CONSTITUTIONAL BREACHES --- Why that peice of paper means less and less by those who have the monetary power to influence those who understand little about it.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" — Edward Abbey Chronicles of Dissent .
--- (Constitution founded 1776, but on Friday September 29th, .... the day america died. The bill of rights were overturned.***10***)
- PATRIOT ACT I
--- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)
USA PATRIOT Act
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), known as USA PATRIOT Act or simply the Patriot Act, is an American act which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Although the bill enjoyed widespread Congressional and Presidential support it is a very controversial federal legislation.
Originally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York, New York; the Act (full text) was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism. Federal courts declared some sections unconstitutional because they interfere with civil liberties. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.
Some of the more controversial provisions of USA PATRIOT act were largely inspired by the RICO act, which restricted due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and drug trafficking. The USA PATRIOT Act essentially extended the qualifications to those involved in terrorism.[citation --USA PATRIOT Act Titles Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures Title III: International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act of 2001 Title IV: Protecting the border Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism Title VI: Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families Title VII: Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection Title VIII: Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism Title IX: Improved intelligence Title X: Miscellaneous
PATRIOT ACT 2 LOOMS!
--- (http://www.alternet.org/story/15541/)
"The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions - Get Ready for PATRIOT II - By Matt Welch, AlterNet. Posted April 2, 2003.
While war news dominates, Ashcroft is ready to batten down the homeland's hatches with a draconian list of curbs on civil liberties.
The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.
The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").
Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."
Though Ashcroft and his mouthpieces have issued repeated denials that the draft represents anything like a finished proposal, the Voice reported that: "Corallo confirmed ... that such measures were coming soon."
You can read the entire 87-page draft here. Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:
Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)
Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."
The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."
Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.
The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."
Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."
Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.
Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."
American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.
The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.
And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" -- stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 -- would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."
I wouldn't be writing this article today had an alarmed Justice Department staffer not leaked the draft to the Center for Public Integrity in early February. Ashcroft, up to that point, had repeatedly refused to even discuss what his lawyers might be cooking up. But if 10,000 residents of Los Angeles had been vaporized by a "suitcase nuke" in late January, it is reasonable to assume that the then-secret proposal would have been speed-delivered for a congressional vote, even though Congress has not so far participated in drafting the legislation (which is, after all, its Constitutional role).
As a result of the leak, and the ensuing bad press, opposition to the measure has had time to gather momentum before the first bomb was dropped on Saddam's bunker. Some of the criticism has originated from the right side of the political spectrum -- a March 17 open letter to Congress was signed not only by the ACLU and People for the American Way, but the cultural-conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative Union, and more.
One does not have to believe that Ashcroft is a Constitution-shredding ghoul to find these measures alarming, improper and possibly illegal. Glancing over the list above, and at the other DSEA literature, I can see multiple ways in which a Fed with a grudge could legally ruin my life. Removing checks and balances on law enforcement assumes perfect behavior on the part of the police.
Safeguarding civil liberties is an unpopular project in the most placid of times. Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has shown that it will push the envelope on nearly every restriction it considers to be impeding its prosecution of the war on terrorism. This single-minded drive requires extreme vigilance, before the fog of war becomes toxic.
Detailed critiques of the Patriot II draft have been prepared by the ACLU and the Center for Public Integrity. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also has a useful 98-page report on post-Sept. 11 civil liberties, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center maintains an outstanding PATRIOT-related site.
Matt Welch is the Los Angeles correspondent for the National Post, and an editor of the L.A. Examiner. He also maintains a weblog about current events.
WHAT OTHERS THINK ABOUT IT! -
--- (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17383leg20030328.html)
- ACLU Fact Sheet on PATRIOT Act II (3/28/2003)
Justice Department Contemplates Seeking More Sweeping PowersBill Would Further Erode Limits on Antiterror Powers
Less than two years after Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, giving new, sweeping powers to the federal government to conduct investigations and surveillance inside the United States, the Justice Department is contemplating another chilling grab of authority and further diminution of constitutional checks and balances on law enforcement.
With the Domestic Security Enhancement Act the Administration would seek "to take the Patriot Act's antiterror powers several steps further."[1] Dubbed "Patriot Act 2," the legislation would grant additional sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening remaining limits on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and prosecution.
I. Patriot Act 2: An Overview
- "An American citizen suspected of being part of a terrorist conspiracy could be held by investigators without anyone being notified. He could simply disappear.
"New York Times Magazine- February 23, 2003
The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation - until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).
Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded - individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).
II. A Frighteningly Freer Hand Against ? Us
At the core of the American experiment is liberty, the freedom secured through Constitutional rights of individuals and limitations on government power. So under our Constitution, government powers are subject to limits by the courts, the Congress and the people.
Patriot Act 2 Offers A False Solution, a Less Safe Nation
Our system's checks and balances not only ensure that the government does not violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, they also help maintain the legitimacy of law enforcement. Actions viewed as arbitrary, capricious or improper sow the seeds of mistrust among communities that might otherwise cooperate with authorities. Limits also force the government to use their limited resources more wisely - that is, pursuing real criminals using proven investigative techniques.
The bitter irony is that the Patriot Act 2 could make our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, a view held by many experts:
As Coleen Rowley - the FBI special agent named by Time Magazine as a person of the year for blowing the whistle on pre 9/11 intelligence failures - observed in a letter to Director Robert Mueller:
The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. . . . [A]fter 9-11, headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism.[2]
In late 2001 senior intelligence specialists wrote that the use of racial profiling and other investigative techniques that intrude on civil liberties could undermine security by distracting security officials from less clumsy and more reliable forms of individual suspicion.[3]
At least eight former high-ranking FBI officials, many from the Reagan and Bush administrations, criticized anti-terrorism proposals that violate civil liberties, saying they were likely to be ineffective and to distract from proven investigative techniques.[4]
How Patriot Act 2 Weakens Checks and Balances
The Federal Courts. The First and Fourth Amendments place important limits on the government's ability to conduct searches, wiretap, obtain records and spy on religious and political activity.[5] In general, the government must first demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause to believe evidence may be found that is relevant to a crime or related to a threat from a foreign power. Under the Constitution, the government may only detain persons under the supervision of a court.
In addition, an important post-Watergate era law requires the government to get court approval before conducting wiretapping, searches or surveillance for national security purposes. Before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was enacted,[6] lack of judicial oversight had lead to famous abuses of power, including the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the secret political surveillance conducted by the Nixon White House.
The Patriot Act II would make major changes in FISA:
Standards for court approval of searches and surveillance would be lowered - in many cases, making such review no longer meaningful;
A new defense would be created, shielding wiretappers acting without a court order from prosecution, so long as they had authorization from senior officials (sec. 106).
U.S. Congress. Under current law, the government may extradite an individual to face trial in foreign courts only if an extradition treaty, ratified by the Senate, allows for extradition for the particular crime. Likewise, the government may not conduct searches and wiretaps on behalf of a foreign nation unless the Senate has approved a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
Under the draft bill, Americans could be extradited without a treaty or in excess of limits imposed by a treaty, and could be subject to foreign-directed searches and wiretaps (secs. 321, 322). Courts would no longer have the authority to review extradition requests to see if the foreign nation's legal system provides basic fairness - even from dictatorial, brutal or corrupt regimes (sec. 322).
