About the Films

Core of Corruption is a documentary film series which details a comprehensive investigation into clandestine intelligence operations and conspiracies. The project is surfacing exclusive whistle blowers, insiders and critical evidence for the very first time. Over 2,000 hours of credible network news clips have been surfaced for this ground breaking event, most of which have never been seen since they aired and have never been available on the internet. Some of the video news segments for this project, when requested from the networks, were denied access to and corporate representatives would say that the information sought does not exist or has been misplaced. Someone doesn’t want the public to see these stories, that when put together, establish a conspiracy of the magnitude that could change the way one views the world. Countless millions of people are being manipulated and lied to by a network of individuals within government that work on behalf of private interests. The individuals were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Many of those same figures are are connected to historical events that have shaped our understanding of government crime. For instance, the Iran Contra affair involved many figures that showed up in the 9/11 attacks.

Some clips in the above trailer, and in the above trailer only, are from “Everyone’s Gotta Learn Sometime.” I did not use these in my film, but asked and received permission to use them. Please go and support John Albanese and his film.

Drug running, terrorism, money laundering and arms trading are carried out in concert with this network. They manipulate the world’s response to these issues on behalf of very high profile figures in some of the most influential think tanks and political interest groups. Figures include well known politicians as well as established businesses on Wall Street. This project, started more than five years ago, is going to break ground in mapping and identifying the most important and credible evidence as well as establish why these networks operate with impunity.

DVD’s will ship on the release date: March 27, 2009

I will add info on the films over time. Some of you might know me from being a founding member of We Are Change Colorado. Some of you might of heard me on the Alex Jones Show. Some of you might know me from my articles at Truth Alliance. Some of you might know me from Loose Change, where I blog with the producers and director.

I was recently contacted about the film, as I have been by many people now who have heard about this film series, and told that my information is very solid and that my speech articulation, debate skills and information sourcing is very powerful when talking about 9/11, the drug war, Kennedy assassination, Federal Reserve, and many other issues. I am actually getting better at it all the time. I wish the movement would invite me to more debates or allow me to present at some conferences. I have presentations that I am preparing for conferences and lectures, if anyone is interested in inviting me to speak.

I have been told that I am a “walking encyclopedia”. I spent years researching the cold war, books by ex-CIA agents and directors, the Kennedy Assassination, recent history, secret societies and private think tanks and I have read publications of many political interest groups. There are people who are given the spotlight many times that are not well researched on issues and I know of countless examples where I know more than the ones being presented as “representatives” of alternative accounts of history, “hidden history” and even just official history. Something that many “debunkers” and “skeptics” I have noticed seem to not recognize is that there exist publicly acknowledged and documented chasms between congressional record, legal history, “classified and declassified” history, disinformation, misinformation, “official” history or record (that which we print in history books), alternative history (that which is taught in other countries or publications), biographies of historians admitting deceptions and distortions in our history and of course the countless news reports (investigative, video or written) which when placed together clearly show that one can easily argue that “what we know” might not always be what is true or that there is some consensus of agreement of events.

Many “debunkers” love to attack individuals making claims or focus on highly speculative, fringe issues that are not populated or supported by large portions of the so called “truth movement.” This willful misrepresentation of the progress which has been made in the 9/11 investigations by researchers brings serious questions to sincerity or integrity of skepticism. Credible and reputable sources are serious matters that so called “debunkers” and “skeptics” do not always factor in very simple variables everyone can agree on are required if we are to have an ingenuous debate. Just because information may not come from a source that is well financed, circulated or established does not mean that it is not true. What it does means that, like those which happen to come from the establishment press, information must be investigated independently and verified once it is disseminated. In fact, it was one of the founding principles in the United States doctrine of free press that unpopular speech, such as dissent, is to be protected and guaranteed in its immunity from censorship. In fact, disagreeing with your government is the most patriotic demonstration of a truly free society, a person’s right to disagree. This also means that unpopular speech, such as conspiracy theory, is today associated with “non establishment or non reputable” (credible) sources. Popular speech is not in dire need for immediate protection, otherwise it wouldn’t be popular. This is the display of a truly free press or that of a truly civil and responsible “democracy.”

My film will be breaking all new info for the movement that completely blows debunking out of the water. My film will put us over the edge into the light of credibility beyond any shadow of a doubt on many issues.

I was into this kind of stuff long before 9/11. I was a Kennedy Assassination researcher for years before getting into 9.11. This 5 part film series is my life’s work. The movement has been treated with too much harassment and abuse.

I spent thousands of hours and dollars researching archives and searching for footage to gain reputable and credible sources on everything the movement has ever said. I was inspired by Paul Thompson’s The Terror Timeline, and so this is basically a video version of history commons.

Paul Thompson’s The Terror Timeline offers a complete and thorough history of the many roads that converged on 9/11, including the development of Islamic fundamentalism, the activities of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and the failures of U.S. investigations and counterterrorism efforts. It traces the actions (and inaction) of every important figure in the war on terror, both before and after 9/11, bringing them together in a volume that offers a comprehensive and provocative look at this complex subject. Packed with little-known facts and disturbing questions, The Terror Timeline is the first complete reference guide to the events of 9/11 and the war on terror — the definitive primer on the most momentous issue of our times.

Anyone who thinks that the movement has only the “controlled demolitions” argument is about to be blown away. I am not going to get into further detail in this breakdown; you are just going to have to watch the movies. I have one an investigation to present that goes way beyond 9/11 in the series, Core of Corruption.

Please help me promote. I need to get orders of Core of Corruption DVDs and that money is the only thing that is allowing me to be able to dedicate time to the cause, otherwise, like everyone else, I am stuck in the system working 24/7 on other priorities. The sales of the DVDs help me to advertise and expand my career in film making.

Right now my focus is to try and find a publisher for the book I wrote for this movie. Core of Corruption originally was a book, 350 pages or so in length, already written that I spent years working on, but I can’t find a publisher. I can’t afford the self-publishing and editing yet, but if I go that route, I hope the movement gives me its support. If you can help with publishing my book or distributing my DVD, please contact me at CoreOfCorruption@gmail.com

Tell people about my project, comment on websites or debates about my film with links, embed the trailers everywhere, anything helps. I need exposure, that’s the only thing I can hope for right now because my film series is SOLID and something I think the movement has been waiting for a very long time.

Be sure to order yourself a copy of the DVD at the shopping cart or get multiple DVDs for a discount.

Click here to proceed to the cart.

What to Expect?

Being objective is a straightforward concept and does not include attacking the so called “truth movement” with name calling or insulting them or grouping them with other conspiracy theorists like people who believe there was no moon landing, r “tin foil hat wearers” or the such. None of this addressed or disproved the information but rather distracts the attention of those who take this serious and squanders critical and fundamental points made that need addressing.

Noam Chomsky

I for one was surprised to see that Noam Chomsky, a political activist and influential leader in American politics but who holds no credential holding him in a position to discredit any of the claims made by the movement, responded to a question raised by a 9/11 researcher about the claims that bombs may have been used on 9/11 and that Chomsky’s response was that the movement has no credentialed experts to back up the claim. I was shocked. An entire truth group filled with credentialed experts, government contractors, architects, engineers, physicists, professors, and even more qualified individuals was founded and has investigated this aspect of the attacks. His response was so ridiculous for he was willfully misrepresenting the group, Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth, by lying saying that anyone can get a degree in structural engineering online and so their opinion can immediately be thrown out of the window. If you see my film, I have a chapter that establishes without ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that devices were found on 9/11, bombs were discovered, secondary explosions were established and that many of these were confirmed pre-placed explosives in the basements. Now I am not here to suggest who placed these or how they got there, and I do not see any evidence to suggest that this was the US Government; again, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not putting fourth any conspiracy theory, but presenting to you facts to be observed and for you to digest them on your own and decide for yourself.

