Site hosted by Build your free website today!
   Your Source For Keeping An Eye On Big Brother   Page One   Always Free

• Gun Victory?
• U.S. Foreign Military
• The New Civil War
• Comment
• Bush Doctrine

• Gun Rights Showdown
• CIA's Covert War
• Powers of Persuasion
• NATO Announces WWIII
• U.S. Dictatorship
• Homeland CIA & FBI?
• Patriot Revolution

• True Agenda on Guns
• Universal Military T-Act
• Police News

To Return To This Index From Anywhere On This Page Just Use Your Browser's Back Button


Gun Victory?
By Mike W. Smith

With the latest news of our "victory" over arming the pilots of our commercial aircraft, it comes in about 30 years late, and a few billion dollars short, not including the lives destroyed from all the hi-jackings over this time frame.

Now don't get me wrong, ANY firearm presentation, legislation, or otherwise "victory" for America's firearm freedoms is a very good thing, and that is what we are all about. But let's take a look at the big picture of what we have now. As of my mention above, we are so very stupid to let the government take control over any domestic security we can do on our own.

What we have now is bankruptcy after bankruptcy. United Airlines, the second largest air provider in the country, is now under chapter 11! Commercial air companies are just about done. I for one say GOOD! I hope they all go out of business for not taking the safety processes that were in place before 9-11, and for not taking a stand when they had the chance to do the right things.

This is what happens when you let the government try to fix things they have already helped to destroy.

There are some reports swirling around of the government taking over commercial air travel completely! Nothing is there to stop them either. The airline industry is under giant federal regulations as it is, so to nationalize (another word for total government control) the commercial airline industry would be a snap for the gov.

Too Late To Stop National ID
Contact Or Find All Of The Information You Need On Your Elected Officials!
Is this want we want? The failure on the government's part to do what should be done, and then when companies fail because of the government's stupid, or illegal regulations, they just come in and take over. Wow! What a racket huh? As if we need to give the gov more control over anything. What is really scary, is the fact that the average American Joe Blow is going right along with it, and even supporting it.

I have stuck to my word, and NOT traveled on any commercial aircraft since 9-11. Have you? The way I look at it, I'm helping to break these companies into bankruptcy, and I will continue to boycott ANY company, product, or individual that I know is acting against our inalienable Right to be armed at all times.

I sure hope we can break the government in it's absolute control over EVERYTHING we say, do, or own, but with the brainwashed system we have in place now, I really don't see a very bright future for freedom. All we have to do is look at the latest decision by the 9th Circus Court of Appeals: Loss of America and we can look at the abuses of government powers at our recent fiasco with Bull's Eye Shooting Sports: Bull's Eye

Let me educate everyone who reads this: The Second Amendment says NOTHING about paper work relating to firearms. As the story goes, registration to confiscation. This has played out in EVERY instance of government controlled gun loss. I have to set the story straight here and now, this even applies to the people who are pro gun and supporting government paper work.

We are on the losing end of this fight, unless we take action now. We are up against billionaire gun control backers that are helping to strip our firearm freedoms, and influencing government with their bankroll and Hollywood friends.

Mike W. Smith

If you would like to contact me, here is my e-mail:


Will the U.S. Become its Target?

The United States military has been undergoing a transformation. Evidence shows it to be an entity in transition, shifting in character from a national defense organization to a world intervention force. According to Newswatch Magazine, the United States is currently sending peacekeeping troops into one-hundred nations. With the nature of the changes taking place within the military establishment, its current policies have come into conflict with the convictions of some military personnel. In contradiction to the Army's motto, BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE (fulfill your highest potential), it has increasingly come to reflect the repressive doctrine of an authoritarian organization that rules by might rather than right.

One of the more widely publicized cases of THE ARMY versus THE CONSCIENCE has been that of Army Specialist Michael New. At issue was an order from his superiors which was in conflict with his personal convictions and United States law. It involved the wearing of the United Nations uniform as well as the UN insignia on his U.S. Army uniform. Specialist New interprets the wearing of these emblems to be a symbol of allegiance to the authority it represents.

It would also be a violation of the oath he took when entering the Army which states, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

The controversy, which includes the deployment of United States troops under UN command, actually encompasses the larger issue of national sovereignty. Addressing these considerations on September 25, 1997, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth introduced a resolution in Congress aimed at correcting some of these coercive policies toward military servicemen in this country.

Current Resolution In The House
Of Representatives H.CON. RES. 158

Condemning the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Whereas President Clinton has deployed United States military personnel to this battle-torn region and such personnel have been ordered to assume the additional office of 'U.N. soldier';

Whereas the UNITED NATIONS has been construed to be a 'FOREIGN GOVERNMENT' under section 7342 of title 5, United States Code.

Whereas all officers who command United Nations forces, take the following oath of EXCLUSIVE LOYALTY TO THE UNITED NATIONS: 'I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct WITH THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED NATIONS ONLY in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization';

Whereas it is the inherent right of every United States citizen to maintain a singular loyalty to this Nation;

Whereas... it is a GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN-SOLDIER to COERCE that soldier to become a member of any military other than that of the United States;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress--

(1) condemns the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES;

(2) calls upon the President to perform his constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief by forthwith taking total command of all United States military personnel participating in United Nations operations, to take the appropriate steps to ensure that United States military personnel wear only the uniform of the United States without any items from the United Nations, and to carry military identity cards issued by the United States only and not by the United Nations; and

(3) calls upon the President to take expeditiously all steps necessary to resolve all existing conflicts with United States military personnel WHO HAVE BRAVELY STOOD FOR THE RIGHT TO BE EXCLUSIVELY LOYAL TO THIS NATION and who have refused to serve under foreign commanders in foreign uniforms consistent with the constitutional and principles of this resolution. (abbreviated, with emphasis added).

United Nations Army?
Specialist Michael New was an American soldier, not a UN mercenary. When he asked his superiors for written explanation regarding the UN uniform order, the response was, "the President says so, therefore it is." It may as well be stated, whatever the President says is justified. When relating to the question, why UN insignia must be worn, the answer was "because they look fabulous." He volunteered to serve anywhere the Army wanted to send him provided he could wear the United States Army uniform. That offer was refused. The Army broke its covenant by arbitrarily changing the agreement with Mr. New once he had signed his enlistment papers.

New reasoned that if the Army could force him to wear the UN blue beret in Europe, they could force him to wear it in America. It is a question of authority; "if they can force me to do it anywhere, they can force me to do it everywhere. I don't like the idea of UN soldiers being deployed in the U.S. I don't want to serve in the UN against my country, but theoretically it's possible."

Subsequently, Michael New was court-martialed for refusal to obey the order to wear the UN uniform. Legal counsel assured him that his position "carried the weight of law and that the Army's position seemed to rest not on the law, but was driven by raw political power, constitutional manipulation and sheer intimidation." (Col. Ron Ray). The Army's insistence on pursuing a bad conduct discharge against Specialist New, in spite of his offer to quietly withdraw to another unit, seemed to indicate a desire to make an example of this case.

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice says soldiers are under a duty to obey lawful orders of senior officers over them. The same article states that "patently illegal orders are not to be obeyed." New's legal counsel, Col. Ron Ray said, "the principle that comes down through military law that was codified in the Nuremberg trial, is that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders. It is no defense to say I was ordered by senior officers to do this illegal act."

Historically, there has never been a court-martial of an American soldier for having refused to wear the uniform of a foreign government. The order given by the Army, when viewed according to constitutional law, is without question, illegal. United States law expressly forbids the wearing of foreign insignia, emblems, or uniforms by U.S. military personnel. "Michael New has clear regulatory, statutory, and constitutional grounds for his contention that the order to require him to alter his U.S. uniform to demonstrate allegiance to a foreign power was unlawful. He stands firmly within the intent of the Founding Fathers. No other conclusion is legally possible. The order to wear the U.N. uniform was illegal per se." (United States vs. Michael New, Motion to Dismiss).

When the Army admitted that the UN uniform was unauthorized by Congress, it was clear that they knew their soldier had not disobeyed a lawful order. Yet, the most shocking aspect of the court-martial trial was the military judge's ruling that none of the evidence of the illegality of the order could be presented at the trial. No less shocking was the judge's instruction to the military jury that they could not entertain the idea that the order was illegal.

The Consequences Of Standing For Conviction
Specialist New was convicted by the military panel and given a bad conduct discharge. But that is not the end of this story.

When a Green Beret Army Sergeant with twelve years of service heard of this, he was very disturbed. He indicated it is the responsibility of Specialist New's Sergeant to attend to the interests of his enlisted men, to stand up for them in situations like this. This man, stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina was incensed with the Army's handling of the case.

