"S.1959/HR1955 Did Not Win In House By Margin of 404-6 - Needs To Be Investigated
December 15th, 2007
I’ve hosted a monumental amount of information in regard S 1959, and this information I received yesterday appears to be valid; after you’ve read it, the evidence presented herein indicates The House of Representatives DID NOT pass this Bill with a vote of 404-6, and this issue needs to be investigated immediately! I am reproducing parts of the information I received, and as always, it’s up to the reader to make up their own minds. If 23 members of the House were absent when the so-called “vote” took place, then how is it possible they say it passed by a vote of 404-6 ? This math wouldn’t add up for a second-grader, never mind the American people - and on this specific matter, I believe that an intensive investigation is not only warranted, but a necessity to find out how members who were not present seemed to vote on this issue, and by failing to certify the vote correctly, this Bill should be sent back to the House for reconsideration:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“A) Based on the compilation of links I am showing you below, I have drafted an open letter to Senator Susan Collins and Representative Jane Harmon which I am posting to the web, making a clear statement that when using the word “terrorism” and “Terrorists” in their Thought Crimes Prevention Bill S. 1959/HR 1955, (and in post-911 legislation generally), that they are using CODE LANGUAGE deliberately targeting vocal American people. The links below will unequivocally prove the validity of that claim. I am forwarding this message to you by way of suggesting that this use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” as Government code language needs to be exposed. I entreat you to join me in bringing this to light, with the public. I hope to see grassroots entities nation-wide alerting the public to this unequivocally fact-based, provable reality. If the facts were made public, then Americans would not be so gullible to government strategies based on “terrorist” witch-hunts. (War, civil liberties crack-downs, etc….)
With S.1959 on the Senate floor right now, I am suggesting that to bring this to light, based on a fact-based presentation, would be key to striking it down.
I also am making a statement that the war on terror, based on the facts/links below, is a fake. I urge you to join me in that effort. (I am calling it the war OF terror. Feel free to duplicate, if you wish, and use that term as your own—there’s no need to quote anybody. I want to see this message out there!)
For your reference, I have cut/pasted a few bullet point statements from the letter to Sen. Collins and Rep. Harmon, to show some statistical facts about the war on terror and how it really targets vocal citizens. Those facts are pasted below, just prior to the URL links which also prove the assertion that the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” are government code language.
Here’s the full text of the bill S.1959/HR 1955: http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z
B) I suggest that the claim that S.1959/HR1955 won in the House by a margin of 404-6 needs to be investigated. Because I have read articles on the web (apologies, I have no links) in which lawmakers mentioned that they knew nothing about the bill. I can say for sure though, that Tom attended a House Party in which Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Barbara Lee, and Rep Payne of New Jersey were all present: Tom brought the text of the bill with him and voiced the bill as a matter of concern. REP. PAYNE SAID THAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT, ASKING “OH, WAS THAT HR 205 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?” AND REP WOOLSEY AND LEE, ACCORDING TO TOM, SAID THEY “SEEMED VERY SKETCHY ABOUT IT”.
My question is: How does a bill pass by overwhelming majority and yet a number of lawmakers know nothing about the bill? Rep. Ron Paul stated in public that he would have voted “no” to “this dangerous and misguided bill” if he had not been out of town at the time the vote took place http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=47129. An Aide at Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s office told me that Woolsey was herself in a conference at the time the alleged “Vote” took place, and that 23 House members were absent at the time of the vote. HOW DOES CONGRESS SOMEHOW MANAGE TO VOTE WHEN OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE ABSENT? HOW DOES A BILL PASS BY SUCH MAJORITY WITHOUT THE REPS NOT EVEN RECOGNIZING THE NAME OF THE BILL?? I suggest this claim that it passed by such overwhelming majority should be opened up to investigation.
C) Based on the use of the term “Terrorist” as code language targeting vocal citizens, and based on the targeting of free thought as in Red China-like dictatorships, I am issuing a public call for Sen. Collins and Rep. Harmon to resign. The aim of this request is not to result in their “stepping down”: Instead, it is to prevent the Senate from voting “Yes” on the bill and to let politicians know that We, the People aren’t going to be raked over any more without asserting our non-violent and legitimate power. PLEASE JOIN THE CALL FOR THEM TO RESIGN BASED ON TARGETING FREE THOUGHT IN AMERICA.
