McCain Lieberman Propose New Legislation: Indefinite Detention of Americans Without Trial

photo Kai Mörk

Sean Sailor

March 14, 2010

March 4th, 2010, Senator John McCain, Senator Joseph Lieberman and eight other co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 3081, the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010″. The full of text of which can be located here.

As with most modern legislation, there will be various propaganda efforts and counter-efforts to define for the public a mental image of what the law actually does.

Meanwhile, the actual facts will be easily hidden.

This process has been perfected to a high science in American politics and makes true political discourse impossible for the citizens of this alleged “democracy”.

The game is easy. Almost all legislation is now written in hundreds of needless pages while at the same time- and this is key- endless references are made to subsections of subsections buried deep within US Code.

The voter is generally at the mercy of pundits selected by the corporate media to explain to them just what the law will or will not do.

This process has been exploited to the hilt in Washington.

I submit three glaring examples of this-  1) NAFTA 2) the Patriot Act and 3) the “bailout bill” of 2008.

I further submit that the majority of the people of this nation still to this day do not understand what these three laws actually do.

They have heard much debate pro and con by “experts” , both before and after the passage of these three and the majority still don’t know what to believe on the key points of them to this day.

The opponents of  constitutional restraint upon government love to bellow glowing tributes to “democracy” to the masses of sheeple. They are the same ones pushing these labyrinthine (therefore, unreadable)  laws on the American public.

And the reasons why they talk in such endearing terms about “democracy” can be found somewhere in the endless mazes of those laws.

A truly restrained government wouldn’t be able to bury codes within laws that abrogate the people’s rights.

The voter, the one that is alleged to be making the decisions in this “democratic process” isn’t privy to the information about that which they are supposed to be deciding. They have to rely on “interpretations”. They after all, have jobs to attend to and they are most likely not a lawyer. Even then, these bills are usually so complex only the authors know the true meaning of them.

For a further analysis of this process, I refer the reader to Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Each time the pigs would again be caught changing the “Rights of  All Animals”, the sheep never knew who to believe about the changes that were made.

Like the sheep in Animal Farm, most people are unable to read these laws. They are too complicated.

The “pigs” say one thing and there are various animals that go along with the pigs on everything, such as the rat that knows he gets extra goodies only by helping the pigs with their lies. There may be a donkey that’s able to read, but he’s too cynical to think anything he could say would change anything.

And then there’s an old horse that is the one of the few dissenting voices that says “they are changing the rules and its bad for you”.

Just think of me as that old horse. They are changing the rules. And its bad for you.

However this legislation is, uncharacteristically, relatively uncomplicated. It is difficult for this researcher to fathom its purpose, even after a careful review. In that, as far as actually changing anything about existing law (as interpreted in the courts as of now)  it does nothing and changes nothing.

It does however have a purpose, of course. That the purpose is not readily apparent is not unusual. An example of this is at the height of debate over the “bailout bill”, opponents were unable to define what the bill did that had not already been done for decades- without a “bailout bill”.

That’s right. There was nothing new, unusual or different about bailing out banks that the US gov had not already been doing for decades. Neither the amount nor the process or the reasons behind it were any different from countless bailouts performed, more or less silently, within the confines of unconstitutional bureaucracy in the US government. As was so well described by James Watt, Secretary of Interior under Ronald Reagan. In his memoirs he details how the process works and writes of how in 1982 he found out.

In amazement, I leaned back in my large leather chair, only two seats from the President of the United States. I realized nothing in the world could keep these high government officials from scrambling to protect and bail out a few and very large and sorely troubled banks.

Right. Remember, this is money that will never be repaid and everyone at the table is aware of this. There was nothing new about this type of bail out. It had been done dozens of times.

Then why all the debate in Congress?  Why all the talk of “martial law in America if we vote no on this bill” ?  Why not just do it silently, as they had for decades?

It took some time to discover.  By the time most potential opponents had found out the answer to this conundrum, the bill had already passed.

Just as in Animal Farm, the sheep vote mostly based on emotional reasons.

Who sounds the best? Who is most likable, Al Gore or Ross Perot? Coke or Pepsi? Who keeps their cool best under pressure?  Which danced best on “Ellen”?

There were indeed reasons behind the bailout bills, make no mistake. But I doubt fewer than one in ten Americans is aware of the actual  purpose of that series of bills. Even most of those voting in Congress didn’t know or understand the purpose, especially early on. The purpose was buried deep in a series of subsections located within other, already existing law.