A Free Press. In a democracy, the people rely on a free press to be able to make wise decisions. The bill would deny the press, and the public, access to the following important information:
Arrests of terrorism suspects who have not been charged with a crime (sec. 201) - which might include material witness detainees, immigration detainees, or Americans citizens or others labeled "enemy combatants" by the President;
Grand jury proceedings in connection with terror investigation (sec. 206);
Public information about health and safety hazards of chemical and other plants (sec. 202).
III. Targeting Ordinary People, Not Terrorists
The draft bill would do more than erode certain fundamental rights of suspects and defendants. It would grant the government powers that could be directed at ordinary people.
Protestors - On the Right and Left. Under the Patriot Act, any individual or group that breaks the law with the intent of influencing the government can be labeled a terrorist if their activities are "dangerous to human life."[7] Under that definition, diverse "direct-action" organizations, including Operation Rescue or the World Trade Organization protestors, could be labeled "terrorist organizations."
The draft exacerbates the reach of the definition by using it to trigger new antiterror powers:
Wiretapping authority (secs. 120, 121)
Civil asset forfeiture powers (sec. 427, 428)
New death penalties (sec. 411)
Unprecedented power of the government to revoke American citizenship even of native-born Americans and detain them indefinitely (sec. 501)
Consider this: An overzealous attorney general in an administration that favored abortion rights could label a pro-life organization that engaged in "direct action" as a domestic terrorist group. The government could then wiretap calls, seize property, and strip supporters of U.S. citizenship.[8]
Community and Environmental Groups. Organizations rely on open records laws to protect their communities against risks to health and safety from power, chemical or other plants. These facilities currently are required to complete a "worst case scenario" under the Clean Air Act.[9] Patriot Act 2 would impose extraordinary restrictions on access to these scenarios (sec. 202).
Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Other Religious and Community Groups. Patriot Act 2 would terminate court-ordered limits on political spying by local and state police. Religious and secular organizations that take controversial political positions could face infiltration and surveillance, whether or not they have any connection to terrorism or other crime (sec. 312).
Library Users. Patriot Act 2 would give the government new powers to issue "administrative subpoenas" and to enforce what it calls "national security letters" to obtain confidential library, Internet and bookstore records - without going to court at all (secs. 128, 129).
Immigrants. The Constitution and laws protect the rights of immigrants to due process of law, requiring the government to provide a fair hearing to anyone the government wants to deport, and giving federal courts the power to review immigration actions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these basic principles two years ago, stating "Judicial intervention in deportation cases is unquestionably required by the Constitution."[10]
Patriot Act 2 would provide for summary deportations without charges or evidence if the attorney general merely suspects an immigrant may be a risk to national security (sec. 503). Lawful permanent residents who happen to have committed some minor criminal offense in the distant past could be stripped of their right to an immigration hearing and court review, even by the Great Writ of habeas corpus (sec. 504).
IV. Conclusion
Patriot Act 2 is fundamentally flawed because it relies on a false premise - that America can be safer if we do away with basic checks and balances. By undermining the role of the courts, Congress and the press in providing a real check on executive power, Patriot Act 2 directs its ire at the institutions of our democracy instead of at the terrorists that threaten it. In so doing, it threatens to undermine the rights of ordinary people and, ironically, the war against terrorism.
For a detailed section-by-section summary of the entire bill, go to:/safefree/general/17203leg20030214.html
ENDNOTES
[1] Matthew Brzezinksi, "Fortress America," New York Times Magazine, Feb. 23, 2003. For a copy the draft bill visit http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html
[2] Full Text of FBI Agent's Letter to Director Mueller, N.Y. Times, March 5, 2003 (letter dated Feb. 26, 2003) (Emphasis added).
[3] Bill Dedman, Memo Warns Against Use of Profiling As Defense, Boston Globe, Oct. 12, 2001.
[4] Jim McGee, Ex-FBI Officials Criticize Tactics on Terrorism; Detention of Suspects Not Effective, They Say, Washington Post, Nov. 28, 2001, at A1
[5] See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (criminal surveillance); United States v. United States District Court ("Keith"), 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (intelligence surveillance).
[6] 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-63
[7] 18 U.S.C. § 2331.
[8] See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
[9] 47 U.S.C. § 7212(r).
[10] INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001)
--- (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot2draft.html)
THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONDraft--January 9, 2003
DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Title I: Enhancing National Security Authorities
Subtitle A: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
Section 101: Individual Terrorists as Foreign Powers.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4), the definition of "foreign power" includes groups that engage in international terrorism, but does not reach unaffiliated individuals who do so. As a result, investigations of "lone wolf" terrorists or "sleeper cells" may not be authorized under FISA. Such investigations therefore must proceed under the stricter standards and shorter time periods set forth in Title III, potentially resulting in unnecessary and dangerous delays and greater administrative burden. This provision would expand FISA's definition of "foreign power" to include all persons, regardless of whether they are affiliated with an international terrorist group, who engage in international terrorism.
Section 102: Clandestine Intelligence Activities by Agent of a Foreign Power.
FISA currently defines "agent of a foreign power" to include a person who knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities on behalf of a foreign power--but only if those activities "involve or may involve a violation of" federal criminal law. Requiring the additional showing that the intelligence gathering violates the laws of the United States is both unnecessary and counterproductive, as such activities threaten the national security regardless of whether they are illegal. This provision would expand the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(2)(A) & (B). Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power would qualify as an "agent of a foreign power," regardless of whether those activities are federal crimes.
Section 103: Strengthening Wartime Authorities Under FISA.
Under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1829 & 1844, the Attorney General may authorize, without the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers for a period of 15 days following a congressional declaration of war. This wartime exception is unnecessarily narrow; it may be invoked only when Congress formally has declared war, a rare event in the nation's history and something that has not occurred in more than sixty years. This provision would expand FISA's wartime exception by allowing the wartime exception
1
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONDraft--January 9, 2003
to be invoked after Congress authorizes the use of military force, or after the United States has suffered an attack creating an national emergency.
Section 104: Strengthening FISA's Presidential Authorization Exception.
50 U.S.C. § 1802 allows the Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance for up to a year, without the FISA Court's prior approval, in two narrow circumstances: (1) if the surveillance is are directed solely at communications between foreign powers; or (2) if the surveillance is directed solely at the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than spoken communications, from property under the exclusive control of a foreign power. In addition, the Attorney General must certify that there is no substantial likelihood that such surveillance will acquire the communications of U.S. persons. (In essence, § 1802 authorizes the surveillance of communications between foreign governments, and between a foreign government and its embassy.) Section 1802 is of limited use, however, because it explicitly prohibits efforts to acquire spoken communications. (No such limitation exists in the parallel exception for physical searches, 50 U.S.C. § 1822(a), under which agents presumably could infiltrate a foreign power's property for the purpose of overhearing conversations.) This provision would enhance the presidential authorization exception by eliminating the requirement that electronic surveillance cannot be directed at the spoken communications of foreign powers.
Section 105: Law Enforcement Use of FISA Information.