He took matters into his own hands, writing a letter to Senator Jesse Helms and sending copies to the White House and the Pentagon expressing his outrage at the injustice being dealt to this young serviceman who had taken a courageous stand for principle. He shared the letter with friends in the military for their evaluation and they wanted to sign it too. He said, "now wait a minute guys, I'm risking my career doing this." Irrespective of the consequences, ten senior non-commissioned officers signed the letter with this Sergeant.

In January, 1997, this man was called into the office of his Sergeant Major who said, "I'm going to have to ask for your resignation." He was astonished, saying, "I'm an enlisted man, I can't resign, I'd have to wait until my term is up." The Sergeant Major said, "Let me put it like this. When I get a visit of two men from the White House who tell me that 'the Commander-in-Chief would be pleased to accept your resignation', you can resign."

The Real Message From The Commander-In-Chief
Michael New has said he would rather have a clear conscience and be punished than to "get off scot free and be guilty." He also said regarding the unlawful order given to him, "I felt it was very wrong, therefore, I couldn't do it."

The President (Clinton) has introduced a policy in the military which he calls "don't ask - don't tell." It is directed at homosexuals within the Armed Forces who, according to longstanding policy, would be discharged from service if discovered. But the President is offering to shield them from the dishonor of expulsion by means of this protection. Yet, when a man refuses to compromise principle and resolutely takes a position from integrity, he is court-martialed, convicted and given a bad conduct discharge.

Today we hear the hypocritical slogan, teach tolerance, honor diversity, etc., etc., but there is no tolerance permitted for integrity. There is no honor given one who is sensitive to wrong. Principled diversity in a morally corrupt atmosphere receives condemnation rather than honor. The world has no place for freedom of conscience, no room for personal convictions, no concession for incorruptibility.

When a man is punished by his Commander-in-Chief for standing in the honor and defense of his country; when those in positions of trust and responsibility betray the innocent and condemn the just; when truth and righteousness are scorned and persecuted we can know with certainty that nation's end has come.

"No one calls for justice, nor do any plead for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth evil. ...Therefore is judgment far from us, neither does justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. ...And judgment is turned away backward, and justice stands far away: for truth is fallen in the street, and fairness cannot enter." Isa 59:4,9,14

Written 10/27/97 <<< See this date?
What's the date today?


From Glenn Spencer
August 15, 2001

On 911, the second day of infamy, I asked our email list to contact elected representatives to demand that non-citizens leave the country. A handful criticized me for this. They were right. I never should have said such a thing. I should have waited until it was a more popular idea.

A Colony Of The World
In 1992, former Senator Eugene McCarthy wrote "A COLONY OF THE WORLD: THE UNITED STATES TODAY." The subtitle was "A senior statesman warns his countrymen." McCarthy warned America that it was being colonized. He said that people like Henry Cisneros were "classical colonialists." That was nearly ten years ago. Many millions of colonialists have invaded our nation since. They think they have a right to stay here. Their byword is "We are not leaving."

We Are At War
President Bush has said we are at war. He is right. America is going to focus on the "Homeland Defense," while at the same time going after international terrorists. As we do, we are going to be surprised at the resistance. I have long said, "You will not realize you are being invaded until you try to stop it." As America cracks down on its borders, we will be stunned at the degree to which the international community thinks we are its property.

Has President Fox said anything about the terrorist attack? Not as far as we can find. One Mexican politician said - "Lets not make somebody else's war, our war." On August 5, 2001, Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, ran a special called "The Other Face of America," which some described as a declaration of war. In it, actor Edward James Olmos said ""We are going to dominate this country, and it's going to take, the way we are going, another 25 years and we are going to be the majority of people, period!" There are up to five million illegal Mexicans in America. If we decide, as we should, that those who are in our nation illegally leave, what will happen? Civil war.

World War II Internments
Some Japanese were interred at the outset of World War II - a move that was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Had fate not shined on us in the Battle of Midway. the entire West Coast would have been subject to Japanese attack.

Since that defensive move, Political Correctness has overwhelmed our nation and we were forced to apologize and pay reparations. That should never have happened. In 1941 there were very few people in our nation whose loyalty might have been suspect. Today there are mions.

I Was Premature
When I said we should demand that non-citizens leave the country, I was not saying that they should be arrested or interred. I was saying that they should return to their countries of origin --- WHERE THEY ARE CITIZENS. This is not a death sentence. There is no way this can be called racist. But remember this; the southern half of Manhattan is covered with "xenophobia." We have 5,000 reasons to fear strangers.

America is going to be tested as never before and we are going to have to rely on ourselves as never before. Those who have become citizens have at least taken steps that teach them something about citizenship and the true meaning of America.

The United States is in mortal danger. A demand that non-citizens return to their own countries will, in time, prove to be modest. Time will tell if I was right. I am willing to be judged by that test.

Civil Defense
Americans must now join together to develop the means of defending their homes and neighborhoods against anarchy and chaos that may well result as we begin the defense of the homeland.

Glenn Spencer
Write to me at
American Patrol.

People's Voice
News Research Dept.

With all the information that has been coming forth on the current conditions of the United States and it's standings with the World at large it is alarming at how most of the corporate media chooses to ignore what is really going on. The world and its view of us as a nation, it is also alarming at how many American's who have a voice, especially a voice that others have come to depend on for information, have been misleading our nation; do not believe the endless trail of fact, proof and evidence; play down our critical situation on the world wide front; give into the 'little Hitler/Bush War Machine' in the name of Homeland Security - War on Terrorism and the Axis of Evil as though what we are doing as a nation has the total endorsement of the American People. Not.

But it is our Voices that are being ignored by our government and our media. They are not listening to us. What's new, right? Well, we had better start speaking up very loudly, and without the fear of all these new HLS laws that threaten our freedom of speech and our freedom of descension. Our Constitutional rights have all but vanished with this HLS.

Members of our staff have been told straight forwardly that they had better watch what they say as it just might be taken seriously insofar as being a violation of certain articles contained within the HLS Act. Bullshit!
Our staff will not be threatened or silenced because some illegal government agency supports a measure like the HLS Act that is a violation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

If these agencies are so worried about terrorism then they should go and gag the news-media that broadcasts the entire war plan against Irag, Korea and the rest of the world on national television with maps, photos, equipment statistics and more - like dates! Hello!

Not all Americans are strung out on 'legal' prescription drugs that have diluted their perceptability, logic or rational thinking.

Many who support the current activites of creating a third world war under the Bush Administration become defensive by calling sites like this one, and its content, paranoid, or at least...screaming about a 'conspiracy theory' when in fact, it is not a theory - it is a fact. These things are going on right this very minute all over our country, in your town.

In reality, what sites like this do is offer the Free Thinking American People, who will not be held in bondage by threats, an endless avenue of information and directions on how to find out more about these very critical issues.
If it was all so much BS - then there just wouldn't be so much of it from every walk of life and profession in our country. Funny thing, it is all varifiable fact and truth.

When those involved with these controversial matters are questioned about them they have no comment and immediately exit the building.

We believe that it is way past time for all Americans everywhere to wake up - ask questions - be demanding for answers of what our elected government is doing and why. This is your Right and your Duty as a Free American.
Time to get down to business People.


International reaction to new policy of preemptive strikes casts a suspicious eye on "imperialist" designs.
By Anthony York
Sept. 24, 2002

Last week, the Bush administration published a 33-page document outlining an official shift in U.S. foreign policy and military strategy. In the post-Cold War era, the United States would act as a global policeman, willing to take preemptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups that the United States deems a threat to global stability or American interests.

This new policy of "distinctly American internationalism" is the culmination of changes in American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, accelerated by the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And, the document makes clear, the Bush administration will tolerate no rivals to the U.S.'s position as the world's only superpower. "The president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago," the document states.

The global reaction to this new "Bush Doctrine" has been, to say the least, mixed. Some leaders charge that the Bush administration's doctrine of preemptive strikes amounts to a new level of American arrogance. Others dismiss it as a rhetorical device to wage what Bush has called America's "war on terrorism."

Salon has culled reactions from a handful of international editorial writers to the Bush Doctrine, as the administration continues to use its new policy as a justification for a possible future war with Iraq.

Le Monde Diplomatique, France
"We must face facts: A new imperial doctrine is taking shape under George Bush. Now is reminiscent of the late 19th century, when the U.S. began its colonial expansion into the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, the first steps to world power. Then the US was seized by great imperialist fervor. Journalists, businessmen, bankers and politicians vied to promote policies of world conquest ...

