyone watching the advance of police-state policies in America, absolutely nothing could have been more ominous. The Homeland Defense Agency is not a new idea. Conceived by a bi-partisan commission headed by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, this Clinton-era conception, ‘The Phase III Report Of The U.S. Commission On National Security/21st Century,’ is nothing less than the framework for a permanent military-bureaucratic American police state.

The new Homeland Defense Agency is the lynchpin of a plan that extensively reorganizes both the executive and legislative functions of the U.S. government. Among other things, the plan makes the National Guard a national police force. It extensively federalizes both the study and the work of science, mathematics, and engineering. It creates numerous new sub-bureaucracies. The Homeland Security agency itself is to ‘be built upon the Federal “Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security - the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol - transferred to it.’ The plan calls for the new agency to oversee activities of the Department of Defense, as well as to assume a variety of duties now held by agencies from the Department of Commerce to the FBI.”

Bush: “If I take away our freedom then they can’t hate us for it”

The US people has yet to realize that their own government is intentionally destroying their own country. bin Laden didn`t take away your freedom the Bush administration did. bin Laden didn’t attack the US on September 11, 2001 the Bush administration did. bin Laden isn`t kidnapping, torturing and detaining without charge thousands of foreigners and US citizens, the Bush administration did and Obama has ordered these illegal actions to continue. bin Laden and phantom terrorists aren`t bankruptcy the US, the Bush administration did and Obama is putting the nail in the coffin.

The US government hates your freedoms - your freedom of religion, your freedom of speech, your freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with their illegal policies and agendas.

The events of September 11, 2001 should have strengthened the resolve of the US government to work harder to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the US people. After all it is the stated policy of the US government to “not negotiate with terrorists”. After all George W Bush accused bin Laden and terrorists of trying to take away your freedom. Bush stated “On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. … They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

bin Laden didn’t draw up the Patriot Act - the US government did.

Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the “USA PATRIOT Act,” an overnight revision of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens and reduced checks and balances on those powers, such as judicial oversight. The government never demonstrated that restraints on surveillance had contributed to the attack, and indeed much of the new legislation had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Rather, the bill represented a successful use of the terrorist attacks by the FBI to roll back unwanted checks on its power. . . . Under these changes and other authorities asserted by the Bush Administration, U.S. intelligence agents could conduct a secret search of an American citizen’s home, use evidence found there to declare him an “enemy combatant,” and imprison him without trial. The courts would have no chance to review these decisions — indeed, they might never even find out about them.” ~ Jay Stanley and Barry Steinhardt,

USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 - aka “Public Law No: 107-56,” aka “Ashcroft’s police-state bill,” illegally passed into law on 26 October 2001.

* Section 106 - Unlawful PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY (seizure of assets without due process)




















The Patriot Act took away the rights and freedom of the US people. It infringed and denies the people of the United States of American their inalienable rights and freedom. See for yourself. The Bill of Rights has been attacked by the both the Bush and Obama government. The Patriot Act clearly violates the US supreme law, the US Constitution. The Patriot Act clearly is in violation of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment. The Bush Administration’s Patriot Act is clearly in violation of US Law. It is an attack on the rights and freedoms of the US people.

The Bill of Rights

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


* First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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.

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth AmendmentProhibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The USA Patriot Act is forbidden by The United States Constitution - a Bill of attainder

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1798, that is until 2001. The Bush administration illegally passed a bill of attainder when they drew up and made law the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is the US government usurping the law by declaring unjustly and unlawfully a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The Bush administration violated US law when he and his government imposed the designation of “enemy combatant,” on all who opposed the Bush administration’s policies and agendas, not only in Iraq or Afghanistan but within the United States itself. The designation of “enemy combatant” and the new Obama designation of “unlawful combatant” falsely and unlawfully allowed the United States government to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges. The “enemy combatant” or “unlawful combatant” designations are both bill of attainders that illegally declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial - The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments from enacting such illegal bills of attainder.

The provision in the United States Constitution forbiding both the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments’ power.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”. The constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin’s constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Contrast this with the subtly more modern variation of the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made”.

The precedent that best reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri. It states

A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.

The stated purpose of the USA Patriot Act is to “deter and punish American terrorists in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” One criticism of the Act is that “other purposes” often includes the detection and prosecution of non-terrorist alleged future crimes.