50 U.S.C. § 1806(b) currently prohibits the disclosure of information "for law enforcement purposes" unless the disclosure includes a statement that the information cannot be used in a criminal proceeding without the Attorney General's advance authorization. This provision would amend § 1806(b) to give federal investigators and prosecutors greater flexibility to use FISA-obtained information. Specifically, it would eliminate the requirement that the Attorney General personally approve the use of such information in the criminal context, and would substitute a requirement that such use be approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General.
Section 106: Defense of Reliance on Authorization.
50 U.S.C. § 1809(b) and 1827(b) create a defense for agents who engage in unauthorized surveillance or searches, or who disclose information without authorization, if they were relying on an order issued by the FISA Court. However, there does not appear to be a statutory defense for agents who engage in surveillance or searches pursuant to FISA authorities under which no prior court approval is required--e.g., pursuant to FISA's wartime exception (50 U. S.C. §§ 1811, 1829 & 1844), or FISA's presidential authorization exception (50 U.S.C. § 1802 & 1822(a)). This provision would clarify that the "good faith reliance" defense is available, not just when
2
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONDraft--January 9, 2003
agents are acting pursuant to a FISA Court order, but also when they are acting pursuant to a lawful authorization from the President or the Attorney General.
Section 107: Pen Registers in FISA Investigations.
50 U.S.C. § 1842(a)(1) makes FISA pen registers available in investigations of non-U.S. persons to "obtain foreign intelligence information." But for U.S. persons, the standard is much higher: in cases involving U.S. persons, pen registers are only available "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Perversely, this appears to be stricter than the standard for pen registers under Title III, which requires only that it be shown that the information "is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1). This provision would amend § 1842(a)(1) by eliminating the stricter standard for U.S. persons. Specifically, FISA pen registers would be available in investigations of both U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons whenever they could be used "to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Section 108: Appointed Counsel in Appeals to FISA Court of Review.
Under FISA, proceedings before the FISA Court and the Court of Review are conducted ex parte. As a result, when the Court of Review meets to consider an appeal by the United States, there is no party to defend the judgment of the court below. The FISA Court of Review thus is obliged to interpret sensitive and complicated statutes without the benefit of the adversary process. This provision would amend FISA to permit the FISA Court of Review, in its discretion, to appoint a lawyer, with appropriate security credentials, to defend the judgment of the FISA Court, when the United States appeals a ruling to the FISA Court of Review. It would also provide for the compensation of a lawyer so appointed by the FISA Court of Review.
Sec. 109: Enforcement of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Orders.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not specify the means for enforcement of orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Thus, for example, if a person refuses to comply with an order of the court to cooperate in the installation of a pen register or trap and trace device under 50 U.S.C. § 1842(d), or an order to produce records under 50 U.S.C. § 1861, existing law provides no clearly defined recourse to secure compliance with the court's order. This section remedies this omission by providing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the same authority as a United States district court to enforce its orders, including the authority to impose contempt sanctions in case of disobedience.
Sec. 110: Technical Correction Related to the USA PATRIOT Act.
3
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONDraft--January 9, 2003
Section 204 of the USA PATRIOT Act clarified that intelligence exceptions from the limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications continue to apply, notwithstanding section 216 of the Act. Section 224 sunsetted several provisions of the Act on December 31, 2005. Although section 216 was not included in the sunset provision, section 204's clarifying language was sunsetted. If not corrected, this anomaly will result in the loss of valuable and necessary intelligence exemptions to the pen register and trap and trace provisions after December 31, 2005. This provision would eliminate this anomaly and treat the clarifying language of section 204 the same as section 216.
Sec. 111. International Terrorist Organizations as Foreign Powers.
- MORE ANALYSIS ON THIS CORRUPT PEICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION
(http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php) - EFF Analysis of "Patriot II,"
Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 20031 that Impact the Internet and Surveillance
Read the bill
With the full effect of the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) on civil liberties in the United States still unknown, and without a shred of evidence that USAPA was required to help fight terrorism, the Bush Administration has been preparing a second piece of legislation. Tentatively titled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," it was instantly dubbed Patriot II or Son of Patriot. For purposes of this report, it's called USAPA II. Recently Attorney General Ashcroft denied that a bill was in the works, although he admitted that the leaked document is "what we've been thinking."2
Whether or not USAPA II is introduced, it's clear that the Patriot Act is casting a long shadow in Washington, D.C. For instance, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had authorized more than 170 "emergency" FISA searches since 9/11. In the previous 20 years, attorneys general had only authorized a total of 47 emergency FISA searches.
The first Patriot Act assumes that lack of information caused by laws that restricted government information-gathering was a major reason for the September 11 terrorist attacks. But nothing could be further from the truth. The most objective analysis -- that of the congressional joint inquiry committee focused on the government's failure to "connect the dots."3 It noted poor coordination between the many government agencies responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence and poor sorting of the information it did have.
Simply collecting more information cannot solve this problem. But USAPA II makes the same mistake: it seeks more power to gather information with less oversight. Meanwhile, more agencies or task forces that you've never heard of are being created.
Let's be frank. The government has an insatiable appetite for data. But the mindless accumulation of data is not intelligence. Intelligence requires focused thinking and focused questions. Instead, we're building a Tower of Babel. If this continues, we'll get the worst of both worlds -- all the disadvantages of widespread privacy invasion with none of the security benefits.
These are the systems at work, and they are the result of a government which has been too powerfull and asted too long with too little evolution. As Thomas Jefferson proposed, the only way to change the inevitability of a government turning against the people with all encompassing power is "To have a Revolution every 20 years!" ... Twenty... two-hundred, take your pick.
We understand the systems, what are the products?
- About the middle east situation? Strange Ties: The U.S. has had ALL major leaders now in power in the mid east in their payroll. you know that they(the nwo) paid and provided weapons to iraq and iran, even after being instrumental in putting these very nations leaders in power. eventually, after kuwait, following truly capital , american style gov't, they began to be TOO capitalistic. they thought they were 'big dogs', since they were getting all these billions, like the UAE, dubai, they misinterpreted their extreme wealth as it being something THEY controlled.. oh no. in fact, their money is political, whites give them their money and the whites giving them their paychecks are wealthy beyond measure. its a problem played out constantly in modern history. so what happened was the kuwaites started selling the oil on the cheap, thinking they'd get a pat on the back, HA! YOU'RE TAKING "THEIR" money away...not yours. so, what happened was their CIA operative, Saddam Hussein was emboldened to attack and filter out these idiots(scripted to retake white oil) and then threatened to get out now, so they can still have these idiots who screwed up their oil under their arm, even more happy, but understanding. suddenly, they realize that there will be such a thing as peak oil. and that every nation eventually wanes. china was on the rise, u.s. on the decline. they can't have that(pnac), but we can't just control or attack iraq without saddam being completely confused... he was their worker for goodness sakes, why else do you think he's looked so confused since being invaded. lol. he even looked confused during his execution. we've come far.
- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)
- Causes of the conflict
Dispute over the financial debt
Kuwait had heavily funded the 8 year long Iraqi war against Iran. By the time the war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the $14 billion which it had borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war.[1] Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries. During late 1989, several official meetings were held between the Kuwaiti and Iraqi leaders but they were unable to break the deadlock between the two. After the failure of the talks, Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC's oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production. This was seen by many in Iraq as an act of aggression, further distancing the countries.
Kuwait's lucrative economy
After the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi economy was struggling to recover. Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by seizing Kuwait, it would be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.
Rumaila Oil Field
The Rumaila Field lies in both Iraq and Kuwait and was a matter of dispute between the two countries. During the initial years of the "oil boom", Iraq concentrated on the oil fields to the north while much of Kuwait's oil drilling activity took place at the Burqan Oil Field. However, in 1989, Iraq accused Kuwait for illegally slant drilling into the Iraqi part of the Rumaila Oil Field. Iraq claimed $10 billion including $2.4 billion in compensation for the oil "stolen" from the Rumaila field in Iraq since 1980 by Kuwait's alleged slant-drilling under the Iraqi oil fields. Even though Kuwait dismissed the allegation as baseless[2], the Iraqi government decided to retaliate against Kuwait's alleged "economic warfare" by launching a military invasion.
Arab nationalism
Though Kuwait's large oil reserves are widely considered to be the main reason behind the Iraqi invasion, the Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off due to British imperialism. [3] After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Britain split Kuwait and Iraq into two separate emirates. The Iraqi government also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir was a highly unpopular figure among the Kuwaiti populace. By overthrowing the Emir, Iraq claimed that it granted Kuwaitis greater economic and political freedom. [4]
Iraqi-American relations
On Wednesday July 25, 1990, the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion" on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have misled Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait (New York Times, September 23, 1990).
The invasion
On August 2, 1990 at 0200 hours, Iraq launched an invasion with four elite Iraqi Republican Guard divisions (1st Hammurabi Armoured Division, 2nd al-Medinah al-Munawera Armoured Division, 3rd Tawalkalna al-Allah Mechanized Infantry Division and 6th Nebuchadnezzar Motorized Infantry Division) and Iraqi Army special forces units equivalent to a full division. The main thrust was conducted by the commandos deployed by helicopters and boats to attack Kuwait City, while the other divisions seized the airports and two airbases.
In support of these units, the Iraqi Army deployed a squadron of Mil Mi-25 helicopter gunships, several units of Mi-8 and Mi-17 transport helicopters, as well as a squadron of Bell 412STs. The foremost mission of the helicopter units was to transport and support Iraqi commandos into Kuwait City, and subsequently to support the advance of ground troops. The Iraqi Air Force (IrAF) had at least two squadrons of Sukhoi Su-22, one of Su-25K, one of Mirage F1EQ and two of MiG-23BN fighter-bombers. The main task of the IrAF was to establish air superiority through limited counter-air strikes against two main air bases, to provide close air support and reconnaissance as necessary.
In spite of months of Iraqi saber-rattling, Kuwait did not have its forces on alert and was caught unaware. The first indication of the Iraqi ground advance was from a radar-equipped aerostat that detected an Iraqi armor column moving south.[5] Kuwaiti air, ground, and naval forces resisted, but were vastly outnumbered. In central Kuwait, the 35th Armored Brigade deployed approximately a battalion of tanks against the Iraqis and fought delaying actions near Jahra, west of Kuwait City.[6] In the south, the 15th Armored Brigade moved immediately to evacuate its forces to Saudi Arabia. Of the small Kuwaiti Naval Force, two missile boats were able to evade capture or destruction, one of the craft sinking three Iraqi ships before fleeing. [citation needed]
Kuwait Air Force aircraft were scrambled, but approximately 20% were lost or captured. An air battle with the Iraqi helicopter airborne forces was fought over Kuwait City, inflicting heavy losses on the Iraqi elite troops, and a few combat sorties were flown against Iraqi ground forces. The remaining 80% were then evacuated to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, some aircraft even taking off of the highways adjacent to the bases as the runways were overrun. While these aircraft were not used in support of the subsequent Gulf War, the "Free Kuwait Air Force" assisted Saudi Arabia in patrolling the southern border with Yemen, who was considered a threat by the Saudis because of Yemen-Iraq ties.[7]
By daybreak of August 2, Iraqi tanks were attacking Dasman Palace, the royal residence. Emir Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah had already fled into the Saudi desert, but his private guard and his younger half brother, Sheikh Faud al–Ahmad al–Sabah, stayed behind to defend their home. The sheikh was shot and killed and his body was placed in front of a tank and run over. [8]
References
^ 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait
^ Kuwait Organization and Mission of the Forces
^ Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait; 1990 (Air War)
^ Iraq Invasion & POWs Iraq Invasion & POWs
^ The Impact on the Economic and Social Fabric Assessing the Costs of Iraq's 1990 Invasion and Occupation of Kuwait – The United Nations Compensation Commission
External links
INVASION
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (02 August 1990)
Saddam Sends Apology to Kuwait for Invasion December 09, 2002
PLO apologises over Kuwait December 12, 2004
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait"
Global Domination -
--- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dominance)
- World domination, global domination, global conquest, taking over the world, or world conquest, is an ambitious goal in which one government, one ideology or belief system, or even one person, seeks to secure complete political or military control of the entire planet. It can be considered the extreme form of global hegemony.
Though it is debatable if a planet as complex and diverse as Earth could ever be successfully "dominated" by a single central authority in this way, the concept of global domination has long been a popular theme in both history and fiction.
- Regimes
Before modern times, the reach of political control and military force was limited by rudimentary transportation technologies and knowledge of geography. The Roman Empire had goals of global domination, and indeed the empire was able to conquer most of the "known world" (i.e., the Mediterranean) throughout its long history. The Qin as well as the Han dynasty of China were also successful in conquering the known world. Others who succeeded in conquering large portions of the "known world" include Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. Throughout history there have been many secret shadow societies and brotherhoods dedicated — at least in literature and apocryphy — to taking over the world or are supposed to have already done so: the Illuminati, the Templars, etc.[citation needed]French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had sights on global domination, and is often thought of as being the quintessential global conqueror.[citation needed]
The British Empire came closest to achieving global domination, at least in demographic and geographical terms, gaining direct political control of about two fifths of the world's population and about one quarter of its land area, and hegemony over nominally independent areas such as parts of China and South America. The Empire is generally considered to have arisen as a result of Britain's trade objectives rather than an attempt to establish military dominion, however, and was dismantled after World War II without substantial bloodshed.
The nations closest to world domination in territorial terms were both the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal when they were merged in 1580 (They separated in 1640) during the reign of Philip II. The Portuguese-Spanish Empire covered almost all South and Central America, as well as a large area of southern North America, almost all African maritime territories and other important regions such as The Philippines, Holland (independent in 1588), and a significant portion of the Italian peninsula.
Since the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks envisioned their regime as the first step to Communism dominating the world. The Comintern was established in 1919 in order to encourage Communist parties across the world and promote international proletarian revolution.