"U.S. historians have generally considered the late 19th century imperialist urge as an aberration in an otherwise smooth democratic trajectory. The U.S. had emerged from a war of independence to cast off British colonial domination, and had played its part in the Enlightenment project against absolutist continental European monarchies. Surely this experience inoculated it once and for all against the virus of imperialism?

"Yet a century later, as the U.S. empire engages in a new period of global expansion, Rome is once more a distant but essential mirror for American elites. In 1991 the U.S. found itself the only remaining great power. Now, with military mobilization on an exceptional scale after September 2001, the U.S. is openly affirming and parading its imperial power. For the first time since the 1890s, the naked display of force is backed by explicitly imperialist discourse ...

"Bush does not seem to be trying too hard to resist. He is reluctant to invest in nation building or commit the U.S. to humanitarian interventions. But he is quick to deploy U.S. armed forces all over the world to crush the enemies of civilization and forces of evil. His vocabulary, with its constant references to civilization, barbarians and pacification, betrays classical imperial thinking.

"There is no knowing quite what Bush learned at Yale and Harvard, but since 11 September he has become the unlikely Caesar of the new imperial camp in the U.S."
-- Philip S. Golub

Irish Times, Republic of Ireland
"The Cold War threat came from states that pursued a strategy of deterrence. Now, however, the enemy is one who wishes to resort to weapons of mass destruction as a primary tool of attack. Should any such enemy ever succeed, the appalling carnage of September 11th last year could pale into insignificance.

"It is this perspective which is underpinning President Bush's policy of preemptive action. He refers to the 'unique responsibilities' of the United States. They are unique indeed: at the start of the 21st century, the U.S. is the only global superpower, a position that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. And that responsibility includes acting in concert with the rest of the civilized world.

"The U.S. says the case against Iraq is clear. The Americans, however, have yet to provide the evidence. There is near universal agreement that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and evil ruler. Let the president state his case, with evidence, to the United Nations."
-- unsigned editorial

The Observer, United Kingdom
"This Pax Americana that is being proposed -- including its commitment to throw itself into the 'battle for the future of the Muslim world' -- is a curiously old-fashioned one. It is one that has been shared by empires from that of Rome to Britain and the Soviet Union, that says by virtue of its unique inherent values it can educate and save while dominating.

"It is not a new strand in American thinking. From Roosevelt to Kennedy and the New World Order, statesmen have struggled to locate America's sense of its pre-eminent power to effect global change for the good.

"The difficulty, as ever, is that it inevitably encompasses a very partial and contradictory world view. The Bush Doctrine will inevitably be coloured by the prejudices of those who have contributed to Republican foreign policy thinking.

"In this world view, the security interests of Israel and the U.S. are indivisible. Turkey is among the good guys. So is Britain, among a sea of vacillating Europeans. The bad guys are a roll call of troubled states: China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq.

"There are dozens of unpleasant regimes ... Is the U.S. going to overthrow every one of them?"

"It is here that the tensions are most likely to emerge. America may wish to be a power for good in the Muslim world, but it will try to do so from a position of strong uncritical support for Israel and the unpopular Saudi royal family, which will inevitably undermine that ambition and increase and not diminish Muslim suspicions about America's agenda.

"A bigger tension is likely to come from the Bush Doctrine's central tenet: That America, as the last man standing in the old superpower club, must be allowed to call the shots -- an ambition that is in conflict with the internationalism of the U.N. and treaty obligations and negotiations."
-- Peter Beaumont

The Globe and Mail, Canada
"After all, there are dozens of unpleasant regimes, and some of them have weapons of mass destruction. Is the United States ... going to overthrow every one of them? And what is to prevent other countries from claiming the right to pre-emptive attack? If Washington can overthrow Mr. Hussein because he might attack the United States one day, what is to stop, say, India from attacking Pakistan, or China from attacking Taiwan? As former Canadian ambassador Kimon Valaskakis put it on these pages the other day, 'unilateral pre-emptive war in the name of national interest opens up a Pandora's box much more dangerous than the problem it addresses.'

"That would certainly be true if Washington's new doctrine were as sweeping as the worriers say. Thankfully, it is not. No U.S. leader is claiming the right to overthrow every regime that Washington happens to dislike or that happens to dislike the United States. No matter how nasty they may be to their own people, no one is talking about unseating Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or even Fidel Castro of Cuba. Why? Because they pose no threat to international peace. Equally, no one in Washington is talking about taking on China or India just because they possess nuclear weapons.

"What the Americans are talking about is something far more limited. Under the emerging Bush doctrine, the United States would reserve the right to take pre-emptive action against a hostile regime if it (a) backed, harbored or conspired with terrorists; (b) had shown clear aggressive intent; and (c) had acquired or was consistently trying to acquire weapons of mass murder.

"Very few regimes are guilty on all three counts. In fact, only one currently is. Iraq has (a) backed, harbored and conspired with terrorists for more than 20 years (Abu Nidal, one of the world's leading terrorists, recently met his end in Baghdad after living there for many years); (b) made war against two neighbors -- Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in 1990; and (c) spent billions of dollars trying to acquire weapons of mass murder, succeeding in the case of chemical and biological weapons and coming close in the case of nuclear weapons.

"This pattern of behavior puts Iraq in a class of its own."
-- Marcus Gee

Asahi Shimbun, Japan
"It is increasingly clear that following last year's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, rogue states, terrorists organizations and others involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction have replaced the socialist nations of the Cold War era as the United States' newly declared enemies.

"This has prompted George W. Bush's administration to state that while the United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, it will also not hesitate to act alone, when deemed necessary, to exercise its right to self-defense by acting pre-emptively. With this, Bush has underscored his willingness to resort to unilateral action or first strikes against Iraq or other members of the 'axis of evil.'

"The document also states the intent to maintain military strength capable of dissuading potential enemies with ambitions of building up arms on a par with the United States to abandon such aspirations. This is a signal of the Bush administration's determination for the United States to sustain overwhelmingly superior military might.

"The United States has emerged as the sole military superpower in the post-Cold War age, and there is no doubt the strength of the U.S. armed forces is integrally linked to global security. The sudden recent shift in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (North Korea) stance also reflects the impact of U.S. pressure.

"Yet this new strategy also reveals the desire of the Bush administration to make up the rules for what lies ahead. If allowed to develop in this context, this will be an inevitable source of concern and suspicion."
-- unsigned editorial

Die Tageszeitung, Germany
(Translation by Ewald Christians) "It is becoming more obvious with every statement issued by Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: The U.S. administration is determined to go to war with Iraq and there is little chance to change their minds. Approval by Congress -- well before the upcoming November elections -- is assured. Every move that signifies Iraq's increased willingness to cooperate, the U.S. denounces as a mere attempt to conceal Iraq's true motives. Bush will attack, because if he hesitates now, or does not win a war by 2004, he need not bother seeking re-election.

"In November 2001, when the U.S. declared the 'axis of evil' and accused all countries seeking weapons of mass destruction of harboring terrorists, there should have been vocal protests from Europe's leaders. Their failure to protest led Bush to assume his allies were with him all the way. In the spring of 2002 Bush advisors followed up with more wholesale threats, and still there was no response. There could be no better way to make the U.S. feel very comfortable about a joint strike against Iraq.

"It seems too late to counteract now. It would be helpful, however, if Europe took Washington's war cries more seriously and spoke out against them right from the start. It's no guarantee to prevent U.S. war plans, but certainly worth a try."
-- Eric Chauvistre

Anthony York is an associate editor for Salon News. (


Bob Egelko
Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002

Showdown looming on right to own guns... Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft

A federal appeals court upheld California's ban on military-style assault weapons Thursday, ruling that individuals have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution's Second Amendment preserves only the right of states to organize and maintain militias, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 3-0 decision.

The ruling put the court at odds with the Bush administration and a decision last year by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The amendment "was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people's right to bear arms," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "The amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

Stage Set For High Court Action
The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's highest court, which has not touched the topic since 1939.

"When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit in the country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of it coming before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it."

The state Legislature passed the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1989, outlawing 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The ban was expanded in 1999 to include copycat weapons with similar features.

The original version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2000, when it was challenged by a group of gun rights activists who said the ban violated the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and several other constitutional provisions.

Reinhardt said he concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be used to strike down the ban after a lengthy analysis of the amendment's history and text. The amendment states: "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."