In the case of  the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, it too has its purpose.

I have read the legislation, it provides for nothing new that is not already being done under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

I know the definition of ” Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent”. I am also aware that US citizens can be classified as such now. The provisions of 3081 are quite clear on this issue. That means you US citizen.

I also know the definition of “engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities”

I know these things because I have followed the definition of “materially supporting hostilities” on through up to the United States Supreme Court.

Is the title of this article  “McCain Lieberman Propose New Legislation: Indefinite Detention of Americans Without Trial” an accurate assessment of the bill?

In that it strips away the right of an American to a trial? Yes.

I thought that was one of our fundamental rights.

It gets worse.

Again, if you are only suspected of “material support” you can be detained indefinitely. The legislation gives the President authority to designate a special police force that will decide who is to be held “suspect” in this regard.

And further, “material support” is defined in the courts now as even including humanitarian aid, literature distribution and political advocacy, to any foreign entity that the government has designated as a “terrorist” group.

As people have found out after having been prosecuted under provisions of the Patriot Act for just such activities.

That right. For providing information. And I don’t mean information on how to build a bomb. Or even to commit an illegal act.  As  Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project so clearly illustrates. Humanitarian Law Project was found guilty of disseminating information on how to proceed through a legal process. And were found guilty of “material support” for doing so.

I can’t yet say what the purpose of this new legislation is or if it will pass. More additions may be waiting in the wings to be added at a later date before the final vote.

But I find it intriguing that it states so clearly what is already true of the Patriot Act’s provisions.

If you are even suspected of a crime under this law,  the special police can make the determination that you can be held indefinitely without trial.

Further, that giving information that “supports” the “enemy” you are guilty. (as decided, not in a court of law, but by some faceless bureau worker “selected” by the President)

That’s right. I bet a lot of those that have a “patriot” radio show or website aren’t aware that they are often times breaking the provisions of the Patriot Act by broadcasting what could be considered as information “supporting” the “enemy”. Doing so could result in your indefinite detention under the Patriot Act.

Now McCain and Lieberman want to pass a law that puts another layer of “legality” on the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act. So that even if that act were allowed to sunset, its provisions would still exist.

I can’t say yet whether or not that is the full purpose of the bill, though it appears that way as of this writing.

What this horse is trying to tell you is that they are changing the rules again. And it’s not going to be good for you.

Sean Sailor  March, 2010

Disinformation A Constant Theme In Media

Hal Turner

Sean Sailor

March 8, 2010

You have reached this page due to a disinformation campaign.

You have no idea who I am, what I believe or what my motives might be.

You don’t know my religious or political beliefs, my background- or anything else about me for that matter.

And that is precisely my motive, to  make you realize exactly that.

For years Hal Turner turned out his brand of racist rant. Just despicable stuff, just purely vile racist trash. His rants went even further-  he often proposed violence while on air. He did this for years, mind you.

Right now, he is on trial for threatening the lives of  federal judges.

Sounds like a bad guy right?

No, he is one the good guys!

Remember now, he and Sean Hannity are good friends. Turner was on Hannity’s show often.

Hal Turner was just a FBI informant- that’s all. He was paid, by the FBI, in excess of $100,000 to spew his racist rant.

See? He was obviously one of the good guys.

Or perhaps things are all a bit harder for you to figure out than you have realized up till now.

For years he was the bad guy right? That was obvious, from his dealings with neo Nazis, his racist rants and his calls for violence.

No, he was one of the good guys. You were wrong.

Or another example is Anderson Cooper. He has a very cute little bio that he created for himself. He says he started out on whim and broke into the business all on his own. It’s all so very cute and really shows how far a kid with nothing more than a second-hand video recorder and a dream can go.

It’s so cute and inspiring until you realize that Mr Cooper was, is and always has been a CIA agent.

Then it’s no longer so cute. And his bio makes more sense too.

He says he “started off alone” with no experience. He just took off to cover Burma. Alone.

Uh huh.

Q. Did you go by yourself?

A. Yeah. I had a friend of mine make a fake press pass on a Macintosh, and I snuck into Burma and hooked up with some students fighting the Burmese government. I had met the person who was involved in the Burmese student movement in New York, and they gave me the name of a contact in a town in Western Thailand. So I found my way to this town that was like a Wild West border town, and I contacted the person and said I was a reporter. We met in an ice cream parlor, and then they agreed to take me in, and they smuggled me across the border into Burma. Anderson Cooper

Had a “friend” make him a fake press pass, then a couple calls was sufficient to get a contact to be smuggled across the Burmese border. To make contact and hang out with Burmese rebel leaders. Right.