But as for Chomsky’s completely ludicrous claim, here are three quick examples of “credentialed experts” that present the case for devices in the building on 9/11 I picked from the site, Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth, which has hundreds more that Chomsky clearly demonstrated his ignorance over. You can not get an “online degree” in engineering, first of all, but most of the members of the group are veteran experts.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA – Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP).

Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.

There are thousands more.

Dispelling the Disinformation about the “Truth Movement”

Let me start off by saying that NO ONE PERSON HAS debunked or refuted my film series, Core of Corruption, or at least has not attempted such a feat yet. Why? Perhaps this is because you should see it for yourself. Order yourself a copy and I encourage you to engage me on my investigation and discuss the findings I present. Click here to order yourself a copy of the DVD. I am one who does not put fourth a conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11. I don’t not know who was behind it and I DO NOT at any point suggest in my film series that the US Government was behind it. In fact, I encourage you to watch my film series because I establish that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some other foreign governments had involvement in the attacks and their involvement was thoroughly covered up, as well as direct insider testimony, credible evidence and documented facts that there was US private sector and government prior knowledge of the attacks, potential complicity and at the very least a cover up of the biggest attack against our fellow American citizens.

I highly recommend reading Dr. David Ray Griffen’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, of the many 9/11 books he has produced. In this book he very truthfully and explicitly points out misrepresentations, lies, distortions, omissions, conflicts of interests and complete disregard for the truth by the so called “debunking” attempts that have been made, of the very few that exist.

One very famous “denuking” pulled out by “debunkers” is the Popular Mechanics article which claims to have debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Again, if anyone reads it you fail to find any one debunking claim but rather paragraph after paragraph of name calling and stereotyping of “conspiracy theorists” and their silly ideas followed by misrepresentations, exaggerations, and claims that the Popular Mechanics article says the “truth movement” makes that, again, when you go to “truther sites” they clearly do not make many of these claims.. The senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled “Debunking 9/11 Lies” which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

The Chertoff article goes on to confront the “poisonous claims” of 16 “myths” spun by “extremist” 9/11 researchers like myself with “irrefutable facts,” mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the “senior researcher” at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his “cousin” now heads. This is exactly the kind of “journalism” one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn’t respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, 9/11 researchers documented their calls to Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine’s “senior researcher,” directly, and were ignored.

“Conspiracy theories can’t stand up to the hard facts,” the cover reads. “After an in-depth investigation, Popular Mechanics answers with the truth,” it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn’t answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7? It also ignores and completely fails to write a single paragraph addressing any one of the over 50 questions written and specifically raised by the 9/11 truth movement, which you can read here. Click on this link to read just some of the facts compiled by Jon Gold, fellow 9/11 researcher.

James Meigs

The lead editorial by James Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, carries the title “The Lies Are Out There.” Meigs is not a scientist, he is not a structural engineer, he is not an investigator, he never once spoke with or once called any one person in the 9/11 truth movement, he never mentions or addresses any easily accessible subject matter raised by any one of the thousands of “truther” sites and seeing as how he is to represent Popular Mechanics in this article, a magazine whose reputation is to reflect engineering and those in the field, why does it fail to mention the group “Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth;” Where at that website, Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth, is provided over 3,400 different credentialed experts ranging from physics, to engineering, to fire safety professionals, to architects, etc, etc, etc addressing varies oddities, all related to structural engineering questions raised by the movement. Again, Meigs, does not address these people or their questions, but willfully misrepresents them saying that they are presenting a conspiracy theory, when, if you just go to any one of their sites and read what they write, or just watch any of their readily available DVDs, which they are very open to share with everyone, they put fourth questions, no theories. Does this really take a rocket scientist to figure out what Meigs is doing here? Interesting that Meigs is impossible to get a hold of and has failed to respond to the numerous letters, complaints, boycotts and calls made by the truth movement and when one addresses Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth, their founder and primary representative, Richard Gage is quite open and easily accessible for interviews, as well as offering his DVD for free, where he believes in this so much that he insists all se it, for its critical implications and importance to Americans.

What Meigs fails to acknowledge is that while the fact that a conspiracy is behind the 9/11 attacks is obvious, the question being raised by independent researchers is: Who was involved in this conspiracy?

The Meigs’ editorial concludes, “But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth “and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died on that day.” Is he speaking to the hundreds of families that started the 9/11 Victims truth groups? If so, why would he so willfully misrepresent the facts, seeing as he is someone who is obsessed with pointing facts out?

Nobody says that the United States of America did anything on 9/11, Mr. Meigs. “This country,” the USA doesn’t do anything, Mr. Meigs, people do. In the case of 9/11 we are dealing with a very small group of people, perhaps no more than a dozen or so at the highest “architectural” level, and there is no guarantee that they are from any one country most likely they are not. In my film series, Core of Corruption, I well establish that foreigners were behind 9/11. I also establish that there were mid to high level operatives involved in the attacks, as confirmed by credible sources, within the United States pulic, private and political sectors. On who’s behalf they were working for is NOT something I attempt to answer or speculate and don’t you DARE suggest that I put fourth the answers to that question. Any person involved in this crime, whether they are American, Saudi Pakistani, whatever, is to be prosecuted. To suggest in your article that we are to ignore American involvement, is not just disgusting, but something of an intimidating manner, the likes of which were seen in Germany by the Nazi’s and their loyalists. Now if you are ready to address my information and “debunk” it, without resorting to these blanketed, baseless paragraphs about “conspiracy theorists” and address my evidence, then bring it on. Let us debate like intellectuals; enough of the games, Meigs. Quit distracting people with sideshow articles about “conspiracy theorists” and their nonsense. We convict people of conspiracy everyday in this country. It’s human nature to conspire over jealousy, rage, envy, power, land, money, etc. Official history is saturated with conspiracies. What do you think organized crime is? Politicians do it all the time, heck, how many times have we caught them conspiring against the people, at the cost of American lives. You, James Meigs, act as though conspiracies are silly, when yet our justice system is filled with convictions. Don’t insult the intelligence of the people. Give us more credit then that, and please, Meigs, give the reders of Popular Mechanics a little more credit then this. You didn’t even try. This was pathetic.

The other “debunking” of 9/11, yet another failure

Skeptic Magazine, for example, has been a “reputable source that many look up to for their truthful and honest skepticism.

Well, as John Doraemi wrote at Visibility911.com:

They cite Popular Mechanics’ theories about the attacks, and not much else in their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

Someone should have told them that Professor David Ray Griffin has demolished the Popular Mechanics diatribe in his Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Let’s forego all of that — pretend it never happened — and get to the accusations of the article.

To continue reading this excellent rebuttal to Skeptic Magazine’s failure to debunk 9/11 truth, click here or go to the following link:

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=40#more-40

Who is the 9/11 Truth Movement?

One myth out there that is regurgitated by the establishment press is that the 9/11 truther movement is made up of “Crackpots” and “nut jobs.”