His interpretation of the amendment's intent matched that of the federal government's before Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the National Rifle Association in May. In the letter, Ashcroft declared that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to bear arms. The Justice Department took that position formally in a U.S. Supreme Court filing a year later, saying the right was subject to "reasonable restrictions" on certain types of weapons and categories of owners.

Ashcroft's views were endorsed by a federal appeals court in New Orleans in October 2001. Despite concluding that the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms, the court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by people under restraining orders for domestic violence.

Because the issue has become so debated, Reinhardt chose to address it with a comprehensive opinion instead of relying on a similar decision rendered by the court six years ago.

Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, told the Los Angeles Times that the 86-page ruling was one of the most comprehensive ever written on the Second Amendment.

"This is a very important contribution that should drive a stake through the heart of the individual rights position," Nosanchuk said.

Ruling Rejects 9 Court Challenges
In Thursday's decision, Reinhardt expressly disagreed with the Second Amendment interpretations by Ashcroft and the New Orleans court. He also noted that the San Francisco court, which oversees federal courts in nine Western states, had ruled in 1996 that the Constitution does not protect individual gun ownership.

The ruling rejected challenges to the law by nine gun owners. The court then went a step further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose.

The NRA expressed disappointment with the ruling.

"For 131 years, we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law-abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and will continue to do so," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

By Bob Woodward and
Vernon Loeb
Washington Post
Staff Writers
Friday, September 14, 2001
Page A01

Agency Has Had Green Light Since 1998, but Terrorist Proves Elusive
The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to disrupt and preempt terrorist operations planned abroad by Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden under a directive signed by President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by President Bush this year, according to government sources.

U.S. intelligence has observed the elusive multimillionaire, thought to be hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, several times this year, one source said, adding that this holds out the prospect that military strikes could be directed against him.

But reliable intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden, who was fingered yesterday by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as a prime suspect in Tuesday's suicide attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been rare, despite what one source called a "rich and active" surveillance program.

"We have a hell of a targeting problem," the source said, noting that Pentagon analysts are attempting to match current intelligence with military capabilities contained in contingency plans for striking terrorist groups. Those analysts, the source said, are trying to determine whether to attempt to strike bin Laden directly, or to target military action against his aides, training camps, or the broader global network known as al Qaeda, which has connections to other Middle East terrorist groups.

One well-placed source said last night that intelligence gathered since Tuesday's attacks indicates that bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, and his other training centers throughout the Middle East, are now virtually empty. In addition, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has moved military equipment this week, as he frequently does when he anticipates U.S. military action, the source said.

The new information on bin Laden comes as the Pentagon reviews plans for what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz described yesterday as a "broad and sustained" campaign against those responsible for Tuesday's attacks and any government found to have provided them sanctuary.

"I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism," Wolfowitz said. "And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. I think one thing is clear -- you don't do it with just a single military strike, no matter how dramatic. You don't do it with just military forces alone, you do it with the full resources of the U.S. government."

The 1998 intelligence directives, known formally as presidential findings, were issued after terrorists linked by U.S. officials to bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. They were designed to give CIA agents maximum capability to stop attacks planned by bin Laden's al Qaeda network against additional American targets, which agency officers succeeded in doing several times, the sources said.

The highly classified directives adhered to a legal ban on the assassination of foreign leaders but authorized lethal force for self-defense, which was used by the CIA in several cases when armed terrorists were stopped moments before they initiated attacks, sources said. Since 1998, CIA counterterrorist officers, working with "liaison" partners from foreign intelligence organizations, have succeeded in preempting al Qaeda attacks in Jordan, Egypt, Kenya and the Balkans, sources said.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow declined comment yesterday on any aspect of the agency's counterterrorist operations.

Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz said that military forces would receive a "significant" portion of a $40 billion supplemental appropriation now before Congress to pay for "some huge requirements to build up our military for the next year, maybe longer." Much of the supplemental funds, he said, are necessary "to prepare our armed forces for whatever the president may ask them to do. The costs mount rapidly, and they will mount more rapidly as this campaign develops."

Some of that funding could be used to call up more than 40,000 reservists to active duty, a proposal under consideration, according to a senior military official. Several thousand reservists with "specialized skills" could be called up in the next few days, the official said.

Many of the extra personnel are necessary to support combat air patrols over major metropolitan areas instituted this week by filling out the ranks of pilots, aviation maintenance crews and military air traffic controllers, the official said.

State authorities have enlisted about 10,000 National Guard troops to assist in civil recovery efforts in Washington and New York. But the Pentagon move represents the first significant federal call-up. Major U.S. military actions almost invariably require reservists to supplement regular troops.

Pentagon planners are focusing on starting any military campaign with sustained bombing raids, first against bin Laden sites in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said yesterday. If that proves ineffective, the plan would call for the bombing of targets associated with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has harbored bin Laden for the past five years, the official said.

"That was what the president meant when he said the U.S. was prepared to retaliate against both those responsible for terrorism and those who harbor them," the official said.

U.S. attempts to negotiate with the Taliban earlier this year to have it expel bin Laden failed, another official said, adding: "We have moved past there. Now we are trying to affect their intentions."

Several military officers said the Pentagon is also considering an array of special forces operations aimed at suspected terrorist redoubts in Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan and Algeria. The Pentagon also is considering flying unmanned drones capable of lingering over terrorist camps for extended periods to provide almost continuous surveillance, one officer said.

"Things are different this time," another senior officer added. "I don't think the American people expect a light response."

One factor restraining previous military action was an emphasis on zero casualties, which has tended to constrain the Pentagon from employing ground troops and has led to a reliance on sea- or air-launched cruise missiles. Following the embassy bombings in 1998, the United States launched cruise missiles against sites in Afghanistan and Sudan thought to have ties to bin Laden. The attacks were criticized as largely ineffectual.

Bush and his advisers appear ready to consider the use of ground troops, particularly special forces, military officers said. "If you regard what happened as an act of war, as the president has said, your standard of application for what you do about it is different," said a four-star officer.

At the same time, military officials knowledgeable about the extent of Pentagon preparations characterized the planning as still in the early stage. They said no specific targets had been selected and no forces yet earmarked for action.

"It's really embryonic at this point," the four-star officer said.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey said that Iraq would have multiple targets for military planners if it is conclusively demonstrated that Iraq "had a substantial hand" in Tuesday's attacks.

Should such evidence materialize, Woolsey said, "all instruments of power to the Iraqi state should be destroyed: the Republican Guard, everything associated with Saddam Hussein, everything associated with their weapons of mass destruction program."

Woolsey said he believes there is evidence suggesting that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. "If Iraq is behind the '93 attack, it's never really paid any price for that -- and we can start right there," he said. "But if it's behind the '93 attack, there's a good chance it's behind this one."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company


These jobs will have to be glorified as a patriotic war service if American women are to be persuaded to take them and stick to them. Their importance to a nation engaged in total war must be convincingly presented.
--Basic Program Plan for Womanpower Office of War Information

We say glibly that in the United States of America all men are free and equal, but do we treat them as if they were? . . . There is religious and racial prejudice everywhere in the land, and if there is a greater obstacle anywhere to the attainment of the teamwork we must have, no one knows what it is.
Arthur Upham Pope, Chairman of the Committee for National Morale, in America Organizes to Win the War

President Roosevelt was a gifted communicator. On January 6, 1941, he addressed Congress, delivering the historic "Four Freedoms" speech. At a time when Western Europe lay under Nazi domination, Roosevelt presented a vision in which the American ideals of individual liberties were extended throughout the world. Alerting Congress and the nation to the necessity of war, Roosevelt articulated the ideological aims of the conflict. Eloquently, he appealed to Americans' most profound beliefs about freedom.
We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.
--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941

Civilians must have the war brought home to them. Every individual must be made to see the immediacy of the danger to him. . . . He must be made to understand that he is an integral part of the war front, and that if he loses the war, he loses everything.
Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry Office of War Information

Warning! Our Homes are in Danger Now!

Under their system, the individual is a cog in a military machine, a cipher in an economic despotism; the individual is a slave. These facts are documented in the degradation and suffering of the conquered countries, whose fate is shared equally by the willing satellites and the misguided appeasers of the Axis.
--Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry, Office of War Information

Words are ammunition. Each word an American utters either helps or hurts the war effort. He must stop rumors. He must challenge the cynic and the appeaser. He must not speak recklessly. He must remember that the enemy is listening.
--Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry Office of War Information

How can any one of us here at home sleep peacefully tonight, unless we're sure in our hearts that we have done our part? --Who Died?
Treasury Department Motion picture

National Archives and Records Administration:
To ensure ready access to essential evidence; that documents the rights of American Citizens; the actions of federal officials, and the national experience.