Cooper

Anyway, Cooper is CIA, as even just reading his bio in Wikipedia reveals.

If it makes you feel comforted somehow that Cooper is CIA, keep in mind that you are just now learning how this works.

My whole point is that you have no idea whats going on.

After all, for all those years the rabid White Supremest Hal Turner… was the bad guy hanging out with neo nazis remember?

No, he was the good guy paid by the FBI to do that. All those years you would have had no idea.

Dont think that Anderson Cooper is some sort of unusual case. What I want to impress upon the reader is that this is the rule rather than the exception.

Carl Bernstein’s 1977 expose revealed that over 400 US journalists were actually CIA operatives.

However, times change. There are now more journalists, therefore more than 400 of them are CIA operatives at this point.

Fact is, that would only be counting those in the media that are CIA. Never mind for a moment other US agencies-  there are those in the media that are foreign military intelligence operatives.

One such example is Yaron Brook. Brook poses as an American Patriot giving speeches at Tea Party rallies.When in fact he is nothing of the sort. He is an Israeli Military Intelligence officer running a many years long intelligence psyop.

I want to impress upon the reader that the same problem exists within political movements also.

A lot of people recently joined the Coffee Party, hoping it to be a better alternative to the Tea Party in stopping the Obama administration.

I wonder how many of them know, as was revealed last week, that the founder of the Coffee Party is in fact a Obama operative.

Confused?

I hope so.

It’s very simple. You have no idea whats going on, what lies are being told to you by whom or why.

There ya go!

This is not Sean Sailor, and Michael Savage may be a Weiner,- but I’m no racist.

Those guys are paid by the FBI to run that stuff.

But if  next time you turn on your favorite news, or open that magazine to get your “news”-  you realize that you arrived there due to a misinformation campaign, then I have achieved my objective.

Even if it might have taken a misinformation campaign to get you here.

Sean Sailor March, 2010

MSM: Terror Attack Was Inside Job, Fox News Says Own Government Behind Terrorist Attacks

Bruce Ivins

Sean Sailor

March 2, 2010

After a 8 year investigation the FBI officially closed it’s “Amerithrax” case last month claiming deceased microbiologist Bruce Ivins “acted alone” in the October, 2001 anthrax mailings that resulted in the deaths of 5 people.

This however, is one “conspiracy theory” only an outright loon would believe, as it lacks any evidence linking Mr Ivins to the crime, even circumstantially.

A quick rundown of the facts are:

Nothing ties Ivins to the letters. Nothing ties the anthrax to Ivins either. He was one of over 100 others that had access the same materials. Material that was not of the type sent in the letters. Ivins did not have access to the type of weaponized anthrax used in the attack, nor was he able to make it himself.

“In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I’m one of them,” said Richard O. Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID

Indeed, an electron microscope, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be needed to manufacture such a highly refined product. Not to mention years of specialized training that Ivins also lacked.

There must be something that ties this crime to Ivins? the incredulous reader might be asking himself at this point. No and no again I will answer, there is none.

The FBI’ s released documents show there was no evidence, no testimony, no witnesses and no confession of guilt. These same FBI documents reveal that the majority of the investigation centered upon finding something sexual in nature to hang upon Mr. Ivins.

Lacking any evidence that he was somehow linked to the terrorist attacks, the FBI then targeted the investigation on Ivins’ sex life and preferences.

Hundreds of FBI man hours were then spent investigating what kind of magazines Ivins enjoyed, his sexual preferences and making calls to mail order purveyors of marital aids to see if someone might remember him.

Weeks of Special Agent time was poured into finding out if Ivins was the same man who played a few songs at a sorority house in Nashville decades ago.

Amazingly, no one could remember.

Ivins spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against a case that, in the end, centered around his sexual proclivities and had nothing to do with the capital crime for which he was “suspected” of.

A read through the available case documents shows a man many years active in his church and charities such as the Red Cross, with no criminal record.

A man who was, in the words of a colleague, “hounded” by the FBI with multiple raids upon his home, interrogations, surveillance and compelled grand jury appearances. He passed 2 lie detector tests, survived multiple audits of his workplace and went through an incredible amount of strain.