D) A few bullet points about the bill S. 1959/H.R. 1955 excerpted from my letter:
‘Why use the legal terms that the Commission’s studies “should not” (a recommendation) affect civil liberties, yet the bill unequivocally states that the citizens “shall not” (an imperative) coerce the Government? Your motives to protect the Government’s best interest, but not that of the citizens, have been hereby confessed, in writing and even in proposed law.’
By making “recommendations” to the government based on the “radical“ thinking of these people, this bill is clearly aimed at squelching dissent later on, in future legislation.
Why discriminate against one particular social cross-sector and make “recommendations” to the government based on that discrimination?
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI now has unilateral, secret arrest powers without a judge‘s review or any probable cause required for such arrests. So why would you introduce S. 1959/H.R.1955 and send government agents to our college campuses, knowing this fact?
At an ACLU town hall meeting in San Francisco, a member of the University of California Berkeley students against the Iraq War testified on TV that they have been called a “terrorist” organization, are being tracked by surveillance cameras, and queried by police about speakers on campus. Many of these students are “piping down” out of fear of being on some government list. If that is the scenario currently in post-911 American society, how much more so will it be when government agents are on our college campuses, or even if there “only“ are “Studies” and “recommendations” being made about their selectively chosen social cross-sector?
Thank you all, very much!
FACTS TO PROVE THE WAR ON TERROR AS A FAKE, AND THE USE OF “TERRORIST/TERRORISM” AS GOVERNMENT CODE LANGUAGE TARGETING VOCAL CITIZENS:
The Red Cross estimates that more than 70% of Guantanamo detainees are innocent. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU echo each other with unremitting consistency that many “terrorist” detainees at Guantanamo are held (and a few released) “without ever having been so much as charged with a single crime”.
Former FBI agent Mike German e-mailed ACLU members that since 9-11-01, only ONE terrorist has been caught as the result of National Security Letters (FBI terrorist subpoenas for private phone, medical, Internet and other records). 143,000 NSL’s were issued between 2003-2005 alone—-that’s 993 per week—-53% of which were for American citizens, born and naturalized alike.
Law professor Stephen Schulhofer writes, in the book “Liberty Under Attack”, that with the Patriot Act subpoena and arrest powers granted unilaterally to the FBI based on no probable cause, the FBI “were merely required to self-certify that they were acting in good faith”.
Couple that with the gag orders accompanying the FBI-issued National Security Letters without a judge’s review, plus the violently radicalized, homegrown terrorist jail sentences of FIVE YEARS just for telling anybody that one received such a subpoena at the momentary whim of the individual FBI agent—and NO WONDER Americans believe that we still have free speech! NO WONDER Americans think that the FBI are really targeting terrorists! With gag orders/jail sentences and zero judicial involvement wrapping the whole package in utmost secrecy, Congress itself doesn’t know the extent of the abuses which are occurring even as we speak!
http://www.rightsmatter.org/multimedia/
please read this, pass it on and please ask journalists to cover the issues: Note who is affected and how. So important. Thank you!!
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/17548prs20050518.html
“Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity?” asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. “When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights.”
http://www.aclu.orompg/safefree/general/16960prs20031123.html
News of the classified (FBI) bulletin (about FBI crack-downs on dissent) also comes on the heels of an ACLU lawsuit against the Secret Service for the continuing practice of allowing pro-Bush protesters to remain visible to cameras during presidential appearances, and corralling anti-Bush protesters into pens or designated areas far from the media.
www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/18709res20041201.html
Examples of California free speech/free association violations on ACLU National’s website
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31878prs20070920.html
Info about the ACLU free speech forum which was just held in September ‘07, including 25 page report
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882_pf.html
“My National Security Gag Order” is a true story written in the Washington Post by a recipient of a National Security Letter (NSL) carrying a gag order with a penalty of five years in jail for telling. The country: Post-11 USA.
www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/28000res20060314.html
an actual FBI document showing the FBI investigation of the Thomas Merton Peace Center, as represented by the ACLU. The religious profiling is of note.
www.aclu.org/spyfiles/index_old.html
This summarizes the ACLU’s attempts (most of them stonewalled) to get information about the spying of the FBI on peaceful activist groups and religious groups. It also lists who they are, what the ACLU has done, evidence they managed to get in spite of stonewalling, etc.
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/20073prs20050718.html
This link takes you to the ACLU’s statement that they, as an organization, are being spied on (more than a thousand FBI pages about the ACLU), as are other groups.