August 13, 2001

"If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty," stated NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council on the evening of 12 September.

Article 5 of the Washingon Treaty stipulates that an armed attack against a member shall be considered as an attack against all. Lord Robertson will now officially inform the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that the North Atlantic Council has agreed this statement.

During a press conference, Lord Robertson reaffirmed that NATO allies will take such actions as deemed necessary, including the use of force, adding that members shall respond commensurate with their judgement and resources.

Earlier in the day, Lord Robertson, had consulted with EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, and Ambassadors from partner countries had joined NATO allies, within the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, to express their deepest sympathy to the American people. They condemned yesterday's terrorist attacks and made a pledge "to undertake all efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism." They added: "We stand united in our belief that the ideals of partnership and co-operation will prevail."

Meanwhile a Pentagon spokesman hinted towards potential targets being Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria and others. In "a war which would be sustained and fought on many fronts". If this is not defined as a World War then we beg the question what is. Considering that countries "harbouring terrorists" shall be treated with the same contempt as the terrorists themselves will Ireland and Spain be on the target list considering ETA and the IRA. Indeed our fine capital is home to members of numerous fanatical factions, how will these inactive and non violent representatives be dealt with?

The road ahead is somewhat uncertain, people are beginning to move the finger of accusation from Ossama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, the confusion continues, in the meantime the medias anti muslim and anti Arab (those who see it for what it is may say racist) Reporting of the events have led to innocent Arabs across the United States and in London being attacked with verbal abuse, death threats and physical violence. These attacks are random in as much as they are targetted at men, women and children of Arab origin (or perceived to be of Arab origin), regardless of their viewpoint. Once again a success for the global media propoganda machine.

How 'Anti-Terror' Laws
Threaten You
By James R. Elwood
and Jarret B. Wollstein
International Society
For Individual Liberty
July 21, 2002

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life." Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in 2/1/02)

At 5 am in the morning on September 12, 2001 -- less than one day after the 9/11 Attack -- a half-dozen heavily-armed federal agents raided the home of Dr. Al-Hazmi in San Antonio, Texas. Without any search warrant, the agents ransacked his home, while his wife and young children (6 & 8) were held at gunpoint. Then -- without being charged with any crime -- Dr. Al-Hazmi was shackled and thrown naked into a freezing cold FBI holding cell. Even his eyeglasses and bronchitis medicine were taken away. Next, Al-Hazmi was flown to a New York prison, where he says he was repeatedly beaten while the FBI interrogated him.

One week later, he was finally allowed to talk to an attorney and learned the reason for his arrest: Dr. Al-Hazmi's name (the "Smith" of the Middle East) is similar to that of two 9/11 hijackers, and he had booked flights through, which some 9/11 hijackers (along with a few million other people) had used.

On September 24th -- 12 days after he was arrested,Dr. Al-Hazmi was released -- without his belongings and without even an apology from the FBI. He says he may now have to quit his job and leave the U.S. because his co-workers no longer trust him. (Source: "Justice Kept In the Dark," Newsweek,12-10-01, p. 41.)

Since September 11th, over 2,000 people, including many U.S. citizens, have been imprisoned by the FBI and police in the name of "fighting terrorism." Only two of them have been charged with a crime associated with 9/11. Many say they have been denied food and sleep, access to an attorney, and have even been beaten. The FBI has even called for legalizing torture of such "suspects."

In the wake of the horrific 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, America is a changed country. Dozens of "anti-terrorist" laws have already been enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and many more are on the way. As you are about to learn, these laws are a much greater danger to you than to terrorists.

The USA Patriot Act authorizes an American police state.
The centerpiece of the new "anti-terror" laws is the USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56). Here is how this law affects you:

Cops can now rob your house or office at will: Under Section 213, police can now secretly break into your home or business if they merely suspect you're involved in any criminal activity involving a computer. Once they break in, they can seize your records, alter or destroy your computer files, and even plant bugs that report every keystroke you type. They can also secretly seize anything and everything you own, including family heirlooms, your computer, cash, jewelry, and gold. Since the "search" is secret, it will be impossible to legally challenge it -- much less get your property back.

In effect, the USA Patriot Act legalizes home break-ins and robberies by cops nationwide -- not unlike the corrupt LA police Rampart Division which routinely robbed and assaulted citizens they were sworn "to serve and protect."

Big Brother is Watching: Under Section 207(III) the Feds can now eavesdrop on your phone calls, faxes, and e-mail at will -- without any search warrant. Internet Service Providers must turn over your e-mail records and customer information upon government demand. Telephone companies also must turn over detailed phone records, including any credit-card or bank-account numbers used for payments.

According to (11/21/01), the FBI is developing new "Magic Lantern" software that can record every keystroke you make on your computer. It could be inserted into your PC via the Internet, and may even be capable of real-time monitoring! [Shades of 1984]

Your financial privacy is being wiped out. Section 358 compels U.S. and foreign banks -- along with stockbrokers, credit-card companies, and credit-reporting agencies -- to provide detailed information about you to intelligence agencies on demand. You won't even be notified that this information has been requested.

Section 361 greatly expands the power of the IRS Financial Crimes Center (FINCEN) to collect financial information on you from "non-bank networks" (like check-cashing services and barter-systems). This infor-mation will be entered into a new federal database accessible to thousands of cops and bureaucrats, who can use the information to criminally prosecute you or seize your assets. The IRS has already forced MasterCard and American Express to turn over all records of millions of U.S. citizens who have foreign credit cards.

If you are a foreigner who owns U.S. assets, they can be seized upon the mere request of a U.S. prosecutor.

Finally, carrying $10,000 cash in or out of the US (without reporting it) is by itself now considered a federal crime. Your cash will be immediately confiscated.

Anything and everything you own can be seized without trial. Section 302 allows "forfeiture of any assets in connection with the anti-terrorist efforts of the United States." If you contribute even $1 to an organization that the President brands "terrorist," everything you own can be confiscated.

Since September 11th, over $400 million in assets has been seized, including all of the assets of the Global Relief Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, which raises some $5 million a year for poor Muslims. According to CBS News, FBI agents removed "furniture and fixtures as well as records." Justice Department officials say they will also go after large contributors to Global and 39 other Muslim charities.

We are all possible "domestic terrorists".

Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act says "domestic terrorism" includes any illegal acts which are "dangerous to human life" or which are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

This wording is so vague, that police could brand you a 'supporter of terrorism' simply for protesting an unjust law, taking part in a political demonstration where a fist-fight breaks out, or even writing an article that criticizes the War on Terror! Already, similar laws have been used to arrest protesters at anti-abortion demonstration, seize the assets of some defense attorneys, and even arrest 6-year-old children for making "terrorist threats."

Section 813 further states that such "terrorist acts" fall under RICO (the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act), which allows police to confiscate everything you own based upon mere "suspicion."

The USA Patriot Act is just the beginning.

In the wake of 9/11, scores of new anti-terrorist laws and policies have already been enacted including:

Robbing and assaulting airline passengers. Airports (and many other public places) are now "rights-free zones." Under the eye of armed soldiers, thousands of airline passengers have had legal items like toenail clippers, jewelry, and belts confiscated as potential "weapons." Many are also being molested.

Columnist Rebecca Hagelin reports that a female airport security guard "ran her hands across my breast and up my thighs." Then her 9-year-old daughter was subjected to the same treatment. publisher Joseph Farah says his 15-year-old daughter was "told to unbutton her pants and roll them down below the beltline." In Atlanta, 72 women have filed suit for sexual molestation by male airport security screeners.

National ID cards and internal passports.
The "Drivers License Modernization Act of 2002" (HR 4633) mandates that all state drivers licenses be standardized "smart cards" that would include your Social Security number, digitized photo, and "biometric" identifiers such as your fingerprints or retinal scan. This won't stop criminals or terrorists, who routinely steal or forge IDs.

However, your license will be linked to a national database now being created which will enable the government to control your every movement and track every dollar you spend.

Some officials are even calling for these ID cards to be mandatory for boarding a bus, train, or cruise ship -- or even to rent a car! That would transform your driver's license into an internal passport. Just like in the former Soviet Union, government bureaucrats could prevent you from traveling!

"Star Chamber" military tribunals. These tribunals strip away your most basic legal protections. Before these tribunals, you have no presumption of innocence, hearsay evidence can be used to convict you, and there is no independent jury. Instead you are judged by military officers who work for the same boss as the prosecutors trying to convict you. Military tribunals can even order that you be summarily executed -- without appeal.