In World War II, the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler had ambitious plans for directly controlling all of Europe, and then obtaining a position of power that would make them a formidable superpower in global politics.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, critics of American foreign policy have argued that the United States seeks, or indeed actually has, global hegemony. Ironically, some calls to unite anti-globalization movements around the globe may be also seen as utopian attempts to take over the world from corporate powers. There also currently exists an organisation called Project for the New American Century (whose membership includes a number of prominent individuals within the Bush administration) that seeks global leadership for the United States as its main goal.
- Antisemitism - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism) -Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. While the term's etymology may imply that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews. The highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazism was the most extreme example of this phenomenon, leading to the Holocaust.
Antisemitism can be broadly categorized into three forms:
Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism. As the name implies, it was the practice of Judaism itself that was the defining characteristic of the antisemitic attacks. Under this version of antisemitism, attacks would often stop if Jews stopped practising or changed their public faith, especially by conversion to the "official" or "right" religion, and sometimes, liturgal exclusion of Jewish converts (the case of Christianized Marranos or Iberian Jews in the late 15th and 16th centuries convicted of secretly practising Judaism or Jewish customs). [1]
Racial antisemitism. Either a pre-cursor or by-product of the eugenics movement, racial antisemitism replaced hatred of the Jewish religion with the concept that the Jews themselves were a distinct and inferior race. Also included in this category of antisemitism are statements of the Jews' "alien" extra-European origins. (See the numerous anthropological theories on if the Jews possessed any Arabic-Armenoid, African-Nubian or Asian-Turkic ancestries.) Racial antisemitic beliefs are major emphases of the Neo-Nazi and include white supremacist movements in the late 20th century.
New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st century antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and which may deploy traditional antisemitism motifs. [2]HYPERLINK \l "_note-Kinsella"[3]HYPERLINK \l "_note-Gable"[4]HYPERLINK \l "_note-Endelman"[5]HYPERLINK \l "_note-Matas"[6] The concept has been criticized for what some authors see as a confusion of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.[7]HYPERLINK \l "_note-tariqali"[8]
Antisemitism in the 21st century
According to the 2005 U.S. State Department Report on Global Anti-Semitism, antisemitism in Europe has increased significantly in recent years (but see fn.31 below). Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death.
On January 1, 2006, Britain's chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, warned that what he called a "tsunami of antisemitism" was spreading globally. In an interview with BBC's Radio Four, Sacks said that antisemitism was on the rise in Europe, and that a number of his rabbinical colleagues had been assaulted, synagogues desecrated, and Jewish schools burned to the ground in France. He also said that: "People are attempting to silence and even ban Jewish societies on campuses on the grounds that Jews must support the state of Israel, therefore they should be banned, which is quite extraordinary because ... British Jews see themselves as British citizens. So it's that kind of feeling that you don't know what's going to happen next that's making ... some European Jewish communities uncomfortable."[80]
Much of the new European antisemitic violence can actually be seen as a spill over from the long running Israeli-Arab conflict since the majority of the perpetrators are from the large immigrant Arab communities in European cities. According to The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, most of the current antisemitism comes from militant Islamist and Muslim groups, and most Jews tend to be assaulted in countries where groups of young Muslim immigrants reside.[81]
Similarly, in the Middle East, anti-Zionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders — for instance, comparing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. At the same time, Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.
On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced its finding that incidents of antisemitism are a "serious problem" on college campuses throughout the United States. The Commission recommended that the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights protect college students from antisemitism through vigorous enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and further recommended that Congress clarify that Title VI applies to discrimination against Jewish students.[82]
On September 19, 2006, Yale University founded The Yale Initiative for Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, the first North American university-based center for study of the subject, as part of its Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Director Charles Small of the Center cited the increase in antisemitism worldwide in recent years as generating a "need to understand the current manifestation of this disease".[83]
Far-right groups have been on the rise in Germany, and especially in the formerly communist Eastern Germany. Israeli Ambassador Shimon Stein warned in October 2006 that Jews in Germany feel increasingly "unsafe," stating that they "are not able to live a normal Jewish life" and that heavy security surrounds most synagogues or Jewish community centers [1].
Conspiracy theory -() - A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997. [1]
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[2] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.
(Repeat sources of conspiracy allegations
Art Bell
Jack Chick
James Shelby Downard
David Emory
Myron C. Fagan
Louis Farrakhan
Juhan af Grann
David Ray Griffin
G. Edward Griffin
Stanley Hilton
Richard Hoagland
Michael A. Hoffman II
David Icke
Alex Jones
Tim LaHaye
Lyndon LaRouche
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
Thierry Meyssan
Robert Parry
Roberto Pinotti
John Birch Society
Webster Tarpley
Michael Tsarion
Liberty Lobby (defunct)
Paranoia (magazine) )
Illuminati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati) - The Illuminati is the name used for several groups, real and fictitious. Most commonly The Illuminati refers specifically to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment secret society. However, it often refers to a shadowy conspiratorial organization which is reputed to secretly control world affairs, usually a modern incarnation or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. In this conspiratorial context, Illuminati is often used in reference to a New World Order (NWO). The Illuminati, or illuminated ones, are believed to be the masterminds behind the events that will lead to a New World Order in which the world will be run by a single, totalitarian government, and a large portion of the human race will be eliminated.
In rarer cases, the Illuminati refers to an elite set of enlightened individuals who may not cooperate but are uniquely empowered by their enlightenment, much like the intelligentsia are empowered by their education and intelligence. These are people who have become illuminated and have achieved a higher mystical understanding of the universe. Many secret societies and mystical traditions promise such illumination or enlightenment, such as Zen Buddhism, the original Bavarian Illuminati and the Order of the Peacock Angel.[1]
League of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) - The League of Nations was an international organization founded as a result of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation diplomacy and improving global welfare. The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift in thought from the preceding hundred years. The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, keep to economic sanctions which the League ordered, or provide an Army, when needed, for the League to use. However, they were often very reluctant to do so. Mussolini stated that "The League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out."
After a number of notable successes and some early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis Powers in the 1930s. The onset of the Second World War suggested that the League had failed in its primary purpose — to avoid any future world war. The United Nations Organization replaced it after the end of the war and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.
Megalomaniac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomaniac) - Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur. It includes an obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. It is sometimes symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders
Nazi Germany () -
Nazism
New World Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29) - "One World Government" redirects here. For the general concept of global political governance, see World government.
This article describes an alleged conspiracy to establish a unitary world government. For other uses by politicians and governments, see New world order. For other uses in general, see New World Order.
New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) refers to a conspiracy theory in which a powerful and secretive group is claimed to be planning to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles.
In new world order conspiracy theories, many significant occurrences are caused by a powerful secret group. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance and mind control.
New World Order timeline
These are events conspiracy theorists say are pivotal in the establishment of the New World Order. [3]
In the July 17, 1926 Saturday Evening Post, the term "New World Order" was used for the first time in a popular magazine article to describe the work of Edward M. House in helping to create the League of Nations and helping to found the Council on Foreign Relations. [6] [4]
In 1935 the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States with the Eye of Providence above the Pyramid appears for the first time on the back of the one dollar U.S. Dollar bill.