In the end however, the FBI was unable to link Mr Ivins in the Amerithrax attacks no matter how many panty sniffing FBI agents went into the field to investigate sorority houses.

The FBI would have had to give up, until a curious thing happened on July 27, 2008: Bruce Ivins killed himself.

In the end, the “dangerous” scientist killed himself with Tylenol, leaving no suicide note. Even though he had protested his innocence to the end and had recently emailed a friend that he had no intention of killing himself.

Just days after Ivins’ “suicide” the government stance changed from that of being unable to charge him, to that he did it. Not only that, but lacking any evidence that he did do it, they were never the less sure he acted had alone.

On August 6, just 10 days after Ivins death, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, officially made a statement that Ivins was the “sole culprit” in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

That has been the official government line since that time, culminating in the FBI official closing of the case with the same pronouncement.

Again, lacking any evidence tying him to the terrorist attacks, they have instead accused Mr. Ivins of being a cross-dresser and point out that they found girly magazines when going through his trash.

The mainstream press in America, like the lap-dogs that they are, sensed the tone of how they were to cover it from that point and have obliged the government almost completely since that time. Ignoring the fact that no evidence exists to link Ivins to the crime, they smear him as  the “anthrax letter scientist” cross-dresser that’s “into bondage”.

Fox News, whose commentators regularly accuse anyone that suggests 9/11 needs to be re-investigated as being a “nut” that thinks something as preposterous as ‘our own government” was responsible, has no problem saying the same with the Amerithrax case. They have to. Everyone knows the anthrax came from Ft. Detrick.

For some reason, instead of “our own government” its a Benedict Arnold amongst us. Something that must never have occurred to them concerning 9/11. Because they keep saying “own government” as if every single person in the government down to the lowest postal worker would have had to been in on it.

No problem with that in the Amerithrax case though. No mention of it being a “loony” idea that “our own government” did it, no commentators stating that the FBI position is “blasphemous”.

So much for an “inside job” being crazy: MSM loves the idea with the Ivins case. They don’t even need any evidence. Nor are they interested in any. It’s good enough for them to quote a FBI agent as saying that he heard Ivins himself say he was a cross-dresser, then proceed to list what the FBI found in their panty raids.

As to the Amerithrax crime?  They covered that part in the headline Anthrax Letter Scientist ‘Obsessed’ With Bondage, Sorority. What more proof do you need?

As for myself, none.

I have all the proof I need to know that the MSM would get on the airwaves tomorrow and announce that the moon was made of cheese- if only they could be convinced that it’s the official government position on the matter.

Sean Sailor March, 2010

Obama Signs Patriot Act Extension

Sean Sailor

February 28, 2010

President Barack Obama signed a one-year extension of the Patriot Act on the night of the 27th, the absolute latest possible before it was set to expire.

In doing so, Obama signed the extension of an act that he says ” puts our own Justice Department above the law” and “allows federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge”.

That the so-called Patriot Act is unconstitutional is well enough realized by the general public. For most however, the people and events that surround it remain murky, along with its origins and purpose.

Yet, for a true understanding of how such a blatant abrogation of the Constitution is possible- how a “watch-dog” press could be convinced to be quiet, how opposition could be silenced- one must  know the Patriot Act’s origins.

Written primarily by the dual citizen Chertoff, along with the help of a Vietnamese immigrant, the “Patriot Act” was prepackaged prior to 9/11.

Voted into law during the false flag anthrax attacks of October, 2001 by a Congress not allowed to read it and barred from convening until just before the vote, the Act was a master stoke in the coup d’état of 2001.

Just after the Patriot Act was released, Ames strain (Pentagon) anthrax was also released- sent to those that might oppose the law on constitutional grounds- members of the media and the leadership of the Democrat party.

A former opponent, Senator Tom Daschale suddenly supported the measure after receiving anthrax at his office.

Or as Senator Patrick Leahy another Democrat, Patriot Act opponent and recipient of anthrax said:

“I don’t think it’s somebody insane. And I think there are people within our government—certainly from the source of it—who know where it came from. And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

Yes Mr. Leahey, and now the rest of us do also- it was made in Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

“What I want to know—I have a theory. But what I want to know is why me, why Tom Daschle, why Tom Brokaw?”

Mr. Leahy, you know the answer to that question.

That same fear also keeps the media quiet to this day every time the Patriot Act come back up for a vote of re-authorization.

Sean Sailor, February 2010

Patriot Act Fight in U.S. Supreme Court while Senate poised to pass

Sean Sailor

February 24, 2010

Yesterday the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) opened their case before the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge a portion of the Patriot Act. The case was originally brought in 1998 on behalf of a human rights group, a retired federal administrative judge, a doctor, and several nonprofit groups. It challenges the constitutionality of the law (later incorporated into the Patriot Act) that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the government has designated as “terrorist.”

The plaintiffs charge that the law goes too far in making speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity a crime.  The lower courts have unanimously declared several provisions of the law – including one added by the Patriot Act – unconstitutionally vague because they encompass speech and force citizens to guess as to their meaning.

However this is the first case of it’s kind before the U.S. Supreme Court  to test the Patriot Act’s constitutionality.

CCR  Attorney David Cole said:

“This statute is so sweeping that it treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In our view, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make advocating human rights or other lawful, peaceable activity a crime simply because it is done for the benefit of, or in conjunction with, a group the Secretary of State has blacklisted.

People and groups such as Humanitarian Law Project that CCR is representing in this case now before the Supreme Court.

“My speech is particularly nonviolent,” says Ralph Fertig, president of  HLR “I’ve gone to jail in the United States for my advocacy for peace.”

Fertig and HLR have helped the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, make human rights claims before international bodies. They have trained Kurdish leaders in peacemaking negotiations and have brought them to Washington to lobby. But when the PKK was designated an international terrorist organization under the Patriot Act the Humanitarian Law Project went to court.

The very heart of the matter before the court is free speech. Keep in mind, this provision of the Patriot Act that CCR is challenging is not a law aimed at terrorism directly-  plans for or advocating violence, or at aiding in such acts or even a financial contribution to a certain group. Rather, speech as such. Note that the law is aimed at any type of “aid”, including information. What kind of information you might ask? State secrets? Top secret, classified matters of national security? No. And again no.

The provision is so sweeping as to include dissemination of any information that could be construed as “aiding” such a group. Indeed, this article itself could be considered aiding PKK. Without hyperbole, under the Patriot Act this article you are reading is illegal- and if you were to pass it on another you would be guilty also.

In fact, as Mr Cole pointed out, even filing this case on behalf of his American client was a violation of the provision.

And you might have thought you had freedom of speech. Not under the terms of the Patriot Act.
This case challenges those aspects of the “material support” statute that criminalize pure speech. Any speech that falls within these terms – no matter how peaceable and nonviolent – is a crime if communicated to, for, or with the collaboration of any organization placed on a list of “foreign terrorist organizations” maintained by the State Department. A conviction can result in sentences of 15 years to life.

As I pointed out earlier this month, the United States government gives military equipment, training and financial aid to the tune of $billions each year to one of the bloodiest terrorist organizations in the world- the AUC. An organization on the State Department’s own list of terrorist organizations that its illegal to give “material aid” to.

It will also be interesting to see how this free speech case pans out in light of the fact of the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That also was a free speech issue, one involving the question of  incorporated entities and domestic political campaigning.
Eric Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is simply about speech period.

Also at this time reports have it that the U.S. Senate is prepared to reauthorize the Patriot Act, without revision, before the deadline of this February 28 as part of a jobs bill with the full support of President Barrack Obama and Harry Reid.

Sean Sailor February, 2010

Patriot Act Vote Deadline: February 28, 2010

Smiling Harry Reid watches Bush sign Patriot Act 2001

Sean Sailor

February 15, 2010

The so called “Patriot Act”- the Constitution shredding legislation signed into law in October, 2001 is set for renewal this February 28th.

Barrack Obama has reversed his pre-election stance 180 degrees since becoming President and has consistently pressured lawmakers to pass a renewal of the Patriot Act. Even though prior to being elected President, he noted many times the Act’s provisions destroy Constitutionally protected rights- apparently he is now in favor of destroying them.

This researcher has been attempting to find something, anything about President Barrack Obama that isn’t a lie- so far without success. Any tips from experts that might lead to the finding of such a result would be appreciated.

So, Professor Barry Soetoro “Obama”  (if you thought you had a tip for me already, a situation that Barry was honest about, sorry, but he was a “senior lecturer” not a professor, so again, another lie- its not easy to find one!) lifted his voice on the Senate floor in opposition to the Patriot Act- and the exact provisions in it that he now supports- why?

Allow the professor to explain:

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That’s all.

That’s correct Mr constitutional expert, it nullifies the 4th amendment entirely- go on professor…

Once a business or a person receives notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it, and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment…

Right Mr. ummm… “professor”.

Actually, the damage to the Bill of Rights that this legislation represents goes much further than Mr Barrack Hussein Barry Obama Soetoro said on the Senate floor that day.

Or perhaps didn’t say- as the Gang on the Hill often have ghost writers put into the record things they wished they had said, had the nerve to say, or that somebody with money would like them to have said.  However that particular quote may have ended up in the record, he consistently expressed those same views when questioned about the matter in debates or interviews, so it seems safe to say that we can take that as his position.

Regardless, Barrack Obama- as President- now supports the Patriot Act. It would seem that Mr. Obama has forgotten everything he taught when he wasn’t a law professor.

Just as he has continued the torture programs, continued the wars, now supports NAFTA, wants more trade agreements, PROMISED he wouldn’t use signing statements and does, promised the American people that they would have at least 5 days to review a bill online before he signed it into law and they don’t and- etc etc.

Obama has lied and broken every pledge, every promise he made to the American people while running for President.

If one didn’t know better, one might think Obama was merely a well paid actor following a script. Oh, that’s right, he is just a well paid actor following a script.

Following the script written for him perfectly, Obama now pushes for renewal of the Constitution shredding Patriot Act. Ignoring his party, those that voted for him, the American people and even his own words- in addition to the Constitution he swore to uphold- Obama now pushes lawmakers to pass the Patriot Act even though:

The Justice Department’s Inspector General concluded in two separate investigations in 2006 and 2008 that the FBI repeatedly and routinely violated the law and people’s due process. Further, the Inspector General just released yet another set of findings documenting even worse FBI abuses.

In lock step with Obama on this is the Senate’s Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Seen smiling at the signing of the Patriot Act in 2001, rumor has it Reid has plans to assure passage of the bill again this February 28.

John Tate, President of Campaign for Liberty recently wrote:

insiders tell me Harry Reid plans to sneak the Patriot Act re-authorization through the Senate as soon as they come back into session as part of a massive $85 billion special interest giveaway as a “Jobs Bill.”

This bill is loaded with pork barrel spending and pay-offs to favored senators, union bosses and big government advocacy groups

I have little doubt Mr Tate’s sources have informed him correctly.

Mr Tate has called for the people of the United States to write their Senators telling them to oppose this legislation.

In whatever way we each personally choose to protest this blatant abrogation of the U.S. Constitution, now is the time to make our voices heard.

MSM has chosen to completely ignore this issue.

Dont let them program you into forgetting one of the most important issues facing us right now-  stopping the renewal of the so-called “Patriot Act”- the legislation that destroyed the Bill of Rights.

Sean Sailor February, 2010

Obama to push more trade agreements

"I will renegotiate NAFTA"

Sean Sailor

February 12, 2010

While campaigning in 2007-2008 Obama repeatedly told crowds of factory workers “I will renegotiate NAFTA to make it fairer for the American worker”.

It was soon discovered that Obama’s senior staffers had made calls to high-ranking Canadian officials informing them that no changes would be made to NAFTA- “its just campaign rhetoric“.

Now, after having reneged on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA,  Barrack Obama is publicly stating his support for such “Free Trade Agreements” (FTAs) with even more countries.

In an interview with Business Week released Feb 11, Obama said he would “attempt to push through Congress legislation for FTAs with South Korea, Panama and Colombia”.

This goes further than his statement on the matter in his January 27  State of the Union speech:

“(the U.S.) will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia”

Now he says in the interview he will “push through legislation”.

There’s so much Mr. Obama didn’t explain in his speech.

For example, Obama didn’t explain what a  “key partner” is. However, one might guess it could be a synonym for “puppet state”, as this seems the only thing these 3 nations have in common.

He also left out that he mentions these 3 specifically because they have not yet signed on to a larger plan that has been in the works for several years.

Many countries have already joined, an example being Peru, whose people held demonstrations against the US Peru Free Trade Agreement that resulted in a massacre in June, 2009.

Now Mr Obama wants to bring the same joy to neighboring Colombia.

Never mind that U.S. spending in Colombia already exceeds $3 bil a year- and is now set to climb with Obama’s announcement last year of 7 new military bases there.