So far, these military tribunals are supposed to try only foreign "terrorist" suspects. But a Presidential Executive Order could make you subject to them in a heartbeat -- just as Lincoln ordered during the Civil War.

Dictatorship is at our doorstep.

Universal surveillance, arbitrary property seizures, imprisonment without trial, "kangaroo-court" tribunals, and summary execution of "suspects" were the hallmarks of the brutal dictatorships in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia -- and continue today in repressive countries like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These abuses have no place in a free and civilized society.

But now in America, the USA Patriot Act and the other new anti-terror laws and edicts virtually wipe out our Bill of Rights and give government officials absolute power over your life and property. As Lord Acton warned: "Power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

We can still stop dictatorship.

Certainly in the wake of 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threat, government should hunt down and get rid of real terrorists. But vicious attacks on our freedom and privacy will not make our country one whit safer.

There is still time to fight back, as many people -- including some members of Congress -- are starting to do. Join us in insisting as a free and just people, that the "rule of law" enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- which protects the innocent -- must be strictly upheld, and that the new "anti-terrorist" laws be repealed.

Allowing government to destroy our liberty in the name of fighting terrorism will destroy everything that has made America a great, prosperous and decent society -- and give Osama bin Laden and his wretched ilk their final victory.

James R. Elwood is the executive vice-president of ISIL.
Jarret B. Wollstein is a director of ISIL, a prolific writer, and the author of 25 books including "Surviving Terrorism, Protecting yourself, your business and your community from terrorism and martial law." First published May, 2002.

From Dr. James S. Mortellaro, Jr.

Thank God I won't see our end ... maybe.

Comparatively speaking... I am 59. There is longevity in my family, on both sides. Grandma lived to 99 plus. My Dad will be 90 this August 2002. Mom is 86. My aunt is 87. All are still alive, more or less well, still driving and still kicking. But at 59, my body is ill with the sicknesses my family had in their 80's. Little good the genes will do me. But this is my fault, not the fault of my genes. I ate wrong, smoked too long, never got enough sleep, demanded of myself more than my body could give and led a very stressful life. Typical am I, of the type "A" personality.

Having set the stage, let me continue. This nation is in a sever decline. It's citizens are lemmings, allowing their so-called government to manage every aspect of their affairs without complain. And if they do complain, they are likely to be reported to the NAZI tattle tales now being recruited by our government. Reminds me so much of pre and post World War Two Germany. And the fall of Rome.

We are no longer living that Constitution which was just a few short years ago, itself, a living document; the writings from which governed every aspect of law, order and government. No longer.

Today, our rights under the Constitution are in dire jeopardy. The man I voted into office because I believed he was the lesser of the two lunatics running, turned out to be the Gestapo. His police state, now in the formative stages of development, will undo everything which I admired, indeed, loved, about my country. Everything.

I love to shoot. I am now concerned over losing that right. I love to write. I loath to wonder what will happen to this right, the one I now exercise on this venue. I wonder indeed. And I am afraid. Truth be told, I've never before been afraid for my country or it's citizens. I lived and grew up in the nuclear age. I was taught to hide under my classroom desk or hide in the shelters, which were everywhere in those days.

I learned that in an instant, even if I was not injured in the initial blast, I would likely cease to exist by virtue of radiation, fire, crumbling buildings and the like. It was not very pleasant. About the same as we now fear from terrorism. But worse? Maybe. I don't know.

But even in those frightening times, I was secure in the knowledge that our nation would survive. I had faith in the system, in our people. Even as a kid not even 11 years of age. I had a family as well. That level of security which is provided by an extended family (mother AND father and mother at home to raise me) made my life more bearable. But now, what do young people have? Not even an education. In the news this past week, the numbers which measured our children's learning ability were indeed terrifying. Seventy-five percent of our students (this is in NYC) were unable to read at their grade level. As much were not able to add, subtract or multiply. What happened to dividing? That was left for our government.

Early colonists fought for Independence due primarily to what they called, "taxation without representation." Today, New Yorkers pay more than SEVEN DOLLARS for a pack of cigarettes. Seven dollars.

In this state, you cannot use a cell phone without a hands free kit. In this state, getting a license to carry concealed is like going to the Spanish Inquisition. One is forced to enure a serious _indignity_ at the hands of police officers and judges who are clearly against having citizens carry. That right is left to police, politicians and people with connections. Everyone else suffers.

It's why I am glad that I may not see the actual downfall. I won't likely live long enough. But if I do, I may seriously blow my brains out. It is just not worth living, if I cannot live free. Not worth living. Live free or die. That's me.

I hold the truths of our Constitution to be self evident. Who the hell else does? Not too many. And those who do are mysteriously quiet. Why is that?

I don't know. Neither do I know why there are less than 5% of American flags on cars and residences than there were a week after 911. Now why is that?

Too many questions. Too few answers. I give up. It is consummated.

Dr. James S. Mortellaro, Jr.

This article was emailed to us from the "Rense Chronicles".
A link to that web site can be found on our
main page.


By Michael Kramer
Copyright 2002 Daily News, L.P.
Daily News (New York)

Why not move the FBI - and possibly the CIA as well - to the proposed Department of Homeland Security?

Made sense to me when I asked the question shortly after President Bush announced his massive reorganization last week. Made no sense to the Bush adviser who answered.

"You've covered this stuff long enough to know that could never happen," he said derisively. "They'd throw a major fit and their friends in Congress would run us out of town for even proposing it."

I still suggested a single, anti-terrorism directorate that might bridge the turf wars between the FBI and CIA when I wrote about Bush's announcement, but I figured that Bush aide knew what he was talking about.

But looky here: We now have some senior congressional leaders of both parties cozying up to the idea - or at least voicing the same concerns that trouble me.

Worried about the lack of cooperation between the FBI and CIA and about how they will play with the new department, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) says, "We may have to pull those agencies more fully into the (new) structure than was proposed (by the President)." House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) agrees.

"All of us have to ask whether (Bush's proposal is) enough," echoes Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.). It could leave the new department as a "passive customer" of what the FBI and CIA produce or, worse, what they choose to pass along based on their views of what's important.

These comments - and similar ones heard when about 200 members of Congress grilled Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge on Wednesday - are still far from a critical mass. But they're a start, and the logic is powerful.

We now know how poorly the FBI and CIA performed before Sept. 11, and even though Bush says they're cooperating now, that cooperation remains sketchy.

Why wait until another terrorist horror proves beyond a doubt that we need a single, effective agency to collect and analyze all intelligence?

You'd think that Bush would be delighted by Congress' budding concern.

If the White House thought folding the CIA and FBI into Homeland Security was politically impossible, it should be thankful that its initial view may be wrong. After all, as the President said again the other day, "We're under attack. . . . (These terrorists) are still lurking around."

But no, the President is sticking with his original proposal. Administration officials say the FBI belongs in the Justice Department because it is primarily a law-enforcement organization. Now's the right time True enough, but since the bureau's main mission has shifted to counterterrorism, all or most of the FBI's functions should be housed in Homeland Security.

As for the CIA, there's no justification for having it continue as a stand-alone agency, but no one seems ready to change that.

The time to strike is now, when enthusiasm for the new department is high. If serious congressional leaders are willing to go further than the President, Bush should leap to the front of the parade. Sometimes, ideas that appear sensible really are.

Cities From Cambridge
To Berkeley Reject
Anti-Terror Measure
By Dean Schabner
July 1, 2002

Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.

Over the last three months, the Massachusetts cities of Cambridge, Northampton and Amherst and the township of Leverett, as well as the town of Carrboro, N.C., all passed resolutions that call the USA Patriot Act a threat to the civil rights of the residents of their communities. Congress passed the act in October to give federal investigators sweeping new powers to probe terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and soon came under criticism from civil libertarians. The public has been supportive of the measure.

The five municipalities join Berkeley, Calif., and Ann Arbor, Mich., in taking a strong stance challenging the way the Bush administration wants to pursue its war on terror within the borders of the United States.

In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act."

"For me, it was that historically there have been attacks on civil liberties in times of war," Councilman Brian Murphy said when asked why he co-authored the resolution. "I think if you look at USA Patriot, this is another example of that."

The resolutions are largely symbolic, because the local governments have no authority to compel federal law enforcement to comply.

"One of the recognitions is that there is a supremacy act and that there are limits to what a city can do," Murphy said. "If the FBI chooses to take actions in Cambridge, they're able to do that under the law as it is constituted.

"We feel it is important that communities send a message that there is opposition to this act," he added.