Lionel Curtis wrote a book in 1938 called The Commonwealth of God in which he advocated that the United States and the British Empire should jointly impose a World Government which would be presented as being the work of God: "I feel that when once the Protestant churches had learned to regard the creation of a world commonwealth as an all-important aspect of their work in realising the Kingdom of God, an international commonwealth in the English-speaking world would come into being in a few generations". [7] [5]
H.G. Wells said in his 1940 book entitled "The New World Order": "... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." [6]H.G. Wells called his effort to organize prominent intellectuals behind the idea of establishing a World Government "The Open Conspiracy" (a benevolent one) in his 1928 book by that name. [7]
The term "One World" originated from the 1943 book One World by liberal Republican Wendell Willkie. In the book he described his 31,000 mile journey around the world from August 26 to October 14, 1942 in the Consolidated bomber "Gulliver" to meet with Allied war leaders. [8]
In 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement is signed, outlining a regime for the post World War II world economy.
In 1945, the United Nations is founded.
In 1946, Bertrand Russell supported the Baruch Plan for establishment of a world government based on international control of atomic weapons, and advocated that the United States and the United Kingdom should use their atomic monopoly to compel the assent of the Soviet Union if necessary for the sake of achieving permanent world peace. On October 1, 1946, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists carried an article by Bertrand Russell entitled The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War, where he writes, "The American and British governments ... should make it clear that genuine international cooperation is what they most desire. But although peace should be their goal, they should not let it appear that they are for peace at any price. At a certain stage, when their plan (sic) for an international government are ripe, they should offer them to the world ... If Russia acquiesced willingly, all would be well. If not, it would be necessary to bring pressure to bear, even to the extent of risking war". [8]
In 1954, the Bilderberg Group is founded.
On March 25, 1957 the EEC (European Common Market) is formed, which in 1992 changed its name to the European Union. Currently, the EU has 27 member states, 13 of which use a common currency, the Euro.
In 1961, Arnold Toynbee said: "in the present Atomic Age we shall not have assured the survival of the human race until we have established a world-government and made the present national governments subordinate to it". [9]
In 1973, David Rockefeller organizes the Trilateral Commission.
In 1974, retail stores begin using the Universal Product Code. Some regard the UPC as being the Mark of the Beast. [9]
On September 11, 1990, the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush gave his famous speech, "Toward a New World Order"[10] to a joint session of the United States Congress.
In 1991 Televangelist Pat Robertson publishes book 'The New World Order'.
In 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) begins functioning.
The WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity took place on November 30, 1999, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened in Seattle, Washington, USA.
In 2002 the FDA approves the manufacture of the VeriChip Microchip implant (human). Much more intrusive than the UPC, this arouses people's fears that a future totalitarian government could enforce the implanting of these chips and thus fulfill the Book of Revelation prophecy regarding the Mark of the Beast. [11] [12]
On September 20, 2002 the George W. Bush White House posts on its website the full text of the (at that time) newest National Security Strategy of the United States, composed primarily by Neo-Conservative Paul Wolfowitz. In this document, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is outlined. It is asserted that the United States Military has an Imperium over the entire planet Earth [verification needed]; thus this document is viewed by many as the first formal and open declaration of the establishment of the American Empire, as long desired by many prominent Neo-Conservatives. For many weeks thereafter, there were many articles about the new "American Empire" in the New York Times and other major newspapers. (For introductory preface, dated September 17, 2002, see [13]; for actual complete document, dated September 20, 2002, see [14].)
On March 20, 2003 the Bush Doctrine is implemented with the invasion of Iraq, thus launching the Iraq War.
In 2005, transhumanist futurist philosopher and computer scientist Ray Kurzweil reports that "The U.S. Joint Forces Command "Project Alpha"...envisions a 2025 fighting force that 'is largely robotic.' " [10]
Specific ideas about who is behind the conspiracy
A common thread is that each theorist group believes its particular enemies are behind the conspiracy:
Most intelligent free thinking individuals are opposed to the New World Order because they see it as being run by the big capitalist plutocrats such as David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission. It is claimed that the real purpose of globalization (the economic aspect of the New World Order) is to enable the big capitalists who run the transnational corporations to exploit the workers to the maxiumum possible extent and thus gain more profits for themselves. [citation needed]
Neo-Nazi groups such as the National Alliance believe the Jews are behind the conspiracy. They assert the establishment of the New World Order is being engineered by Neo-Conservatives to provide support for Israel and they point out that many Neo-Conservative leaders are Jewish and some of them have worked as advisors to the government of Israel. It is claimed that the real reason the Iraq War was fought is that the Zionists thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to Israel that needed to be removed. They also often asserted that part of the goal of the New World Order is to foster egalitarianism and enforce the integration of inherently inequal races to engender miscegenation and submerge the genetically greater intellects of some races into the genetically lesser intellects of others, in order to breed a one-world race with an intellect far below Jewish averages. It is stated that it is extremely difficult for most people to find out the truth about the conspiracy because, it is asserted, the mass media are overwhelmingly owned or indirectly controlled by the Jews or Zionists or those who support these groups. Many Neo-Nazi groups use their expressed opposition to the New World Order as a recruiting tool. See: [15] [16]
The perennial U.S. presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche claims that the "New World Order" is a conspiracy directed by the House of Windsor (the British royal family), which, he asserts, also controls the international Illegal drug trade. He claims the Fabian Society (which H.G. Wells was a member of) was secretly financed by the Royal Family so that the Windsors could gain control of the eventual world government. LaRouche asserts that as of 2006 the Neo-Conservatives (especially Dick Cheney) are working with the House of Windsor to set up a type of fascism throughout the world which LaRouche calls synarchism and which, he claims, the Neo-Conservatives hope will become the basis of the New World Order [17].
Paleoconservative Patrick J. Buchanan asserts the Council on Foreign Relations (itself supposedly a front for the "international bankers", as well as, it is claimed, the inspiration for the founding of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and World Trade Organization) is behind the conspiracy. He claims that the liberals are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the United States of America by subordinating national sovereignty to the United NationsHYPERLINK \l "_note-10"[11] [18]. This thesis agree with the right-wing libertarian opinion[19] who sees a future socialist World State as the only way to achieve an orwellian collectivist oligarchy freed from the need to subordinate the world's production to the consumers of a free market economy. The conspiracy would consist into replacing it with a monopolist planned economy capable of rationing the resources, converting populations into public property[20]. Their usual image is an egalitarian slavery under a global scientific dictatorship.
Some fundamentalist evangelical Christian ideologies about the conspiracy include a prominent religious element, based on prophecies in the Book of Revelation about the coming of the Anti-Christ, and they assert that agents of Satan are involved. These beliefs often include explicit millenarianism. Other ideologies do not have a religious component, and view the concept of "serving Satan" metaphorically. Compare Pat Robertson's The New World Order [21]HYPERLINK "http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link26.htm"[22]to William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse [23], both listed under "Literature" below . The fundamentalist evangelical Christian view regarding the expected events leading to the implementation of the New World Order and the emergence of the Anti-Christ as well as the subsequent Battle of Armageddon and Second Coming is exhaustively summarized in the 1998 book Final Warning: The History of the New World Order by David Allen Rivera: [24].