Those who are not familiar with the movement are rarely aware that it is made up of Family members of victims of September 11. One group in particular is called the “September 11th Advocates“, also known as the Jersey Girls or the 9/11 Press for Truth group. I highly recommend going and purchasing yourself a copy of the film, “9/11: Press For Truth” from this group or “In Their Own Words”, both of which are available at this link.

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

In Their Own Words

http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/In-Their-Own-Words-p-10.html

Pilots for 9/11 truth is a group that has examined the aviation related information of the official story and found startling contradictions and errors. For instance, the fact that the NTSB, which is required by law to investigate all airplane crashes, never investigated any of the 4 plane crashes on 9/11. They also found that even though reports hit the mainstream media of the black boxes being found at the crash sites, the official story claims to have only retrieved 1. Flight paths, crash site evidence and radar information for the flights is under scrutiny for a number of reasons, as well as official response times such as why a hijacked plane was able to fly towards Washington D.C. for over an hour, “undetected” while 2 other planes had hit the World Trade Centers. Many investigated this security lapse and found that is was much more than something as simple as negligence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is a group with about 900 professionals and credentialed experts that question the collapses of the towers. The group gets additions to its list of professionals every year and is growing so fast it won’t be long until they reach a couple thousand at their currant rate. Mike Berger’s “Improbable Collapse” and the AE 9/11 Truth Group’s documentary, “Blueprint for Truth” DVDs are available online and are excellent investigations into the towers collapses, to which many of the individuals in the truth movement believe are objective examinations.

I highly recommend Mike Berger’s Improbable Collapse, or the DVD offered from AE911truth.org.

You can get Mike Berger’s film at the following link:

http://www.improbablecollapse.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 truth and Justice is made up of professors and academic intellectuals who have examined many aspects of the attacks and concluded that the official stories are not just in contradiction to each other, but fail to reflect even official mainstream and credible media reporting that proves elements of the official version are incorrect. An excellent website that catalogued the articles that show the full extent of lies and distortions the public seems to have been mislead to believe is http://www.historycommons.org/

Even testimonies from members of the government at the 9/11 commission hearings were omitted or not applied to the final reports, as well as documents and archived evidence.

We Are Change is an international activist group started by Luke Rudkowski which encourages confronting figures in the establishment that are related to the 9/11 incident and discussing these issues, and also covers many other pressing issues.

http://wearechange.org/

Radio talk show host Alex Jones of http://www.infowars.com/ and http://www.prisonplanet.com/ produced a movie titled, 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising, which cover’s Luke Rudkowski’s story and the movement. I also recommend watching other Jones films like Endgame, Police State and listening to his show. Alex has made many other excellent films including documentaries that I would recommend as some of the MOST IMPORTANT MOVIES IN YOUR LIFETIME on 9/11 such as Terrorstorm, 9/11: Road to Tyranny and many others all of which can be purchased at this following link: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/index.html

There are countless 9/11 truth groups in almost every major city. 911Truth.org was the earliest and founding group which was and remains a key player in the movement’s organization.

http://www.911truth.org/

Recently, Firefighters for 9/11 truth was founded.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth is out there

http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth is also popular

http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth was launched in 2009

http://pl911truth.com/

Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth is now established

http://rl911truth.org/

But if you are looking for more CREDIBILITY, then check out Patriots Question 9/11

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Why I Do this?

Mainly, this is about the witnessing of an assassination before my very own eyes of my country’s republic and the mass deception of the people to follow false truths

Constitutional Changes

Click on the Acts below to see the issues with constitutional changes

USA Patriot Act

Specific problems with the USA PATRIOT Act

Military Commissions Act

Habeas corpus isn’t a fancy legal term. It’s the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process.

We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable.

What’s wrong with the Military Commissions Act:

UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE RULE OF LAW
MAKES THE PRESIDENT BOTH JUDGE AND JURY
REJECTS CORE AMERICAN VALUES

What you can do:

GET THE FACTS ON HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT
LEARN HOW CONGRESS CAN FIX THE MCA
HELP FIND HABEAS

The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.

It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

Two bills have been introduced in Congress that would restore habeas corpus rights to detainees and reaffirm that no president can make up his or her own rules regarding torture and abuse: The Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.

Our Constitution is what distinguishes America from other countries. It’s what makes us Americans. To do away with its protections makes us more like those we are fighting against.

Congress made a mistake when they supported the MCA in 2006. But the ultimate responsibility lies with us, the people. We know what America stands for, at home and abroad. We have the power and the obligation to call on Congress to correct its mistake and restore habeas corpus and all the constitutional and due process rights they took away.

In Star Wars, Episode 3, in response to the Senate’s grant of sweeping powers to Chancellor Palpatine, Padme declares, “So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause.”

The same may be said about the Military Commissions Act (MCA) that was recently enacted by Congress — that this is how freedom ends, with or without the applause.

Despite the fact that the MCA has received just a modicum of publicity from the mainstream press, it is undoubtedly the most ominous and dangerous piece of legislation in our lifetime. By suspending habeas corpus for foreigners, by adopting the executive branch’s “enemy combatant” designation for both Americans and foreigners, and by establishing military tribunals for foreigners, the law not only entails a fundamental reordering of our criminal justice system but also effectively places the U.S. military in control of the American people.

Habeas corpus

Of all the rights and freedoms mentioned and enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus is arguably the most important safeguard of individual freedom. Without the “Great Writ,” none of the other rights and liberties has much value.

To illustrate why this is so, let us assume that we live in a society in which everyone has the right of freedom of speech, including the right to criticize government programs. One day, someone criticizes some government policy. That day, a federal SWAT team conducts a no-knock raid and arrests the critic. The next day, several people protest the arrest, arguing that the prisoner has the right to criticize the government under principles of free speech. That afternoon, federal agents arrest and incarcerate some of the critics.

What could be done to get the prisoners released from incarceration? The answer is: Nothing, unless the society recognizes the writ of habeas corpus.

With habeas corpus, the prisoner files a petition with the judicial branch of government, asking a judge to order his custodian to appear before the judge to justify his incarceration of the prisoner. If the custodian refuses to comply, the judge issues an arrest warrant for him, which is enforced at the federal level by deputy marshals. Or let’s assume that the custodian shows up and says, “Your honor, the reason we’re holding him in custody is that he criticized the government.” In that case, the judge can order his immediate release, holding that criticizing the government is not a crime. Or if the judge incorrectly upholds the detention, the prisoner can file an immediate appeal to the appelate courts, which ordinarily give priority to habeas corpus proceedings.

Without habeas corpus, there is no way for a person who is being wrongfully detained to challenge his detention, even if the detention has gone on for years. In the absence of habeas corpus, he must continue to languish in prison until the authorities, out of the kindness of their hearts, decide to release him. That’s in fact the way things work in communist China and communist Cuba, where everyone is guaranteed freedom of speech but has no way to secure his release from prison after exercising it.

Habeas corpus, a judicial remedy that stretches back centuries into English jurisprudence, is the linchpin of a free society. Emphasizing its importance, the Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang put it like this: “Personally, I think that one writ of habeas corpus is worth more than all the Confucian philosophy ever written.” That’s why the Framers expressly included the protection of habeas corpus in the Constitution.

The Military Commissions Act cancels habeas corpus for foreigners accused of terrorism. In one fell swoop, the Congress, at the behest of President Bush, nullified centuries of habeas corpus protection.