House Committee Has Questions

Even before USA Patriot was passed, the police in Portland, Ore., broke ranks with the Justice Department's war on terror, saying that it would not cooperate with the FBI on investigations of Middle Eastern students in the city, because state law barred police from questioning immigrants who are not suspected of a crime.

The city council of Boulder, Colo., is considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in the seven other cities, and Denver has also passed a resolution that, while not going as far as the others, still expresses concerns about whether USA Patriot might be implemented in such a way that it could threaten civil liberties.

At the same time, the House Judicial Committee has sent a request to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him and FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond to 12 pages of questions — 50 in all — about how the act is being implemented and how effective it has been.

"We plan to schedule a public hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice's activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks," the letter said.

The letter requested a response no later than July 9.

Threat or Protection?

Though the USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate — 98-1 — and the House of Representatives — 356-66 — the 342-page law has been criticized by civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups as overstepping the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure.

"This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties," Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office, said in that group's analysis of the law. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review."

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that he was unaware of the resolutions being passed by cities around the country, but he said their concerns and criticisms of the law were unfounded.

"USA Patriot was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate," Corallo said. "The Patriot Act protects civil liberties and is fully within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution."

The U.S. attorney's office in Boston was also unaware that four cities in the state had approved measures that sought information from federal law enforcement about anti-terror actions being taken in their communities and directed local police not to cooperate with federal agencies if they were asked to do things that violated someone's civil rights.

After reviewing the Cambridge resolution, Jerry Leone, the assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the anti-terrorism coordinator in the state, said the city leaders do not understand the Patriot Act.

"I think some people have formed misconceptions of what the intentions of USA Patriot are," Leone said. "If one is a civil libertarian, I think the first reaction is, 'Hey, that's one more tool for the government to infringe on our rights,' but if you look at the implementation of the law, that's not the case."

Making Muslims Feel Safe

In Ann Arbor, though, City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell said that there have been problems with the way the law has been implemented, and that was why the city felt compelled to act.

"We're very concerned about civil rights and about potential discrimination against members of our community," she said. "We spent a lot of time since Sept. 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."

She pointed to the ruling by a federal judge in Detroit in April that it was unconstitutional for the Justice Department to require immigration court judges to bar the public and the media from hearings for detainees who have been determined to be of special interest to federal authorities.

The Detroit ruling came in response to three separate lawsuits asking that hearings for Rabih Haddad, who was arrested in Ann Arbor in December on charges that he had overstayed his tourist visa, be opened.

"The judge ruled that the hearings had to be open, so it seems like the court agreed with us in that case," she said. "We're not saying that people shouldn't be questioned. We're just concerned about civil rights."

The Justice Department is appealing the decision, and the Supreme Court has stayed a similar ruling in a New Jersey case to decide the issue.

The Constitution Is ‘Not a Suicide Pact’

The council in Denver, the largest of the seven cities, adopted the least-strongly worded resolution, and language about not cooperating with federal authorities was removed before it was finally passed, 7-4.

The resolution says that it "reaffirms Denver's commitment to unbiased policing," and states that the police should continue to adhere to their policy that "no information about political, religious or social views, associations or activities should be collected unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity."

City government officials described it as an affirmation of Denver's commitment to civil rights.

"We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie said. "It seemed to us that it was more unpopular than ever to criticize the government or protest for peace, and that was really scary. As awful as we feel about Sept. 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay.

"It resonated to us of the McCarthy era and other times," she added, referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1950s.

For some, though, even the milder version of the resolution went too far. Councilman Ed Thomas said that by approving it, the council was saying that "Denver would be a haven for terrorists."

"My opinion was that we have lost our collective minds if we are going to come up with these kinds of motions," he said. "The last time I checked, I believe we are at war."

He said there were reasons why stricter law enforcement measures have traditionally been taken in times of national emergency or war.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact," he said. "I think history will prove this to be folly. I felt that at that time [when the resolution was passed] and I still feel that way. We've lost our collective minds if we're doing this kind of thing."

In Ann Arbor, Herrell said the mistake would be to respond to terror by compromising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things — the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. … I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."


By Jeff Johnson
Congressional Bureau Chief
December 09, 2002

Capitol Hill
Second Amendment supporters said Monday that so-called "violence prevention" groups have exposed their true agenda in response to a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Court ruled late last week that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not, in fact, mean what it says. The Amendment states: "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."

A three-judge panel of the Court said that language does not prohibit the State of California from prohibiting the ownership and possession of certain military-looking semi-automatic rifles, and other firearms with particular cosmetic or functional features. California was the first state to implement such a misnamed "assault weapons" ban in 1989. True assault weapons are fully-automatic or "machine guns."

"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

"The Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia," continued Reinhardt, "and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."

Questionable Research Clouds Decision

But Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), raised questions about the "research" used to reach that conclusion.

"This ruling even relies on material from Michael Bellesiles, the anti-gun historian whose research has been so discredited that he was forced to resign from Emory University," Waldron noted.

The first footnote in the opinion references Bellesiles' book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," which argued that Americans possessed few firearms prior to the Civil War, and those that existed were under strict government control. An independent panel of academic investigators found contained "prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct." Bellesiles resigned his position at the university, allegedly to avoid being fired.

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) founder Alan Gottlieb called the ruling "a typically preposterous opinion" from the Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for containing the phrase "under God."

"Not only does the ruling run counter to extensive research supporting the...individual right to keep and bear arms, it defies logic and a mountain of historic scholarship," Gottlieb argued. "Clearly, the Second Amendment protects an individual right."

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, noted that the Ninth Circuit ignored U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, which found in 1991 that the phrase "the people" is "consistently used in the Bill of Rights to refer to individuals."

"Thus, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' refers to an individual right," Pratt argued. "In the 36 times the Supreme Court has discussed the Second Amendment it is almost always treated it as an individual right."

Pratt also disputed the Court's claim that the "individual rights" position "had never been adopted by any court," until recent times.

"The Dred Scott decision before the Civil War did just that," Pratt explained, noting that one member of the court, Justice Roger Brooke Taney, wrote that if blacks were permitted to become citizens, "that would mean they could keep and bear arms."

Waldron said the Ninth Circuit's lack of respect for the plain meaning of the Amendment and the precedents set by the Supreme Court is astounding.

"No wonder they rejected the Pledge of Allegiance," Waldron said. "They have no allegiance, to the rule of law, the English language, or for that matter, common sense."
Supreme Court Could Decide the Issue
"The overwhelming majority of American citizens believe that interpretation," Gottlieb said of the "individual rights" view. "Perhaps the time has come for the Supreme Court to finally take up this issue."

Solicitor General Ted Olson, who represents the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, is only one of the federal executive branch officials who has affirmed the "individual rights" interpretation.

In appellate court filings in two separate cases, Olsen wrote that the "position of the United that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engage in active military service or training, to possess their own firearms."
Attorney General John Ashcroft has articulated the same position.
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right of the states to maintain militias," Ashcroft wrote in a letter to the National Rifle Association, "I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."

But organizations that proclaim their mission as some variation of "preventing violence committed using guns" were quick to praise the ruling and state their agreement with the Court's "collective rights" interpretation.

"The Amendment guarantees the right to be armed only in service to a state-organized militia," said Dennis Henigan, with the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Matt Nosanchuk, of the Violence Policy Center, was more direct.

"The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms," he said. "It's not a constitutional right."

Goal Not 'Violence Prevention' but Disarmament

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Monday that those and other comments expose the true agenda of the so-called "violence prevention" groups. He recalled a recent televised debate with Michael Barnes of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"You guys opposed the repeal of the D.C. gun ban, both in court and in Congress," Pratt told Barnes.

"Well, that's because we support local control," Barnes replied.

"Then you turn around and pass the Brady Law on the whole country," Pratt reminded Barnes. "Obviously we can't believe you. You want to ban all the guns."

Barnes did not respond. Pratt said Barnes "looked like a deer in the headlights."

"They do support the Brady Law, we know that. And they do support local control, for D.C., we know that" Pratt told, noting that the nation's capital has, for all practical purposes, a total ban on civilian firearms ownership. "He can't deny everything."

And Service Act of 2001

(Introduced in the House, 12/20/01)
HR 3598 IH

107th CONGRESS, 1st Session H. R. 3598

To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.

To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


- This Act may be cited as the `Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS - The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Basic military training and education.
Sec. 4. Period of basic military training and education.
Sec. 5. Educational services and prorated Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
Sec. 6. Role of Selective Service System.
Sec. 7. Induction of conscripts and acceptance of volunteers.
Sec. 8. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 9. Exemptions.
Sec. 10. Military training in branch of member's choice; conscientious objection.
Sec. 11. Pay and allowances.
Sec. 12. Discharge following training.
Sec. 13. Relation to authorized end strengths for active forces.
Sec. 14. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 15. Transitional provision.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act:

(1) The term `armed forces' means the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
(2) The term `basic military training and education' means a program consisting of--
(A) basic training established by the Secretary concerned for members of the armed forces inducted as conscripts or accepted as volunteers pursuant this Act;
(B) educational services described in section 4; and
(C) such specialty training as the Secretary concerned considers appropriate. (3) The term `between the ages of 18 and 22' refers to men who have attained the 18th anniversary of the day of their birth and who have not attained the 22d anniversary of the day of their birth.
(4) The term `Director' means the Director of the Selective Service System.
(5) The term `local board' means a county local board or intercounty local board established by the President under section 10(b) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 460(b)).
(6) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense, with respect to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the Coast Guard.
(7) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.


- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act.

Female citizens of the United States, and other female persons residing in the United States, who are between the ages of 18 and 22 may volunteer for enlistment in the armed forces to receive basic military training and education under this Act. At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary concerned may accept such volunteers to receive such training and education.


Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person inducted as a conscript or accepted as a volunteer pursuant to this Act shall receive basic military training and education as a member of one of the armed forces for a period of not less than six months, but not more than one year, as established by the Secretary concerned.

A person inducted as a conscript or accepted as a volunteer pursuant to this Act who has not obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent, shall receive basic military training and education as a member of one of the armed forces for an additional period of up to six months after the completion of the period established for members of that armed force under subsection (a). The Secretary concerned shall assist such members in earning the equivalent of a high school diploma while receiving their basic military training and education.

At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, the period of basic military training and education for a member of the armed forces under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

The Secretary concerned may enter into a cooperative agreement with another Federal agency, a State or political subdivision of a State (including a State Commission on National and Community Service maintained by a State pursuant to section 178 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12638)), and other entities carrying out a national service program described in section 122 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12572) to provide for a transfer of a person receiving basic military training and education, upon completion of the initial military training component of the training, to complete the remainder of the person's required service in a national service program.

The period of basic military training and education for a person shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and service of the person in any of the regular components of the armed forces for a period of at least two years. The period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the Secretary concerned may establish.

For purposes of computing the years of service of a member of the armed forces, any period during which the member received basic military training and education shall be counted.


As part of the basic military training and education provided under this Act, the Secretary concerned shall include instruction in physical fitness, international relations, military tactics, homeland security, United States and world history, vocational training, and such other topics as the Secretary considers appropriate.
Upon the successful completion by a person of basic military training and education as a member of one of the armed forces, the person shall be entitled to the program of educational assistance provided under chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, on a prorated basis corresponding to the period of basic military training and education completed by the person.


The Selective Service System shall administer all matters in connection with the induction of persons subject to the obligation to receive basic military training and education under section 3(a) and the registration, examination, classification, allocation, delivery, and maintenance of records, of such persons.
Under rules and regulations promulgated by the Director, the local boards shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions to hear and determine, subject to the right of appeal to appeal boards authorized by the Military Selective Service Act, all questions or claims with respect to determinations of dependency, inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction or allocation for basic military training and education under this Act.


Every person subject to induction for basic military training and education under section 3(a), except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called, inducted, and delivered by his local board to the armed forces for such training at the time and place specified by the Director.
No person may be inducted for basic military training and education under section 3(a), or accepted as a volunteer under section 3(b), who is not between the ages of 18 and 22.
Each Secretary concerned, in consultation with the Director, shall determine schedules to be used for the induction of persons and the acceptance of volunteers under this Act and the number of persons to be inducted or accepted pursuant to such schedules. The Secretary concerned may phase in, over not longer than a 10-year period, the induction of persons subject to the obligation to receive basic military training and education.
A person subject to basic military training and education under section 3(a) may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
Every person subject to basic military training and education under section 3(a) and every person volunteering for basic military training and education under section 3(b) shall, before induction or acceptance, be physically and mentally examined, and the appropriate local board shall classify the person.


A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis in a high school or a similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have his induction under section 3(a) postponed until he obtains a high school diploma, ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study, or attains the age of 20, whichever occurs first.
Deferments from basic military training and education may be made for extreme hardship or physical or mental disability.
The Secretary concerned may postpone or suspend the induction of persons or the acceptance of volunteers under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
No deferment or postponement of induction for basic military training and education under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases to exist.


No person may be inducted or accepted as a volunteer for basic military training and education unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training. The same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the armed forces shall apply to persons to be inducted or accepted under this Act.
No person shall be liable for induction under section 3(a) who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any of the armed forces on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as he satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


Subject to such limitations and standards of qualification and selection as may be established by the Secretary concerned to ensure a proper balance of trained manpower between the ground, air, and naval arms, each person inducted or accepted as a volunteer under this Act shall be entitled to request and receive training in the service of the person's choice.
(1) Any person who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of the program of basic military training and education and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, when inducted, participate in basic military training and education that does not include any combatant training component. The person may be transferred to a national service program, as provided in section 4(d).

(2) A person claiming exemption from combatant training under this subsection shall, if such claim is not sustained by the local board, be entitled to an appeal to the appropriate appeal board established under the Military Selective Service Act. Each person whose claim for exemption from combatant training because of religious training and belief is sustained shall be listed by the local board on a register of conscientious objectors.


A person inducted or accepted as a volunteer under this Act and receiving basic military training and education shall be considered to be on active duty for purposes of pay and allowances under title 37, United States Code, except that the monthly basic pay of the person may not exceed 35 percent of the basic pay of an enlisted member in a regular component in the pay grade E-1 with less than four months of service.


Upon completion or termination of the obligation to receive basic military training and education, a person shall be discharged from the armed forces and shall not be subject to any further training or service under this Act. Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the armed forces of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the armed forces.


The authorized end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces do not include persons inducted or accepted into the armed forces to receive basic military training and education.


(a) TITLE 10
- (1) Section 505(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (A) by inserting `(1)' after `(c)'; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a person inducted or accepted into the armed forces to receive basic military training and education pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001.'.
(2) Section 691 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(g) The numbers specified in subsection (b) do not include persons inducted or accepted into the armed forces to receive basic military training and education pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001.'.

(1) Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces to receive basic military training and education pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001.'.

(2) Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001.'.


A person who has obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent before January 1, 2003, shall not be subject to the obligation under section 3(a) to receive basic military training and education under this Act.

Bill would Broaden Powers
Of Police to Fight Terrorism

by James C. McKinley Jr.
New York Times

ALBANY - Gov. George E. Pataki and his Republican colleagues in the State Senate today unveiled a bill that is meant to give state and local police some of the same powers in fighting terrorists that federal authorities have.

The governor said the Republican-led Senate had agreed to pass the 37-page bill on Monday and urged the Democratic majority in the Assembly to approve it as well. "We are a target," Mr. Pataki said. "America and New York are both targets, and we have to give law enforcement every tool we can, consistent with our freedoms."

The bill immediately raised concerns from some liberal Democrats in the Assembly, as well as the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The legislation would make possessing or using chemical or biological weapons an offense punishable by life in prison. It would also establish new felony charges for laundering money for a terrorist organization, conspiring to commit an act of terrorism or aiding terrorists.

The bill would permit, in terrorism investigations, roving wiretaps, which let the police listen in on any phone line a person uses, and would no longer require that the authorities corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. It would also allow prosecutors to use evidence obtained through an illegal search if the police officer "acted in good faith."

In addition, the bill would let state prosecutors charge terrorism suspects even if they faced federal charges and would remove the statute of limitations on terrorist acts. The authorities would also be able to look at tax returns in terrorism investigations. Finally, the state could seize a convicted terrorist's property outside the state.

Dan Weiler, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, said that the Democrats were also interested in protecting residents and would carefully consider the bill.

Some liberal Democrats, however, said that the parts of the bill dealing with the rights of defendants might face tough going in the Assembly. "There are some things in the bill we should probably do and some things we probably shouldn't," said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat.

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said several of the governor's proposals were deeply troubling. Allowing state prosecutions of people charged in federal court, she said, would probably run afoul of the prohibition against double jeopardy in the United States Constitution. Allowing evidence obtained illegally but in "good faith" by a police officer erodes the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, she said.

Mr. Pataki, however, said the bill did not erode civil liberties but gave local police the tools that federal agents have. He said the state and local police could not afford to leave the business of tracking down terrorists to federal agencies.


Email The People's Voice
© 2002 The People's Voice