Mr. Obama also forgot to explain, both in his speech and BW interview that all of the “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA  have cost millions of jobs in the U.S. and saddled the nation with a debt of trillions.

Also missing from Obama’s speech was any mention of the fact that NAFTA and all of  its AFTA, CAFTA alphabet brethren aren’t really trade agreements at all, but rather:

NAFTA is… ” the architecture of a new international system… the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations”

From the article With NAFTA U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order

by Henry Kissinger (1

These agreements have been more destructive of American wealth, industry and sovereignty than any other legislation in U.S. history.

That’s the New World Order poison in this alphabet soup that Obama is now asking you to believe is good for you when he says he will “push through legislation” for it.

If you weren’t aware of this, you must not have been on the list for a personal call from one of his staffers to explain what his lies actually mean.

Sean Sailor February,2010

1) LA Times July 18, 1993, pp m-2,6.

Deaths in demonstrations against S.A. NWO trade agreements

Sean Sailor

February 9, 2010

A communiqué released by the Association of Indigenous Councils of Antioquia claims that in the early morning of January 30, after flyovers and shootings from an airplane, bombs were dropped from a helicopter, one of which hit a house occupied by five people in the town of Alto Guayabal. Four people were injured, including a 20-day-old baby.

The OIA report says that the bombing is linked to community resistance to mining exploration.

The group claims the Air Force action was in direct retaliation to the February, 2009  referendum against mining that voted “no” to the proposed project in their territory.

This incident is a further reminder that violence related to the race to capture scarce resources continues unabated in South America.

As to government counter-claims regarding the event:

“In the area there was no (Indigenous) homes. In the area there was a corn storage area where 25 FARC terrorists were hidden,” General Jorge Ballesteros told reporters

However, as I have previously explained , “FARC terrorists” has been the favored excuse for state sponsored  acts of  political repression in Colombia for decades.

The Colombian government claims attacks by “terrorists”, then uses this as an excuse to commit atrocities to force indigenous peoples from their land, protect corporate interests and keep a monopoly on the drug trade.

Much of the violence in Colombia, particularly in Antioquia, is attributed by indigenous groups directly to the Andean Free Trade Agreement.

As was highlighted earlier this year in the “false positives scandal”- the army murdered civilians, then dressed them in rebel uniforms and gave the dead men guns. They were then pictured as “terrorists”  killed in combat.

Also, last year demonstrations against the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement resulted in the deaths of 20 protesters in Peru June 5 and 6.

June 5th – Photo: Thomas Quirynen

These types of incidents are increasingly becoming an everyday part of life for millions in South America as an ever encroaching New World Order continues to grab every resource, by any means.

Sean Sailor February,2010

Family cries CIA cover-up of American missionary deaths

Photo AP

Sean Sailor

February 7, 2010

Relatives of an Michigan family killed when their plane was shot down over Peru during a CIA operation nine years ago have accused the United States government of a cover-up.

Jim and Veronica Bowers were working as Christian missionaries along the Amazon River in northern Peru.

They were flying back to camp with their two children, six-year-old son Cory and infant daughter Charity, when their Cessna was targeted by CIA spotters in 2001.

The issue was recently highlighted again February 3rd, when ABC News released  video coverage of the shoot-down taking place.

After 9 years of silence, CIA has finally taken responsibility, timing the admission with release of the video.

The admission of responsibility was also timed just before this weeks much vaunted memorial service for the CIA held by Barrack Obama.

Lost in most media coverage is the struggle for justice the family has endured over the last 9 years, all the while meeting with official denials.

Now, after a 9 year internal CIA investigation, the agency has found none of its officers acted inappropriately in the incident.

In a typical Orwellian twist, the agency stated in the same release that it had taken disciplinary action against 16 of the officers involved.

The agency was able to keep mum about, and allowed to do a 9 year “internal investigation”, while the voices of the victims’ family went unheard.

Garnett Luttig, Ms. Bower’s father, told newspapers in the foreign press that the US government had lied and “covered up” what really happened to his daughter and granddaughter.

“I am sick and tired of this government,” Mr Luttig said.
“There is nothing but a bunch of liars up there.

“They have lied, they have covered up.
“My opinion is some people need to go to prison, a bunch of them.”

The Military Industrial Media Complex coverage in the U.S. will completely ignore the larger questions- such as if the United States really needs an army of operatives across the world targeting people for assassination.

The Bowers were targeted in a long running operation that covers most of the northern half of South America. It has the claimed purpose of denying the “air bridge” of cocaine into Columbia from neighboring countries- and that in turn is part of a larger, multi-billion dollar boondoggle begun in the late 1990s known as Plan Columbia .

Plan Columbia is a part of the ongoing “War on Drugs”, a phony war that might be considered the forerunner of today’s phony ” War on Terror”.

Plan Columbia and its web of operations that runs throughout South America, such as the one in Peru that killed Ms Bowers and her daughter, have merely had the  effect of concentrating the drug trade in Columbia- creating a monopoly there.

However this is no secret, as the CIA’s own intelligence reports projected the plan wouldn’t slow production of cocaine. The intelligence briefs further predicted the plan would have the effect of creating a monopoly in Columbia.

These reports were created to project what effect Plan Columbia would have before it was instituted. The projections proved amazingly accurate.

As related elsewhere, the opium trade that supplies the major heroin markets of the United States and Europe is concentrated in Afghanistan.

Plan Columbia has the distinction of being able to eradicate most of the opium poppies in Columbia, reporting very good success beginning in 2001- 2002.

Around the time Afghanistan began to lead in world production.

However, eradication of the coca crop in Columbia has been a dismal failure .

The reason for this is quite simple- Plan Columbia was never expected or intended to stop cocaine production in Columbia.

Its purpose is guarantee a monopoly on cocaine production to those favored by the U.S. government- those that give protection to corporate interests.

It’s also an excuse to have a military presence in the region and it supplies the money to buy off  governments in the region to allow covert military bases.

And as with Afghanistan and the monopoly of the heroin trade there, Columbia now has a monopolistic control over the supply of cocaine.

A monopoly not possible without the kind of operations that shot down the Bowers plane.

Ms Bowers and her daughter were innocent victims, the voices of her family lost in the din of the continuing drum beat of propaganda in the War on Drugs.

Sean Sailor February, 2010

Human Rights Watch Debunks Columbian Demobilization

113 page report:  New militias attack rights activists, unionists and community leaders in Columbia

Children forced into paramilitary

Sean Sailor

February 4, 2010

According to the government of Columbia more than 31,000 fighters have been demobilized from the paramilitary coalition known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia or AUC.

However, a report released February 3rd by New York based Human Rights Watch alleges newly emerged successor groups have engaged in activities ranging from mass murder to extortion, in effect replacing the AUC in everything but name.

The importance of the story lays in the broad outlines the following facts:

The Colombian government agreed to demobilize the AUC in the wake of the 2006 Colombian Congressional Parapolitics scandal, “Paragate”, when 3 Congressmen were arrested and 63 others came under investigation for supporting the AUC- a known terrorist organization linked to thousands of atrocities. They group has also been accused of many black military operations in Venezuela, resulting in the detentions of operatives there.

The investigation later broadened and several of the Congressmen have been convicted since that time, receiving long prison sentences. In other words, Columbia is a terrorist state that receives $billions in U.S. aid, particularly military hardware.

The ties between paramilitary forces in Columbia are not limited to the U.S. government though.

Corporations also have close relationships with these groups and give financial support to both left and right-wing paramilitaries; though aware the groups are committing acts of murder and extortion. Just one example of this is  charges filed by the Department of Justice against Chiquita Brands International.

Cincinnati based Chiquita, with $4.5 billion in annual revenue, agreed under its guilty plea in 2007 to pay a $25 million fine.

Chiquita admitted that it had paid the AUC paramilitary network for what it called “protection” for its employees.

The witnesses and documentation made clear that:

“In order to force workers to quit a union or their job, to stop pressing legitimate grievances, or to accept poor working conditions, the corporation routinely turned to the paramilitaries who acted by means of intimidation, threats, abductions, torture and murder for protection.”

As to the Human Rights Watch report released this week, Jose Miguel Vivanco, America’s Director for Human Rights Watch had this to say:

“According to the government, the (demobilization) process was successful. However, shortly after the demobilization process, new successor groups emerged in the entire country that continued the criminal activities,”

The importance of this lies in the fact that AUC was (is) much more than just a gang of drug runners, but in fact state sponsored terrorists.

The United States has trade talks scheduled for later this year and is eager to keep the issue of human rights quiet until after a deal has been agreed upon.

U.S. spending in Columbia exceeds $3 billion a year and is expected to grow.

Sean Sailor February, 2010