There is another FBI document shown on the ACLU’s website, which was almost entirely blacked out by the FBI prior to being released. I couldn’t find it when I searched the site: Maybe one of you can find it. I went to the “Search” box and entered FBI documents. It’s interesting to see and shows, in living color, the attempts of this Administration to stonewall.
http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm
It’s interesting to see what conservatives have to say about this, and read the legal analysis. Note how Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way and more all agree in their analysis of the Patriot Act.
I have read that parts of Patriot II were passed into law on the sly: Bush snuck parts of it into other benign bills to assure their passage. I don’t know whether or not the power to revoke Americans’ citizenships passed: I’m still trying to find out. And I’d sure like to know what other parts did pass. Anybody have that info?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I read all of the above, and it simply doesn’t add-up! If you peruse the comments in several different discussion forums and Blogs, you’ll find that when citizens called in to protest this Bill, many were advised they (Senate Members) haven’t even heard of it - although now, with the Internet stirring up the political landscape on this issue, it appears that the House of Representatives, under Nancy Pelosi’s watchful (or blind) eye, this Bill was passed when most of the membership didn’t even know what they were voting on, and the so-called “vote” - if the above allegations are true and correct - is a misrepresentation of the facts, which in no uncertain terms is fraud and possibly even treason if it was carried-out intentionally.
Now, in the Senate, Harry Reid has apparently caved into lobbyists and the Bush administration as documented by Scholars and Rogues. Read: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hates America and freedom. The complicity of Democrats that we voted into power in 2006 is shocking and demoralizing to those that believed they were voting to quash Bush’s constant assault on the constitution and the rule of law, but in actuality - many seem to be enabling Bush rather than standing-up to this criminal administration - and the people need to know why!
House speaker undermines Democrats' fight against ...
"baltimoresun.com
By John Nichols
December 17, 2007
Few serious observers of Congress would deny that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a disappointing leader for House Democrats. But now she appears to be something more troubling: a serious hindrance to the fight against the use of crude and objectionable torture techniques.
Democrats, and Republicans with a conscience, have gotten a good deal of traction in recent months in their battle to identify the use by U.S. interrogators of waterboarding - a technique that simulates drowning in order to cause extreme mental distress to prisoners - as what it is: torture. Arizona Sen. John McCain, a GOP presidential contender, has been particularly powerful in his denunciations of this barbarous endeavor.
Now, however, comes the news that Ms. Pelosi knew as early as 2002 that the United States was using waterboarding and other torture techniques and, far from objecting, appears to have cheered on the use of such tactics.
The Washington Post reported last week that Ms. Pelosi, who was then a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, was informed by CIA officials at a secret briefing in September 2002 that waterboarding and other forms of torture were being used on suspected al-Qaida operatives.
That's bad. Even worse is the revelation that Ms. Pelosi apparently supported the initiative.
According to the news reports, Ms. Pelosi had no complaint about waterboarding during a closed-door session she attended with Florida Rep. Porter J. Goss, a Republican who would go on to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts and Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham.
"The reaction in the room was not just approval but encouragement," recalls Mr. Goss.
How encouraging? It is reported that two of the legislators demanded to know whether waterboarding and other methods that were being employed "were tough enough" to produce the desired levels of mental anguish to force information from suspects who, under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, cannot be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.
Was Ms. Pelosi one of the "tough-enough" cheerleaders for waterboarding? That is not clear, as the speaker has refused to comment directly regarding her knowledge of torture techniques and encouragement of their use. Another member of the House who is closely allied with Ms. Pelosi did tell the Post, however, that the California Democrat attended the session, recalled that waterboarding was discussed, and "did not object."
If this is the case, Ms. Pelosi has provided aid and comfort to the Bush administration's efforts to deviate not just from the standards set by international agreements regarding war crimes but from the provision of the Bill of Rights that establishes basic requirements with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the custody of the United States.
Those deviations are precisely the sort of impeachable offenses that Ms. Pelosi has said are "off the table" regarding President Bush. Her association with the administration on the matter of torture calls into question the speaker's credibility on questions of how and when to hold the administration to account. It also raises a more mundane political question: When Republicans such as John McCain are standing up against waterboarding, isn't the credibility and the potential effectiveness of the House Democratic Caucus as an honest player in the debate profoundly harmed by the involvement of its leader in behind-the-scenes meetings that by all accounts encouraged the use of that technique?
John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, where this article originally appeared.
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun"