Anarcho-primitivists, anarchists, radical Environmentalists, ultra-populists, Neo-Luddites, and bioconservatives sometimes claim that there is or may be an explicit (conspiracy) or implicit (bloc) organisation of intellectuals, technologists, technocrats, intelligentsia, technophiles, and other such intellectual elites who push a radically pro-technology, pro-scientific, anti-natural, anti-environment, dehumanising, anti-freedom agenda. Generally, such notions tend to be connected to the theories mentioned above, related to capitalism and transnational corporations, with the idea being that technology is profitable, and human mediocrity is profitable, and thus, generally, capitalists and capitalist societies are in at least implicit collusion with technologists, intelligentsia, and scientists in order to pacify, standardise, dehumanise, technologically-saturate and commodify human beings, to create the ultimate global consumer society. Anti-psychiatry sometimes plays a role in such theories, as it is claimed that the fields of psychology and psychiatry are for the purposes of medicating the individualist instincts of people and creating a conformant "therapeutic society". Sometimes, the technocratic New World Order is said to have Transhumanist ambitions, with the ultimate aim being to engineer life and thus control it that much more by completing the process of turning people and animals into things. See: [25] [26] [27] Such themes are popular in science fiction - See: 1 2 3
General ideas about how the conspiracy will implement the New World Order
The understanding of some believers is that the New World Order will be created by a military coup, using UN and possibly American troops, against all the nations of the world to bring about a singular world government. Before 2000, some conspiracists believed this process would be set in motion by the predicted Y2K computer crisis causing widespread social disorder.[12]
Other believers say the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the foundation of the Federal Reserve, Colonialism, American Imperialism, the formation of the United Nations, formation of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the formation of the European Union and the Euro currency, the formation of the North American Union and the Amero currency, Zionism and the goal of Greater Israel, African Union and the September 11th attacks as major milestones.
Another related set of believers maintains that the United States is itself to be taken over, by troops nominally loyal to the United Nations but in fact controlled by a trans-national group (sometimes referred to as Faction One). The takeover is to include the detention of 'patriots' and those hostile to the conspiracy in secret internment camps in remote parts of the country, to which elements of the population will be taken for processing before being released as "work-units." (See Rex 84.)
Other components of the conspiracy may include the dispersal of chemicals into the atmosphere via aircraft in the Chemtrail theory, the well-known CIA mind control experiments performed under the code name MK-ULTRA, and involvement by extraterrestrials, as in the Dulce Base conspiracy theories.
The Mental Health system has been cited as a means to keep dissidents in line. It has been used by totalitarian regimes to do this, and some, if not all of these regimes still do this.[citation needed]
Connections between theory and nationalism
There are many theories which feature a plan to create a one-world government. Most of these theories envision this as being done against the self-interest of the particular nation they happen to live in. Sociologists draw a connection between these theories and a more general sentiment of nationalism or isolationism. For example, prior to the rise of Neoconservatism in the United States, conservative or Republican talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh would criticize different politicians for internationalist positions they felt were not in the best interest of the United States. Commentators would allege unethical or conspiratorial conduct on by disfavored politicians in support of this criticism. These allegations might be similar to new world order conspiracy theories. Historically this debate has most often centered around supporters of international free trade versus protectionists. Since protectionists generally believe that opposing a certain liberalization of trade helps their own country, it is then implied the free trade supporters are supporting a position against their own country. New world order theories therefore most often do not surmise that the believer's nation is working for world control, but rather that others, perhaps including powerful officials, are working to control that country and all countries.[13]
Manichean element
New World Order theories are often criticized for failing to explain why wealthy and powerful individuals are trying to overthrow the government, and are willing to use extremely violent means to do so. For most people, the theories do not persuasively explain why these men would want to jeopardize themselves to gain a position which would be less grand than their present state. Without an explanation, it seems that the conspirators must be "pure evil". This concept is known in literature as manichean duality. This fits naturally in Christian New World Order conspiracy theories, since the antagonist is the Antichrist; it does not fit well with purely secular conspiracy theories.
A response to this argument is that the top families involved in the international banking and political cliques simply want their future generations to be the rule-makers. It effectively makes them a royal dynasty if they can secure economic control over the entire world. This economic control is achieved through ownership of the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, WTO, UN, and other such boundless organizations with no direct ownership by governments.
Historical manipulations
The conspirators thought to be responsible for the new world order are also suspected of staging many historical events such as World Wars and UFO sightings. New world order conspiracy theorists say that world leaders throughout history have successfully manipulated their people into wars (so-called false flag operations). To support their assertion that the take-over they fear is possible, they cite what they consider to be previous examples of such manipulations:
The Nazis capitalized on the Reichstag fire by blaming the Communists for it, thus eliminating support for the Communist party in Germany, and leading to Nazi domination of the legislature.
The United States supposedly knew in advance of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and President Roosevelt used the attacks as a "legitimate" reason for entering World War II.
Operation Northwoods, a proposed series of false flag operations to be used as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba, was rejected by President Kennedy shortly before his assassination.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident led President Johnson to escalate U.S. hostilities in Vietnam
The Federal Reserve Act, designed to regulate bankers, was written on a private island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 by bankers representing the JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and Rothschild interests. This supposedly gave the top international bankers the power to pull the strings of America's economy.
Other new world order theorists see the conspiracy at work in globalization, or in the various intellectual movements evolved from Marxism, ranging from social democracy to the Frankfurt School. These are thought to be intended to homogenize cultures and values by political normalization, as in the European Union and African Union's gradual "communitarian construction" scheme of a common economic and legal framework.
Predicted socio-political changes
The literature promoting belief in this conspiracy, some of which is listed below, predicts changes that will occur as the NWO is implemented. A representative sample (although mostly phrased in an American context) includes:
Enforced Political Correctness
Gradual loss of civil liberties, with the Constitution being reinterpreted and rewritten along pro-UN lines
Gun control, leading to the eventual elimination of private gun ownership
Homeschooling and private schooling made illegal, with not only a UN-approved public-school curriculum, but also the possibility of forcing all students to remain in school until graduation
Local responsibilities taken over by the Federal government
Black helicopters, paramilitary militias organized from a combination of UN Opperatives, Police Forces and National Guard. The imposition of martial law; FEMA concentration camps for dissidents and Christians.
All national and local elections monitored by the UN
The UN taking the responsibilities of the US government
Foreign troops on US soil
The US constitution replaced by the UN charter
World-wide economic equalization under UN control
All cash money eliminated (and the use of such being made illegal), with payments made using implanted microchips; See VeriChip
Surveillance, implants, and mind-control
Only approved religions permitted, leading to world-wide introduction of an official "New Age" religion
The Mental Health system to be used to keep critics in line
Those who are Fundamentalist Christians/Pagans/Muslims to be executed, or imprisoned in concentration camps and/or in mental hospitals
Black helicopters
Main article: Black Helicopters (conspiracy)
Black helicopters are part of a conspiracy theory, especially prevalent among the US militia movement, that claims that special unmarked "black" helicopters are being used now in secret military operations and are going to be used by secret agents of the New World Order to implement the New World Order.