It might be tempting for some Americans to say, “No big deal, because foreigners don’t count.” But that is a grave error because history has shown that when citizens permit their government to deprive one class of people of critically important rights, it’s only a matter of time before the government will do the same to other groups.

Ever since the inception of our nation, Americans have been able justly to take pride in the fact that their rules of criminal justice applied to everyone equally, across the board. Rich or poor, powerful or weak, everyone who was detained by the federal government on criminal charges has been entitled to the Great Writ, along with such important procedural rights as due process of law, right to counsel, trial by jury, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

Will the federal courts overturn the MCA’s cancellation of habeas corpus for foreigners, given that under the Constitution Congress can suspend the writ only in times of invasion or rebellion? Ordinarily, the answer would be yes, because under our system of government neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to amend the Constitution by enacting a law that nullifies its provisions.

With the MCA, however, the Congress and the president pulled a neat little constitutional trick. The Constitution permits the Congress to determine what cases the federal courts will have jurisdiction to hear, and Congress used the MCA law to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases brought by foreigners.

Time will tell whether the courts uphold such obvious trickery. But if they do, Americans may well rue the day because if the feds can cancel habeas corpus for foreigners and deprive the courts of the power to do anything about it, they will be able to do the same thing to Americans, not only with respect to habeas corpus but also with respect to other rights and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Enemy combatants

Does the fact that habeas corpus was canceled only for foreigners mean that Americans are immunized from the arbitrary arrests, torture, and indefinite detentions to which foreigners will be subjected under the MCA? No, because slipped into the law was the president’s and the Pentagon’s post–9/11 concept of “enemy combatants” in the war on terrorism. That concept applies not only to foreigners but also to Americans.

What does it mean to be designated an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism? Just ask Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was designated an enemy combatant. The Pentagon took Padilla into custody some three years ago and for two years held him incommunicado in a navy dungeon. Even worse, the Pentagon employed the psychological techniques of torture against him that the North Korean communists had employed against American GIs during the Korean War. Padilla was locked up in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world, with the apparent aim of driving him out of his mind as a result of what psychiatrists call “sensory deprivation.” According to Padilla’s lawyers and psychiatrist, the mental torture has been successful, leaving Padilla with a disturbed state of mind that prevents him from assisting with his own defense.

The Pentagon takes the position that ever since 9/11, the U.S. military has wielded the power to treat any American just as it has treated Jose Padilla.

Padilla, through his lawyer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention by the military. When the case was about to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the government switched gears and announced suddenly that they were indicting him for the criminal offense of terrorism and transferring him to federal court jurisdiction.

The clever legal move deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear Padilla’s case (because the issue of military detention had become moot) but, equally important, it left intact the federal court of appeals decision upholding the government’s “enemy combatant” concept.

Why is that important? For the simple reason that it has given the U.S. military omnipotent control over the American citizenry. With the president’s use of the “enemy combatant” designation, which has now been formally enacted into law by the MCA, the U.S. military now wields the power to send troops across America and take Americans into custody and punish them through torture and deny them due process of law, trial by jury, and other procedural rights whose roots stretch back centuries in American and British law.

Don’t Americans accused of terrorism, though, still have the right of habeas corpus? Yes, but all that habeas corpus does is require the government to show that it is justified in holding the prisoner. If there is no legal justification — such as holding someone because he criticized the government — the judge will order his release. But if the Supreme Court upholds the “enemy combatant” concept, as the federal court of appeals did, then all that the government has to do at the habeas corpus hearing is show some evidence that the accused had indeed been designated an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism. Once the government does that, the judge will dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief and leave the prisoner at the indefinite mercy of his custodians.

What about the validity of the “enemy combatant” concept? It is political and legal chicanery that effectively gives the U.S. military standby control over the American people. All that the military has to do is fill out a form with a person’s name on it — or with lots of people’s names on it — and have the commander in chief (whether Bush, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else who happens to be president) sign it. At that point, military units can sweep into neighborhoods and effect the arrests and incarcerations of American citizens.atar

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, that’s not what America is supposed to be all about. That’s what the Soviet Union was, and China, North Korea, and Cuba are all about. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. That’s why it’s defined as a crime in the federal statute books. That’s why it’s prosecuted as a crime, both here and in Europe. That’s in fact why federal prosecutors have prosecuted such terrorists as Zacarias Moussaoui (one of the 9/11 terrorists), Ramzi Yousef (one of the 1993 WTC terrorists), Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City terrorist), and many others accused of terrorism. After all, let’s not forget that Jose Padilla himself is now being prosecuted for terrorism in federal district court rather than being held as an “enemy combatant.”

Targeting the unpopular

The beauty is how U.S. officials have accomplished this standby hijacking of America’s criminal justice system. They have targeted foreigners or unsavory Americans such as Padilla to get their doctrines established, knowing that most Americans would never come to their defense and knowing that most Americans would never suspect that a government victory in those cases might well end up applying to ordinary Americans as well.

So, under the current state of the law, thanks to Congress, the president, and the MCA, Americans can be incarcerated and tortured by the military for the rest of their lives. No due process and no jury trials. In fact, arguably foreigners accused of terrorism have it “better” under the MCA because they do get a trial — trial by military tribunal — while American “enemy combatants” get no trial at all. The reason I put the word “better” in quotation marks is that military tribunals, unlike jury trials in federal court, will be nothing but kangaroo proceedings where the outcome (guilt and death) will not be in doubt and where the proceeding is actually just a show trial for the benefit of the American people.

There are, of course, those who say, “We don’t need to be concerned. Our government officials love us and will employ these powers only against foreigners.” The big problem with that way of thinking is that once the roundups begin amidst a big crisis environment, where everyone is stricken with fear, it will be too late to complain. Just ask German Jews or, for that matter, Americans of Japanese descent.

The time to protest is now. The time to fight for the Constitution and Bill of Rights is now. The time to restore habeas corpus is now. The time to repeal the MCA is now. The time to rein in the federal government is now.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the February 2007 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

Homeland Security Act

“It is far more dangerous and threatening to our few remaining civil liberties than he appears willing to suggest,” writes Professor E. Nathaniel Gates of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law about William Safire’s recent article on the Homeland Security Act. “I had the rather grim and unfortunate duty of reviewing the legislation to which Safire refers in some detail,” says Gates. [1]

The Act, sponsored by Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) (whom the ACLU just astonishingly recruited as a consultant), and criticized by nearly every source on the internet, nonetheless passed the House 299-121. Why? Was it the continuing fear of terrorism?

I do not think so.

Although Bush apparently did not seriously consider the Homeland Security Act (HSA) provisions until after the attacks, its provisions were, like those of the USA PATRIOT Act, in the works long before September 11.

The Act, furthermore, promotes the creation of what one senator once called “a global security system” controlled by the United States, not to mention a budding police state in America. This agenda falls neatly in line with the plan for American global dominance endorsed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Rumsfeld.

Finally, the Homeland Security Act was structured on the recommendations of a special commission that was closely connected to, if not derived from, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which one author notes “has had its hand in every major twentieth century conflict.”

Homeland Security, the Hart-Rudman Commission,
and the Council on Foreign Relations [2]

“[T]he proposal for a Homeland Security Department originated in 1998 with the launching of the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission,” officially called the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, according to William F. Jasper. [3]

The report issued by the Hart-Rudman Commission (”the Commission”), “Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,” is dated January 31, 2001.

The “Executive Summary“ [4] of the Commission Report (”the Summary”) declares: “In the new era, sharp distinctions between `foreign’ and `domestic’ no longer apply.” The Commission does “not equate security with `defense.’” However, they “do believe in the centrality of strategy, and of seizing opportunities as well as confronting dangers.”

“The risk,” says the Summary, “is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership.” (Emphasis added.)

The Commission recommended “the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security — the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol — transferred to it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure, including information technology.”

This is indeed the basic blueprint of the Homeland Security Act.

Of the “twelve” Hart-Rudman commissioners, Jasper writes, nine were members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR or “the Council”), which Jasper calls “the semi-secret, private organization that serves as the most visible element of the Internationalist Power Elite.”

According to the CFR, the bipartisan 14-member panel was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), to make strategic recommendations on how the United States could ensure its security in the 21st century.

The Council states that it is a “non-governmental, non-partisan organization” that “is dedicated to increasing America’s understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy.” Its stated goals are “to add value to the public debate on international affairs, energize foreign policy discussions nationwide by making the Council a truly national organization with membership across the country, identify and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders, and make the Council the source for ideas and clear and accurate information on key international issues for the interested public.”

Membership to the Council is limited and based on recommendations by other members.

“[T]he `conservatives’ who populate the Bush administration — Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Zoellick, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. — are drawn from the CFR stable,” says Jasper. He also states that Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Representative Dick Gephardt are both CFR.

Bi-partisan? Lieberman sponsored S. 2452, an earlier version of the Homeland Security Act, which was absorbed into HR 5710, the final version that passed the House.

According to it’s website, the Commission “was chartered to review in a comprehensive way U.S. national security requirements for the next century.” The Addendum “provided a ‘baseline’ of the national security apparatus, and was completed in draft form by the summer of 2000 as the Commission’s main Phase III effort began in earnest.”

The Commission claims: “To our knowledge no product has been previously produced that describes the national security structures and processes of the U.S. government in such detail.”

Those recommendations ultimately were followed closely by the Homeland Security Act, although Bush appears to have been reluctant to follow them before 9/11. [5]

Jasper’s conclusion about the connection between the Hart-Rudman Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations seems sound. There is a significant amount of information about the Commission on the Council on Foreign Relations’ website, including a report by a “Council-Sponsored Independent Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives, Co-Chaired by Gary Hart and Warren B. Rudman, Directed by Stephen E. Flynn (2002)” which concludes that “America Is Still At Risk” and “Recommends Providing Federal Funds, Recalibrating Transportation Security Agenda; Strengthening Local, State, and Federal Public Health and Agricultural Agencies, Empowering Front Line Agents, and Supporting National Guard Units.”

The Council states that the Independent Task Force “which makes recommendations for emergency action, included two former secretaries of state, three Nobel laureates, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former director of the CIA and FBI, and some of the nation’s most distinguished financial, legal, and medical experts. One of the country’s leading authorities on homeland security, Council Senior Fellow Stephen Flynn, directed the Task Force.”

The Task Force “does not seek to apportion blame about what has not been done or not done quickly enough. The report is aimed, rather, at closing the gap between our intelligence estimates and analysis — which acknowledge immediate danger on the one hand — and our capacity to prevent, mitigate and respond to these attacks on the other.”

According to Jasper, Bush’s homeland security proposal, announced nine days after September 11th, “follows the Hart-Rudman outline perfectly.”

Jim Marrs wrote in his book, Rule By Secrecy, that critics of the Council have noted “that the CFR has had its hand in every major twentieth century conflict.” Marrs quotes one CFR insider, Admiral Chester Ward, retired judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy and a longtime CFR member, as saying that the one common objective of CFR members is “to bring about the surrender of sovereignty and the national independence of the United States . . . Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.” [6]

According to Marrs: “Nearly every CIA director since Allen Dulles has been a CFR member, including Richard Helms, William Colby, George Bush, William Webster, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, and William Casey.” Noting that Article II of the CFR’s bylaws state that anyone revealing details of CFR meetings in contravention of the CFR’s rules could be dropped from membership, Marrs concludes that the Council qualifies as “a secret society.”

Sounds a little like the Bush administration.

Cheney’s Plan for Global Dominance

One does not need to look into the Council on Foreign Relations, however, to discover the hidden agenda behind the Homeland Security Act. David Armstrong recently wrote a detailed article for Harper’s Magazine on “Dick Cheney’s Song of America: Drafting a Plan for Global Dominance.” [7]

Armstrong reviewed the “Defense Planning Guidance” reports issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense while Cheney was the secretary under Bush I and thereafter.

Jasper links the Homeland Security Department to “one of several unprecedented efforts to centralize military and law enforcement power in the executive branch,” and notes Bush’s June 1st speech at West Point in which he introduced the doctrine of “defensive intervention” (more commonly called “preemptive strikes”).

David Armstrong echoes this conclusion when he states that the West Point speech was part of Cheney’s “perpetually evolving work” which “will take its ultimate form . . . as America’s new national security strategy.”

“The plan,” according to Armstrong, “is to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.”

Armstrong muses that the Plan “is disturbing in many ways, and ultimately unworkable. Yet it is being sold now as an answer to the `new realities’ of the post-September 11 world, even as it was sold previously as the answer to the new realities of the post-Cold War world.” He says “Cheney’s unwavering adherence to the Plan would be amusing, and maybe a little sad, except that it is now our plan.”

Armstrong tracks Cheney’s evolving work from the initial idea of America’s need to project a military “forward presence” around the world, shifting from the policy of global containment in order to manage “less-well-defined regional struggles and unforeseen contingencies” to the doctrine of preemptive military force with nuclear weapons. He notes the shift from a threat-based defense strategy to a capability-based assessment.

The capability-based assessment of military requirements became a key theme of Cheney’s plan. Capability-based: because we can. The inanity of this approach is well-illustrated by singer/songwriter Jonatha Brooke in her 1995 song “War” –

It’s the American way, the new world order
We hold these truths to be self-evident
In the American day, you must give and I shall take,
And I will tell you what is moral and what’s just
Because I want, because I will, because I can, so will I kill.

Behind Cheney’s doctrines was a deep fear and suspicion of the Soviets that was shared by Colin Powell, who as Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser began working on this Plan in the late 1980s, and by Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for policy.

When the Plan was leaked in March 1992 to the New York Times, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden criticized its proposal of “a global security system where threats to stability are suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power.”

Wolfowitz might have us believe that the Cheney Plan is a brilliant anticipation of the terrorist attacks. Wolfowitz asked in a 1996 editorial: “Should we sit idly by with our passive containment policy and our inept covert operations, and wait until a tyrant possessing large quantities of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated delivery systems strikes out at us?”

The Council on Foreign Relations, on the other hand, refers to the Hart-Rudman Commission as the “now famous Commission on National Security that warned of such a terrorist attack three years ago.”

These boastings, however, ignore what Armstrong’s article so clearly reveals: the dangerous course these doctrines promote.

From national unity to state control.

From clear separations between foreign and domestic intelligence activities under the CIA charter of 1947 (”the Charter”) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, in clear deference to the United States Constitution’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment requirements, to wholesale merging of these activities, in violation of the Charter, the obvious intent of FISA, and the Constitution.

From military “base force” and a tentative “forward presence” to “preemptive strikes” and “unwarned attacks.”

As Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way said: “It’s truly astonishing. It seems that we’re forgetting everything we learned in the 1970’s.” [8] And, as Armstrong notes: “This country once rejected “unwarned” attacks such as Pearl Harbor as barbarous and unworthy of a civilized nation.” Armstrong further states that we “also once denounced those who tried to rule the world.”

The Plan, finally, envisions unilateral action without alliances. Coalitions are relegated to “ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted.” Where it cannot get others to agree with its goals or decisions, the United States will “act independently” to address “selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends.” Coalitions “must not determine the mission.” American interests, according to the Plan, include “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism.”

Now, if we claim that Persian Gulf oil is one of our primary interests and we are the only ones who can determine our mission, no wonder we are worried about “terrorist” threats from the Middle East.

Gary Hart, himself, noted in an article in the current (December 16th) issue of The American Prospect: “A major U.S. invasion of a Muslim country would almost certainly trigger serious attempts to kill Americans.” He asks: “Are we ready for the virtually certain retaliatory terrorist attacks on our homeland if we invade Iraq?”

The importance of these concerns cannot be overemphasized. Yet, they are hardly discussed in the press. Nor do these discussions begin to consider the various violations of international law that the United States would be committing, and already has committed, under Bush administration current and anticipated measures — nor the potential effects of these on our safety. [9]

Homeland Security Act

The concerns of civil libertarians about incursions on civil liberties under the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act or Homeland Security Act do not begin to make a dent on public awareness (or in Bush policy-making) because they do not consider the Cheney Plan for Global Dominance. The Plan supersedes all.

Global domination is the universal dream of every secret warrior. As one of my students wrote in class a few years ago: “The two major Universal Drives seem to be Dominance (survival) and Sex (love). As long as these two conflicts don’t arise, there is peace in the world.” [10]

But, while everyone may share such drives, not everyone has “an inordinate sense of his own entitlement” [11] like Bush and those in his inner circle have.

If you have the underlying belief that you must dominate in order to survive, you are unlikely to have much concern for civil liberties.

The Homeland Security Act, like the PATRIOT Act, is a further incursion on American civil liberties. Both of these Acts arose out of a deeper background policy of global domination and disregard for the sanctity of individual human rights.

Federal Supervision of First Responders

The biggest charge that Jasper makes against the Homeland Security Act is that it “mandates federal supervision, funding, and coordination of `local first responders’ — specifically police and emergency personnel,” thus expanding federal control of local law enforcement.

The sections in the Homeland Security Act that concern “first responders” are in Title V: Emergency Preparedness and Response, but there is no specific mandate of federal control over local police. The provision simply provides for coordination and guidance. Although centralization appears to be the only way to properly handle emergency preparedness on a sufficiently large scale to protect our country, there is, nonetheless, reason for concern that central federal coordination could lead to loss of local control and to potential federal militarization, especially in view of the many other measures and events that support such a possibility — such as, the Military Tribunals without constitutional procedural protections, the preemptive “war” on Iraq, the refusal of hearings and legal representation to “unlawful enemy combatants” and Guantanamo detainees, the indefinite detention of immigrants who are not even determined to be a danger (also often without hearings or representation), information-sharing provisions, the mixing of foreign and domestic investigations under FISA, Citizen Corps, and many more new measures now under the Homeland Security Act enumerated below.

According to the United States Northern Command (USNC), “First responders are the men and women who are `first on the scene’ as a natural or man-made disaster unfolds. They are also the last to leave the scene. First responders are policemen, firemen, emergency medical technicians. … There are 11 million state and local first responders in 87,000 jurisdictions throughout the United States.” [12]

The USNC states that: “Our nation’s structure of overlapping federal, state, and local governance — more than 87,000 different jurisdictions — provides a unique opportunity and challenge for U.S. Northern Command. Operations are underway to develop interconnected and complementary relationships and plans to support first responders. Everyone on this broad team, including U.S. Northern Command, wants to ensure the safety and security of the American people” (emphasis added).

USNC notes that the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) [13] “generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from interdicting vehicles, vessels and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities.”

USNC adds: “Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.”

However, the USNC notes four statutory exceptions to this prohibition: (1) counter-drug assistance (10 USC 371-81), (2) Insurrection Act (10 USC 331-34), (3) crimes using nuclear materials ( 18 USC 831), and (4) chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (10 USC 382).

According to a March 6, 2002 article by Gary Seigle on Government Executive Magazine, titled “`First responders’ to terrorism seek federal strategy, equipment,” first responders themselves were seeking federal assistance and guidance. Seigle writes: “A national training standard should be established and maintained by the federal government for first responders who are poorly prepared and equipped to recognize or respond to a weapon of mass destruction attack, emergency officials told a congressional subcommittee yesterday.” [14]

According to the New York Times, General Ralph E. Eberhart, now in charge of USNC, said earlier this year that he would welcome a review of existing restrictions against using military forces domestically. (See Part 2 of this series, footnote 8.) Meaning, presumably, overturning the Posse Comitatus Act. Doing so would essentially mean allowing a standing domestic army.

James Madison, a proponent of strong national government, wrote:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the executive magistrate. Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. [15]

Patrick Henry said: “A standing army [will] execute the execrable commands of tyranny.” This is “a most dangerous power,” he declared. [16]

Other provisions of concern are: [17]

Title II creates a Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, charged with creating and maintaining a massive data base of public and private information on virtually any individual in the United States. Information on persons’ credit card purchases, telephone calls, banking transactions, and travel patterns can be compiled and used to assemble a profile that could be used to mark innocent people as terrorist suspects.

Section 201(d)(5) gives this Directorate authority to “develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States, including power production, generation, and distribution systems, information technology and telecommunications systems (including satellites), electronic financial and property record storage and transmission systems, emergency preparedness communications systems, and the physical and technological assets that support such systems.”

Sounds almost like a communist state.

Under this provision, personnel from the CIA, FBI, DOS, NSA, DIA, and any other agency the President considers appropriate, “may be detailed to the Department for the performance of analytic functions and related duties” (201(f)(1)).

This makes the Directorate equivalent to a massive domestic intelligence agency like the KGB. KGB translates as “the Committee of the State Security.”

Private sector analysts may be used and cooperative agreements between agencies are authorized (201(e)(2) and (f)(3)).

It is true that information sharing may be necessary, but these provisions, to say the least, obliterate the distinction between foreign and domestic intelligence gathering that was codified by the charter of the Central Intelligence Agency of 1947 and by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Indeed, if the PATRIOT Act did not eviscerate those statutes, the Homeland Security Act finishes the job.

Section 214 exempts “critical infrastructure information” that is voluntarily submitted to “a covered Federal agency” (201(f)(2)) from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Once such information is submitted to the government, it cannot be used in any civil action against the person or entity that submitted it and government officer who knowingly discloses such information would be subject to criminal penalties (including imprisonment) and fines, as well as the loss of his or her position.

Senator Leahy (D-Vt) warned that the FOIA exemption would “encourage government complicity with private firms to keep secret information about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, reduce the incentive to fix the problems and end up hurting rather than helping our national security.” [18]

The People for the American Way note that the exemption keeps the Department of Homeland Security “from having to defend non-disclosure of information in a court of law.”

As one reporter noted: “U.S. law does not treat leaks of defense information as a criminal act, nor should it. But leaks of business information will now be a crime.” [19]

Section 225 absorbs the entire text of the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2001 (CSEA) which previously passed the House as a freestanding measure (HR 3482). Sponsored by Lamar Smith (R-TX), the CSEA allows service providers to voluntarily provide government agents with access to the contents of customer communications without consent based on a “good faith” belief that an emergency justifies the release. The same section allows for the installation of pen register and trap and trace devices without a court order where there is an ongoing attack on a “protected computer.” Any computer involved in interstate commerce qualifies.

Title III concerns “Science and Technology in Support of Homeland Security.” Section 304, according to The National Gulf War Resources Center, Inc., “grants the HHS secretary extraordinary powers to declare a health emergency simply based on a POTENTIAL threat. This means that a hypothetical threat analysis from intelligence agencies that failed to warn of Sept 11th could be used as a reason to suspend civil liberties and start mandatory smallpox vaccinations.”

The Cure Autism Now Foundation noted on their website that, “In an eleventh hour maneuver, the House suddenly amended the Homeland Security Act with a rider that makes it impossible for families who believe their children were neurologically damaged by non-essential mercury based additives [thimerosal] in vaccines to sue for civil damages — even in cases of fraud or criminal negligence.” [20]

Parents Requesting open Vaccine Education (PROVE) and The Connecticut Vaccine Information Alliance (CTVIA) state that not only does the Act “let drug giant Eli Lily off the hook for thimerosal based vaccine induced injuries and deaths,” but there are “no personal, religious, or medical exemptions” for the forced smallpox vaccinations, if the authority is exercised, and “no guarantees for humane quarantine laws.” [21]

Under Section 308, “extramural research development, demonstration, testing, and evaluation programs . . . to ensure that colleges, universities, private research institutes, and companies (and consortia thereof) from as many areas of the United States as practicable participate” is authorized.

While it may make sense for government to draw upon academia for research, etc., universities must retain their educational independence if academic freedom is to be preserved. Government intrusion taints academic pursuits.

A clear illustration of abuse of academia were the “extramural” programs carried out under Central Intelligence Agency Projects Bluebird, MkUltra, and Monarch, from the 1940’s through the 1970’s. These C.I.A. projects funded similar such organizations to carry out “research” on unwitting American citizens to see if drugs or other “scientific” methods, such as hypnosis, “psychic driving,” or other forms of mind control programming, could be used to brainwash individuals. [22] That was in support of homeland security, too.

Titles IV and XI relate to immigration and border issues. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) states that the law “fails to provide for a high-level official who is focused on our nations immigration policy, relegates immigration services to a bureau that lacks its own Under-Secretary, provides little or no coordination between immigration enforcement and services, and fails to adequately protect the important role of immigration courts.” [23]

AILA further warns that although the Homeland Security Act “codifies the existence of the courts and the Attorney General’s authority to control them,” it “fails to address key concerns such as the role and independence of the courts and the impartiality of the judicial process.” Two recent conflicting appellate decisions about whether immigration courts should be viewed as equivalent to what are known as Article III courts (federal courts) in terms of the public’s First Amendment right of access to hearings support AILA’s view.

Section 871 allows the Homeland Security Department to form advisory committees exempt from sunshine provisions in federal law that normally allow citizens to find out what occurred in meetings of such committees. This provision is clearly Cheney’s answer to those who have sued him to produce records of his energy policy advisory committee.

Section 891 contains the entire text of the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act (HSISA), which passed the House under HR 4598 earlier in the session. This provision will facilitate the sharing of sensitive intelligence information with state and local authorities and allows for greater sharing of grand jury information and electronic surveillance context.

What Didn’t Get In

Section 770 prohibits all federal agencies from implementing the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS). Section 815 prohibits the development of a national identification system or card. The so-called Total Information Awareness program (TIA), according to one senator, did not get in, although the Pentagon is still creating the database; the Directorate under Title II, however, is hardly less extensive, the main difference being that TIA mandates the development of new technology. Since the technology is being developed anyway, this is a distinction without a difference.

All in all, the Homeland Security Act is a frightening piece of legislation. One would have thought that the “walk softly and carry a big stick” ideal had long ago been proven to be in the grab bag of Big Dicks: those not worthy to be in the office of the president. This legislation and the acts of this administration purport to be for our protection, but they expose us to greater dangers. While the administration tells us to be afraid, be very afraid, they make sure we are not looking at our own faces.

As Glen Phillips, lead singer/songwriter of the now-defunct band, Toad the Wet Sprocket, aptly wrote in his 1997 song “Whatever I Fear,”

Whatever I fear the most is whatever I see before me
Whenever I let my guard down, whatever I was ignoring
Whatever I fear the most is whatever I see before me
Whatever I have been given, whatever I have been.

Jennifer Van Bergen is a regular contributor to TruthOut. She has a J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is a contributing editor of Criminal Defense Weekly, an adjunct faculty member of the New School Online University, a division of the New School for Social Research, and an active member of the ACLU.

Footnotes

Email to author, November 20, 2002 (quote used with permission). See Gates’ bio at: http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty_staff/fulltime.html#Gates
I have made liberal use of the websites of the Commission and the Council: www.nssg.gov and www.cfr.org. Quotes in this section come from their sites respectively, except Jasper quotes or where otherwise indicated.
William F. Jasper, “Rise of the Garrison State.”
This is the John Birch Society website, an unlikely source for such information. It is the only site this author found that expressly connects the Homeland Security Act to the prior work of the Hart-Rudman Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.
All quotes from Executive Summary of U.S. Commission on National Security Report, U.S. Dept. of State, 1/31/01
Taking Exception to Mr. Bowman - Not so obvious, by Adam Garfinkle, National Review, 11/12/02, and What We Knew: Warning Given…Story Missed - How a Report on Terrorism Flew Under the Radar, by Harold Evans, Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec 2001.
Jim Marrs, Rule By Secrecy (Harper Collins, 2000). All cites on CFR from pages 31-8.
David Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America: Drafting a plan for global dominance,” pp. 76-83, Harper’s Magazine, October 2002 (Vol. 305, No. 1829).
David Johnston “The Administration Begins to Rewrite Decades-Old Spying Restrictions,” New York Times, 11/30/02
I will be discussing these issues in depth in an upcoming article.
Comment made by George L. Beke on 11 October 2000 in my class “Act to Write” at the New School Online University (division of the New School for Social Research).
Mark Crispin Miller, quoted in “Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Author: Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms” by Murray Whyte, Toronto Star, 11/28/02
First Responders, U.S. Northern Command, “Deter, Prevent, Defeat” (Text-Only Version)
The Act states: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”See Also: The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle In Need Of Renewal, Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol.75, No.2, Summer 1997, which explores the history of this law, and how “Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders”. [--ratitor]
`First responders’ to terrorism seek federal strategy, equipment, by Greg Seigle, Government Executive Magazine, 3/6/02
Christopher Collier, Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, p. 316 (Ballantine Books, 1986).
Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Vol. 1, pp. 389, 435 (Houghton Mifflin, 1919). (Quotes taken from the printed debates of the Constitutional Convention.)
I have drawn from several sources in this analysis and have freely copied the language in these: Homeland Security Act Poses Threat to Government Oversight, Civil Rights and Liberties, People For the American Way, 11/19/02, EPIC Alert 9.23 (11/19/02), The New Homeland Security Department - Challenge, Potential and Risk - Privacy Guidelines, Careful Oversight Required, Center for Democracy and Technology, 12/10/02 Please call your Senators today and ask them to remove Sections 304, 1714, 1715, 1716, and 871 from the Senate version of the Homeland Defense bill, the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., and Summary of New Homeland Security Bill’s Immigration Provisions
Homeland Security Act criminalizes leaks of business information, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 11/19/02
Senator lies–to protect us, of course, by Robert Leger, Springfield News-Leader, 11/24/02
http://www.cureautismnow.org/action/hr5710.cfm
See Too Much Insecurity in Homeland Security Bill, by Dawn Richardson, PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education) at VaccineInfo.net, Homeland Security and Vaccine Compensation, paper prepared by The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), and Drug Companies Get Liability Protection In Homeland Security Bill by Barbara Loe Fisher, President, NVIC
See Colin A. Ross, M.D., Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists (Manitou Communications, 2000).
Congress Poised to Pass Flawed Homeland Security Measure, posted on American Immigration Lawyers Association InfoNet at Doc. No. 02111433, 11/14/02

————————————————————

Defense Authorization Act of 2006

Stomping Freedom

Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006

By JAMES BOVARD

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.

Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list of pretexts to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” — and such a “condition” is not defined or limited.

One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be naive.

The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what
he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for as many as 365 days. Bush could send the South Carolina National Guard to suppress anti-war protests in New Haven. Or the next president could send the Massachusetts National Guard to disarm the residents of Wyoming, if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

Section 1076 had bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, including support from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Since the law would give the feds more power, it was very popular inside the Beltway.

On the other hand, every governor in the country opposed the changes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19, 2006, that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law.” Leahy’s alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record, “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

A U.S. Enabling Act

The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law — even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the “incident” to suspend the Constitution.

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. “Martial law” means: Obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation — something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood — or to the “laws” after Bush “fixes” them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).

Section 1076 is the type of “law” that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department’s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight.

The “comfort blanket” on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same “pass the buck on the Constitution” that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties.

The military on the home front

Section 1076 is more ominous in light of the Bush administration’s long record of Posse Comitatus violations. Since 2001, the Bush administration has accelerated a trend of using the military as a tool in the nation’s domestic affairs. From its support of the Total Information Awareness surveillance vacuum cleaner, to its use of Pentagon spy planes during the Washington-area sniper shootings in 2002, to the Pentagon’s seizures of Americans’ financial and other private information without a warrant, the Bush administration has not hesitated to use military force and intimidation at home whenever convenient. And Americans may have little or no idea of how far the military has actually gone on the home front, given the Bush team’s obsessive secrecy.

The Pentagon has sent U.S. military intelligence agents on domestic fishing expeditions. In 2004, two U.S. Army intelligence agents descended on the University of Texas’s law school in Austin. They entered the office of the Journal of Women and the Law and demanded that the editors turn over a roster of the people who attended a recent conference on Islam and women. The editors denied having a list; the behavior of one agent was described as intimidating. The agents then demanded contact information for the student who organized the conference, Sahar Aziz. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock commented,

“We certainly hope that the Army doesn’t believe that attending a conference on Islamic law or Islam and women is itself ground for investigation.”

Military officials later declared that U.S. Army intelligence agents had overstepped their bounds. But this did not stop the Bush administration from having a provision inserted in a bill passed in secret session by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would allow military intelligence agents to conduct surveillance and recruit informants in the United States. Wired.com reported,

“Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents.”

The provision would authorize military agents to go undercover and never inform their targets that they were dealing with a G-man. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, denounced the provision:

“This … is giving them the authority to spy on Americans. And it’s all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.”

The controversy over the amendment scuttled its enactment, though it is unclear whether that has deterred the military from expanding its domestic spying.

There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts — any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.

James Bovard serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

Below is the Bill of Rights provided with hyperlinks to specific instances in which the Bush administration violated their oath of office for each of the rights described. Please post any that you would add.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

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

————————————————————

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

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

Amendment IV

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

Amendment V

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

Amendment VI

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

Amendment VII

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

Amendment VIII

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

Film Credits for the First Installment of Core of Corruption. The first Film in the series is called

In The Shadows

Written and Directed by

Jonathan Elinoff

Produced by

Jonathan Elinoff

Jason Charles

Original Score and Sound

Josh Keegan and

Future Global Society

Ending Credits Music, Rap

Matt Mitchell and Josh Keegan

Studio Work by

Elinoff Entertainment, LLC

and

TruthAlliance.net

Graphics and Visual Effects

Jason Charles

Opening Apple Segment Graphics

Lawrence Johnson

Film Editing

Jonathan Elinoff

Cinematography

Jason Charles

Micah Charles

Jonathan Elinoff

Art Direction

Jason Charles

Research and Development

Jonathan Elinoff

Jason Charles

Core of Corruption Website Development

Micah Charles

Jason Charles

Video Segments Provided by

Jonathan Elinoff

Vanderbilt University Archive

C-Span Archive

Mike Ruddin

BBC Archives

911Truth.org

The Man Who knew, PBS

Conspiracy Files, BBC

Sander Hicks

Lone Gunmen, FOX Studios

We Are Change

Luke Rudkowski

Youtube.com

Louder Than Words

Internet Archive (archive.org)

Google Video

Josh Keegan

Jason Bermas

Mike Rivero, Whatreallyhappened.com

Loose Change

Press For Truth

Marc Levin, Protocols of Zion

In Their Own Words

NBC Archives

CBS Archives

ABC Archives

KTBS

CNN Archives

PBS

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company)

Democracy Now

Camera Planet

Michael Berger

Matt Kazee

Blueprint For Truth, Richard Gage

FOX Archives

VEOH.com

HistoryCommons.org

Information and Research provided by

Jonathan Elinoff

Josh Keegan

Jason Charles

Robert Weiland

Sander Hicks

Michael Berger

J Michael Springmann

Daniel Hopsicker

Ty Rauber

Ryan Thurstan

Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage

Richard Grove

Morgan Rose

Michael Ruppert

Peter Dale Scott

Alex Jones

John Albanese

Ray Nowosielski

Special Thanks to:

Brian Cook

Luke Rudkowski

Jason Bermas

Korey Rowe

Dylan Avery

LooseChange911.com

Dan Conklin

Brian Ottino

Joby Weeks

Sander Hicks

Steve Johnston

Nick from Philly 9/11 Truth

Sabrina Rivera

SMT Studios

Jersey Girls and Press for Truth

Alex Jones

Raymond D. Powell

Loose Change and Louder Than Words

Seth Youtsey

J Michael Springmann

Adbul Mateen

Adam Miller

We Are Change

Jon Foxx

Justin Martell

Michael Jackman

Eric Jackman

Bob Mcilvaine

Michelle Little

Infowars.com

Lt Col. Bob Bowman

Colorado 9/11 Visibility

Jon Gold

Turtle from We Are Change Colorado

All members of We Are Change Colorado

Douglas D’Josey

Kristin Johnson

Matt Kazee

Michael Berger

DJ Ball

————————————————————

I decided to add a complete list of some of my old articles from back in the day that I compiled that will give you a good background on my research:

Posted on December 22, 2008 in News by admin