THE PATRIOT ACT II: TERRORIZING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ROY TAYLOR MINISTRIES
roytaylorministries.com roytaylor7@yahoo.com (e-mail)
CLICK HERE FORAMERICAN PIE AND THE ARMAGEDDON PROPHECY HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE FOR THE GENETIC CODE IS THE GENESIS WORD IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
CLICK HERE FOR THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON SHALL BE TURNED TO BLOOD!
CLICK HERE FORTHE LAMB, THE TEN HORNS, AND THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST
CLICK HERE FOR A NUCLEAR SACRIFICE IS NOW BEING PREPARED,WE ARE TO BE ITS INTENDED VICTIMS!
FR. ALEXANDER WOLFE MURRAY'S CHURCH BELIEVES THAT ROY TAYLOR IS A PROPHET PAGE ONE"
13: These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14: THESE SHALL MAKE WAR WITH THE LAMB, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings : AND THEY THAT ARE WITH HIM ARE CALLED. AND CHOSEN, AND FAITHFUL.
Apr 2003
THE PATRIOT ACT II: TERRORIZING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 7, 2003, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of new "anti-terrorism" legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003 (DSEA), labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.
Our analysis suggests that, rather than toughening our ability to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and his ilk, this bill would instead rely on cosmetic "solutions" which threaten the constitutional rights of Americans, without increasing our national
security. In fact, this placebo will probably make our country considerably less secure.
Some of the most significant provisions follow:
PRIVACY AND UNLAWFUL SEARCHES
The government could bug, wiretap, or search anyone in America for up to 15 days without going to any court if Congress had authorized the use of military force (i.e., under circumstances which currently exist). [Section 103]
The government could seize personal information about Americans (including credit information, educational transcripts, etc.) in a wide range of circumstances without the approval of any court by issuing "administrative subpoenas" (i.e., subpoenas or
letters issued by bureaucrats and not authorized by any court).
[Sections 126, 128, & 129]
All of this information could be used to prosecute Americans.
[Section 105]
If the government, incredibly, was so inept that it failed to comply with the virtually non-existent limitations on bugs and searches, there would be a defense in a proceeding against an agent who violated the law and/or the Constitution, thereby
effectively legalizing all searches.
[Section 106]
Individuals and groups which engage in or advocate civil disobedience or Second Amendment rights, including GOA, could be classified as "foreign powers" and subject to electronic surveillance for up to a year without the approval of any court.
[Section 104]
BIG BROTHER
DSEA would authorize the creation of a DNA bank of all persons "suspected" of being terrorists. [Section 302-6]
Businesses that unlawfully turn over private consumer information to the federal government out of terrorism-related paranoia would be insulated from lawsuits.
[Section 313]
ARRESTS AND SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DSEA would allow the government to revoke or suspend a pilot's license for two months without any intervening judicial review during that time period [Section 409]. This provision may well be intended to deter pilots wishing to carry firearms in the
cockpit. The guidelines issued by the Transportation Security Administration require all kinds of new testing (emotional, psychological, etc.) for every pilot who seeks to carry a firearm. (Of course, pilots already go through similar testing before
qualifying for a pilot's license.)
These additional tests could become fishing expeditions for a future Clinton-Gore Justice Department -- giving officials a pretext to suspend or revoke the licenses of those pilots who wish to carry firearms in the cockpit under DSEA's new suspension
provisions.
DSEA could allow members and supporters of GOA and other organizations to be stripped of their citizenship [Section 501], arrested and held indefinitely without charges, here or abroad [Section 503-6], in secret at a secret location [Section 201],
without access to an attorney or benefit of constitutional protections.
BACKGROUND
A year ago, Gun Owners of America [GOA] -- together with a wide range of organizations on all sides of the ideological spectrum -- warned that the so-called "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act's" overly broad definition of terrorism could allow the federal government to
spy on -- and potentially shut down -- groups like GOA.
GOA and other groups negotiated with the Senate and the administration in removing some of the more noxious provisions, but was only partly successful in correcting the bill's inadequacies.
In particular, the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- which hardly shrouded itself in glory in connection the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents -- was given broad new powers to wiretap, monitor, search, and detain "suspects" without probable cause or due
process and without giving them access to attorneys.
On February 7, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of follow-up legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by this follow-up bill, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.
Given the inability of the administration to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and many other top al Qaeda leaders, the Justice Department appears to be poised to use a future terrorist tragedy to create the impetus for passage of this bill, dubbed the
"Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 [DSEA]."
The importance of provisions waiving constitutional rights for non-citizens increases dramatically if the government can revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans for any reason -- much less, for potentially minor transgressions.
Although they may disagree with some overly broad interpretations crafted by the courts, Americans have no problem with constitutional rights for confessed serial killers, even though their admitted crimes are very serious. So the notion that bad people
don't deserve the protections afforded by the rule of law is a relatively novel one -- and not a constitutional idea at all.
Rather than suspending the Constitution, concerned Americans believe the administration should honor it by:
creating a non-politically correct military;
allowing the military to seek, capture, and/or kill terrorists like Osama bin Laden, irrespective of whether resolute action has the approval of the UN or other participants in the "new world order";
treat REAL terrorists, like the bomber in WTC1, with severity, rather than moving to shorten their sentences (as was done prior to 9/11/2001);
securing our borders.
On the other hand, with the new DSEA draft posing the possibility that GOA and its officers, employees, and members could be stripped of their citizenship, the notion of suspending the Constitution for objectionable behavior is not something we support.
THRESHOLD OBSERVATIONS
A couple of threshold observations:
First: Three thousand people died on 9/11. While this is a tragedy of immense proportions, it is important to remember that perhaps as many as 100,000,000 people were killed during the 20th century by despotic governments given totalitarian powers.
Americans who believe "it can't happen here" should consider how federalizing police powers resulted in tragic consequences in places like Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas.
Second: Over the past thirty years, most of our "dire" predictions have, if anything, understated the government abuse of the open-ended programs and over-broad language which we opposed. If anything, many Americans underestimated the extent to which:
the installation of seatbelts and air bags would result in "safety roadblocks," racial profiling, and the decapitation of infants;
the Brady Law would give rise to an effort by the Clinton administration to tax and register gun transactions using its illegally maintained database;
the enactment of a ban on full automatics in 1986 would only open the door to semiautomatic bans and calls for handgun registration; and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act would primarily apply not to the Mafia, but to legitimate
businesses and political demonstrators -- and would be later used by "conservative" Republican Senators to penalize gun dealers for minor infractions.
The attempt to apply RICO to gun dealers occurred in 1998, but was beaten back after GOA mobilized thousands upon thousands of gun owners to lobby their Senators.
Given our experience with government, only a fool would agree to enact legislation which could arguably outlaw our organizations in the expectation that the language would not be interpreted as broadly as it could. This is particularly true because the
Justice Department presumably knows how to draft legislation precisely crafted to oppose terrorism, and has chosen not to do so.
AN OVERVIEW
THE THRESHOLD DEFINITION OF "TERRORIST" -- A CASE STUDY
The question of whether DSEA is a "good bill" or a "bad bill" may revolve around whether its draconian remedies are narrowly targeted at legitimate threats, such as al Qaeda operatives, or are, instead, broadly applicable to militia groups or gun groups
like Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association.
Some of the terms at the core of the bill are new; others were already on the books. For the second category, however, the impetus toward expansive interpretation of terms like "terrorist organization" was non-existent when the only ramification of the
designation was determining who would be denied a visa. Now that this classification has cataclysmic consequences in terms of the ability of the government to search, bug, wiretap, and arrest, the dynamic has changed completely.
Here's the bottom line: At its lowest common denominator, a native-born American could be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and permanently and clandestinely detained in a secret location without charges and without an attorney if he:
"provid[ed] material support... to...
a terrorist organization, as defined by section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act -- a definition which requires that the organization "engag[e] in a terrorist activity" (which includes "[t]he use of any... firearm... with intent to endanger,
directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or cause substantial damage to property...") and
"threate[n] the security of United States nationals..."
if the organization is] "engaged in hostilities against..."
[U.S.] "national security interests...."
Requirement #1:
Material support: Anyone who has ever contributed a dime to an organization which the administration, after the fact, determines to be a "terrorist organization" has "provided material support" to that organization. The definition of "material support"
would be loosened even further by DSEA to include "knowingly provid[ing], attempt[ing] to provide, or conspir[ing] to provide a terrorist organization with one or more individuals (including himself) to work in concert with it or under its direction or
control." Hence, if GOA were designated a "terrorist organization," all 300,000 members would be "at risk."
Requirement #2: Terrorist organization: A "terrorist organization" is an organization designated as such under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is far from implausible to assume that a Republican administration would make such a
certification with respect to militia organizations such as the Deacons for Defense, an armed group which protected blacks against the KKK in the 1960s. It is reckless to assume a Clinton or Gore administration would not make such a designation with
respect to conservative groups on the fringes of respectability, plus Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association, as well.
Requirement #3: Use of a firearm to threaten property: This requirement doesn't mandate injury to a person or destruction of property. It merely requires the "use" (which may include "carry") of a firearm with "intent" to damage property. UNITA (the
group comprised of anti-communist, Angolan freedom fighters) clearly falls within this definition. The Deacons for Defense could very well have fallen within the definition since many of its participants carried guns while patrolling neighborhoods for
the protection of residents within.
As for GOA, it sanctions carrying firearms and using them for the protection of one's self, one's family, and one's home, even if that protection does not fall within the precise strictures of "self-defense," as it has been recently defined by the
courts. Hence, the organization, its officers, and its members may well unlawfully "use" (i.e., "carry") firearms with intent to injure or cause property damage.
Requirement #4: Threat to "security" of U.S. nationals: Whether an American's "security" is threatened is a wholly subjective question.
Requirement #5: Hostilities: Traditionally, the question of whether a nation was engaged in "hostilities" against the United States involved a relatively high threshold and a comparatively bright-line definition. H owever, the notion, introduced by DSEA,
of unaffiliated individuals and organizations engaging in "hostilities" is a complete tabula rasa. UNITA was actually at war with a U.S. communist ally -- and, thus, clearly falls within the ambit of this definition.
But, just as a nation preparing for war may be engaging in "hostilities" before the first bullet is fired, there is nothing in this requirement that mandates that there be actual violence for an organization or individual to "engage in hostilities."
Having said that: (1) groups like the Deacons for Defense clearly engaged in physical force to obtain their objectives of protecting black neighborhoods, and (2) GOA, by advocating the use of the Second Amendment to battle despots, could, by the
application of "conspiracy" doctrine, easily fall within the scope of the definition if a member, subscribing to this notion, became violent.
Requirement #6: What are "national security interests"? Surely, the protection of an "ally," like the communist government of Angola, would fall within the term. When the GOA member discussed in connection with requirement #5 attacks a government
building or official, there is no doubt that a "national security interest" would be invoked here. And in the case of the Deacons for Defense, which protected blacks against the KKK and the southern government establishment which supported it during the
turbulent 1960s, it is fairly easy to see how "a national security interest" would be invoked by the "powers that be."
PRIVACY AND UNLAWFUL SEARCHES
The government could bug, wiretap, or search anyone in America for up to 15 days without going to any court if Congress had authorized the use of military force (i.e., under circumstances which currently exist).
[Section 103]
The government could seize personal information about Americans (including credit information, educational transcripts, etc.) in a wide range of circumstances without the approval of any court by issuing "administrative subpoenas" (i.e., subpoenas or
letters issued by bureaucrats and not authorized by any court).
[Sections 126, 128, & 129]
All of this information could be used to prosecute Americans.
[Section 105]
If the government, incredibly, was so inept that it failed to comply with the virtually non-existent limitations on bugs and searches, there would be a defense in a proceeding against an agent who violated the law and/or the Constitution, thereby
effectively legalizing all searches.
[Section 106]
Individuals and groups which engage in or advocate civil disobedience or Second Amendment rights, including GOA, could be classified as "foreign powers" and subject to electronic surveillance for up to a year without the approval of any court.
[Section 104]
BIG BROTHER
DSEA would authorize the creation of a DNA bank of all persons "suspected" of being terrorists.
[Section 302-6]
Businesses that unlawfully turn over private consumer information to the federal government out of terrorism-related paranoia would be insulated from lawsuits.
[Section 313]
ARRESTS AND SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DSEA could allow members and supporters of GOA and other organizations to be stripped of their citizenship [Section 501], arrested and held indefinitely without charges, here or abroad [Section 503-6), in secret at a secret location [Section 201],
without access to an attorney or benefit of constitutional protections.
THE PATRIOT ACT II: TERRORIZING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PAGE TWO
CLICK HERE FORAMERICAN PIE AND THE ARMAGEDDON PROPHECY HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE FORTHE MYSTERY OF THE SEVEN THUNDERS
CLICK HERE FOR THE GENETIC CODE IS THE GENESIS WORD IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
CLICK HERE FOR THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON SHALL BE TURNED TO BLOOD!
CLICK HERE FOR THE SONG OF THE LAMB
CLICK HERE FORTHE LAMB, THE TEN HORNS, AND THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST
CLICK HERE FOR BEHOLD! AND HE HAD A NAME WRITTEN THAT NO MAN KNEW BUT HE HIMSELF
Rev. 17:12: And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
www.gunowners.org
NOTE! After reading and learning the American Pie Bible study project I suggest that you read and learn the following Bible study projects, and learn them in the order that they are listed. The links to them are immediatly below. If you don't
study them in the order that they are listed, you may become confused.
Last Update: 06/16/2007