Other theories
Although the UN is usually a central figure in most theories, conspiracy theory in the twenty-first century allows for the addition of many ideas that in the past might have been thought mutually exclusive. Extra-terrestrials (either the "Reptilians" or the "Greys"), the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and other groups may be included in the conspiracy, in more or less dominant roles. Some theorists say a secret annual conference of the Bilderberg Group plans world events to establish the New World Order. Conspiracy theorists may explicitly disavow and denounce anti-semitism, or may place "the Jews" at the center of the conspiracy. Religious eschatology, often featuring the anti-Christ, is central to some theories, and irrelevant to others.
While traditionally more common among the far right, NWO conspiracy theory may be presented by any who fear the loss of their ideological freedom and favorite policies, conservatives and Liberals alike. A number of those on the fringes of both right and left believe that the left/right paradigm is a subversive creation of an NWO-controlled media, intended as disinformation to divert people from their common enemy. This has been called "Fusion Paranoia" by Michael Kelly.
Annuit Cœptis Novus Ordo Seclorum
FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
Some of those who believe that the Freemasons are conspiring to control the world claim[14] that the motto is inspired by Freemasonry, and is one of the clues to the True Masters of the World. By circumscribing the 6 pointed Star of David over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point near letters spelling S-M-O-N-A, which can be rearranged to spell Mason (also monas and moans, out of 120 combinations of letters). As any American dollar bill will show, the directions are not exact, and four of the apices point to empty space; the letters are at the ends of the nearest words.
The advocates of the theory also cite the 13 steps to ascend the pyramid, and the 72 visible blocks on the front. More conventional thinkers regard the thirteen steps as referring to the thirteen colonies.[15] If the blocks are correctly counted and their number intended, 72 has other mystical meanings: it was sacred to the Egyptians, as Plutarch says; and both Jews and Christians use it as the number of nations on the Earth.
(personally, I think David Rockefeller is an idiot. he's too open and public about being the head of everything. There has to be someone else pulling major strings behind the scenes. it's always those that you dont know. and sometimes, they're the only one that understands everyone is in their hands. I wouldn't be surprises if, after the next major "terrorist" attack, Rockefeller "commits suicide" and jumps out of a 50 story window. lol. but if not, and he actyually is our new omnipotent leader, HAIL ROCKEFELLER! I apologize for my opinion.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Social network
Supervillain
Symbolic snake
Systems theory
United Nations
As of 2007 there are 192 United Nations member states, including virtually all internationally-recognized independent states. Among the notable absences are the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose seat in the United Nations was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1971; the Holy See (administering authority of Vatican City), which has declined membership but is an observer state. Furthermore, peoples under a foreign sovereignty and unrecognized nations are unpresented in the UN, e.g. Transnistria and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The most recent addition to the UN is Montenegro, admitted on 28 June 2006.
Successes and failures in security issues
A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year is approximately $5 billion (compared to approximately $1.5 billion for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world. The Human Security Report 2005HYPERLINK \l "_note-22"[24], produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia with support from several governments and foundations, documented a dramatic, but largely unrecognized, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War. Statistics include:
A 40% drop in violent conflict.
An 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts.
An 80% drop in genocide and politicide.
The Report, published by Oxford University Press, argued that international activism—mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main cause of the post–Cold War decline in armed conflict, though the report indicated the evidence for this contention is mostly circumstantial.
The Report singles out several specific investments that have paid off: [25]
A sixfold increase in the number of UN missions mounted to prevent wars, from 1990 to 2002.
A fourfold increase in efforts to stop existing conflicts, from 1990 to 2002.
A sevenfold increase in the number of ‘Friends of the Secretary-General’, ‘Contact Groups’ and other government-initiated mechanisms to support peacemaking and peacebuilding missions, from 1990 to 2003.
An elevenfold increase in the number of economic sanctions against regimes around the world, from 1989 to 2001.
A fourfold increase in the number of UN peacekeeping operations, from 1987 to 1999.
These efforts were both more numerous and, on average, substantially larger and more complex than those of the Cold War era.
In the area of Peacekeeping, successes include:
The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force. [26]
A 2005 RAND Corp study found the U.N. to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared U.N. nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that of eight U.N. cases, seven are at peace, whereas of eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace. [27]
However, in many cases UN members have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions. Iraq is said to have broken 17 Security Council resolutions dating back to June 28, 1991 as well as trying to bypass the UN economic sanctions. For nearly a decade, Israel defied resolutions calling for the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Such failures stem from UN's intergovernmental nature — in many respects it is an association of 192 member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization. Even when actions are mandated by the 15-member Security Council, the Secretariat is rarely given the full resources needed to carry out the mandates.
Other serious security failures include:
Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of security council members to approve any military action.[28]
Failure by MONUC (UNSC Resolution 1291) to effectively intervene during the Second Congo War, which claimed nearly five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 1998-2002 (with fighting reportedly continuing), and in carrying out and distributing humanitarian aid.
Failure to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, despite the fact that the UN designated Srebrenica a "safe haven" for refugees and assigned 600 Dutch peacekeepers to protect it.
Failure to successfully deliver food to starving people in Somalia; the food was instead usually seized by local warlords. A U.S./UN attempt to apprehend the warlords seizing these shipments resulted in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.
Failure to implement the provisions of UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701 calling for disarmament of Lebanese paramilitary groups such as Fatah and Hezbollah.
Sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers. Peacekeepers from several nations have been repatriated from UN peacekeeping operations for sexually abusing and exploiting girls as young as 8 in a number of different peacekeeping missions. This abuse is ongoing despite many revelations and probes by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services.[29]HYPERLINK \l "_note-28"[30] A 2005 internal UN investigation found that sexual exploitation and abuse has been reported in at least five countries where UN peacekeepers have been deployed, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, and Liberia. [25] The BBC carried a similar report, and also cited a member of the World Food Programme as an offender.[31]
Anti-Israel Discrimination
The United Nations has been accused of taking a one-sided approach to issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[26]HYPERLINK "http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/andthejews.html"[27]HYPERLINK "http://www.adl.org/international/Israel-UN-2-background.asp"[28]. These charges allege that Israel has been singled out by the world body for uniquely critical treatment. Unlike all other refugee groups, the Palestinians have their own agency within the United Nations (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) separate from the The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is otherwise responsible for global refugee crises. [29]
Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council.
Unrestricted Warfare
Nineteen Eighty-Four
World Government
United States
--- Masons Jesuits Zionists Illuminati NWO Aliens Satanic Babylonic 180MB avi
---new world order, project for a new american century
if you know the content of the world, its the u.s, the french, the british,t he russians , the mossad, air cover of over an hour, reveals that that's unbeleivable that you couldnt stop the planes
the wolfowitz doctrine, not allowing any other nation get even regional defense
samual huntington thesis - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations) - The Clash of Civilizations is a controversial theory that people's cultural/religious identity will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Popularized by Samuel P. Huntington, it was originally formulated in an article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?" published in the academic journal Foreign Affairs in 1993. The term itself was first used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled The Roots of Muslim Rage.[1] The clash was also referred to in the March 1992 Atlantic Monthly article, and the 1995 book, entitled Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin R. Barber, which talked about the clash of Islamic and Western cultures, summed up as the conflict between tribalism and globalism.[2] Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The theory gained widespread attention after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. -
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment