Big Brother Is Watching You!

THE HISTORY OF TODAY'S BIBLE

-----

The King James Version (KJV) is an English translation of the Holy Bible, commissioned for the benefit of the Church of England at the behest of King James I of  England. The King James Bible gradually replaced the Geneva Bible. The King James Bible, first published in 1611, is perhaps the most influential English version used in the world today.  Though often referred to as the Authorized Version (AV), it was never officially sanctioned by the English monarchy or the clerical hierarchy of the Church of England. It is no longer in copyright in most parts of the world but has a special position in the United Kingdom, relating in part to the established religion. The development of the (KJV) Bible began when King James I called a conference at Hampton Court in 1604. Eventually, seven different editions of the King James Version were produced, the most recent of which was produced in 1769, and it is this edition which is most commonly cited as the King James Version (KJV). The motivation behind the KJV translation was in large part due to the Protestant belief that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine, and as such should be translated into the local vernacular. By the time that the King James Bible was written, there was already a tradition going back almost a hundred years of  Bible translation into English, starting with William Tyndale. The English Lutheran William Tyndale fled to another country when his projected translation of  The Bible looked as if it would offend the authorities and the church. Tyndale published his translation of The Book of Jonah in 1531. In 1534 Tyndale's revised translation of  The New Testament was published, the same year Martin Luther's complete German Bible appeared. In 1536, William Tyndale was martyred in Flanders, his body garroted by then burnt. Tyndale died before he could finish his final work on the translation of The Old Testament.

At the time of the King James Bible, the authorized version of the Church of  England was the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible, however, enjoyed little popular esteem, and its popularity was eclipsed by the Geneva Bible, whose marginal notes espoused a Protestantism that was too Puritan and radical for King James's taste. At the Hampton Court conference, King James proposed that a new translation be commissioned to settle the controversies, and hopefully, to replace the Geneva Bible and its questionable notes in the popular esteem of the church at that time in history. King James gave the translators instructions, which were designed to discourage polemical notes, and to guarantee that the new version would be conformed to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. The King James Version has traditionally been appreciated for the quality of the prose and poetry in it's translation. However, the English language, as well as other known languages used in today's world, has changed since the time of  the publication, and the translators of the Bible. Early translators used a version of  English that was somewhat archaic, at the time of the Bible's publication. For example, the King James Version uses words such as "ye", "thee", and "thou", and uses phrases such as "Fear not ye" (instead of "Do not be afraid"). This means that modern readers often find the KJV more difficult to read than recent translations.  The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are used. When any word had divers signification's, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith. The division of the chapters to be altered, or  not altered at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.  No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and be expressed in the text's translation.

Like the earlier English translations written by Tyndale and Geneva, the King James Version was translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts, bypassing the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text while the New Testament is based on the published version by Erasmus. The King James Version is a fairly literal translation of  these base sources; words implied but not actually in the original source are specially marked (either by being inside square brackets, as shown above, or as italic text). One aspect of its style was originally due to grammatical uncertainty. At the time William Tyndale made his Bible translation, there was uncertainty in Early Modern English as to whether the older pronoun his or the neologism  was the proper genitive case of the third person singular pronoun it. Tyndale dodged the difficulty by using phrases such as the blood thereof rather than choosing between his blood or its blood. By the time the King James translators wrote, usage had settled on its, but Tyndale's style was familiar and considered a part of an appropriately Biblical style, and they chose to retain the old wording. There are some differences from modern Bibles, which are based in part on more recently discovered manuscripts. Some conservative fundamentalist Protestants believe that the newer versions of the Bible, are based on corrupt manuscripts and that the King James Version is more authentic than the more recent versions.

The Bible should not be viewed as a book of historical or scientific fact. The Bible should not be viewed as the unquestioned and infallible word of God, because our current day Bible was written by man over the centuries, being translated into every form of written text and languages known today, in which numerous worded translations will differ to a degree in their meaning and their context. The Bible, perhaps should be viewed as a guideline of morality and inspired by faith in the belief of God, faith in it's teachings, and faith the crucifixion and resurrection of  His Son  Jesus, and the promise of  His second coming and the salvation of the world.

I feel The Book of Matthew, in verse 22;36 puts every thing into perspective when a individual asked Jesus which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy  mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. I myself feel certain possible archeology artifacts such as "The Spear" which pierced the side of Christ at the crucifixion. "The Shroud of Turin"  which some feel is the actual burial cloth of Christ. A burial box which holds the bones of  James, the brother of  Jesus, and numerous other archeology
artifacts have no meaning nor substance in faith to myself. I have not been in a church for four years, I have never seen a angel or a vision of some angelic being, nor have I heard a voice booming down from the sky. I believe in God, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost by faith alone. I have never claimed to be a scholar, a theologian, or a preacher. I have spent numerous time in researching the Bible, especially The Book of Revelation. The message is very clear in that humanity is heading toward a One World Government in which every human will be forced to receive some sort of mark in order to buy, sell, and then must glorify some global entity as a god. If they confess their faith to the true God and refuse this global mark, they will be killed.
Let us review the theology of mankind covering the last 600 years. Below are a few examples of past cultural beliefs.

In 1400 A.D. everyone believed the Earth was flat and not circular.

In 1633  A.D. the Astronomer Galieo proved that Earth revolved around the sun, but under pressure and possible death enforced on Galieo by the Church and The Roman  Inquisition, Galieo was forced into reversing his discovery, as at that time in history, the Roman Church felt this was a form of blasphemy as their religious belief was that the Earth was center of the universes and the sun revolved around the Earth.

In 1901 A.D. , a United States Patent Clerk claimed that everything that could be invented, has already been invented.

In the last 100 years, human endeavors in the advancement of  technology, medicine, military warfare, science, archeology, industry, transportation, astronomy (The Space Hubble)  have surpassed more in the last century than all the previous century achievements in knowledge since the world began. In closing, I do find one scientific fact interesting and proven by today's scientists.
1. The Universe creation was the result of The Big Bang Theory. The universe is estimated to be at least 14.5 billion years old.

2. The Sun is estimated to be 4.5 to 5 billion years old. The moon. 4.6 billion years old. The Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years old.

3. 200,000,000 years ago, the evolution of plants and mammals, beginning with the appearance of angiosperm, plants reproducing through flowers and fruits (nuts and seeds). The extinction of the Dinosaur was 65,000,000 years ago.

4. The spread of modern man is dated 100,000 to 12,000 years ago. The origins of modern humans dates back 150,000  years.

The Book of Genesis tells us in the chronicle order of creation. Genesis states God created the Universe, Our Solar system, the Earth, the beginning of plant and animal life, and the creation of man. My point is that the scientific chronicle order is EXACTLY the same order of  life in which is told in The Book of Genesis. How could the earliest human know the chronicle and scientific order in which the universe and our solar system, and biological and mamal and human life began?  As stated above, it was believed the earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the cosmos, later scientifically proven wrong. I  have always found this interesting concerning this subject on the order of universal events.

In closing, I would like make one more observation. A friend of mine, whom is a atheist, is infected with the AIDS virus. I never preach on my religious beliefs to anyone, but I do give them something to think about it. When my friend told me he had AIDS and that he didn't believe in God, I simply requested him to think about this scenario when he was close to death.  A verse found in The Gospel of Luke ( chapter 23 ) tells us that when Jesus was crucified, two other men, portrayed as criminals, were also crucified on the cross. One of the men asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus enters God's Kingdom. Jesus then told him, " Today, shalt thou shall be with me in paradise ".  My purpose of telling my friend this story was, even if a person is a unbeliever, that a simple prayer or speaking to God to forgive him of his sins and acknowledge his faith in God, he will be saved. So, when the end times do come, remember the other man on the cross whom asked  Jesus to remember him in Heaven.

     SPYWARE COMPSTAT & THE MATRIX
                                   --------  APRIL 13, 2004
-------------------------------------
-----------------------------------George Orwell & his 1984 Novel
In his classic novel, 1984, George Orwell described a totalitarian society in which the government had almost complete control over its people. Telescreens that could not be turned off displayed endless brainwashing propaganda government programs. The Telescreens not only transmitted governmental policies, they also transmitted back to the Thought Police both sounds and pictures from inside the homes.

FBI SEEKS MORE IN IT'S DATABASE DIET

                                      GIS & COMPSTAT

The use of computers have revolutionized global crime and has given law enforcement unlimited tools to fight cyber terrorist, even the tools of eliminating any rights, privacy, or judicial process. The United States was once founded on such documents as The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, and all those other freedoms that US citizens take for granted. Not only have the citizens of The United States lost numerous freedoms, but like a cancer, it is spreading like a virus on a global scale. Numerous Crime Mapping programs have been in use since 1990. The Geographic Information System ( GIS ) uses GPS satellites to analyze and map every square foot of the planet. In short, the Earth is transformed into a digital map. The usefulness of GIS to government law enforcement agencies is that these digital maps can be overlaid with strategic and tactical information in discovering a geographic pattern in numerous crimes such as rape, burglary, murder, and the areas where suspected criminals live and their known addresses. Another program which is a integrative form of the GIS system was reportedly developed by the New York City Police Department in 1994 which was named COMPSTAT. The COMPSTAT program is a advanced tool for law enforcement to better it's efficiency and accuracy in collecting and documenting evidence, which includes the advance use of biometric technology. COMPSTAT eventually grew into a nation wide data base for officers to access it, or abuse it. One draw back to this type of investagational tool was it may allow police to intrude on citizens privacy. The government deems intrusion on your privacy as a simple draw back.

                                                         ------ THE MATRIX
--------------------------------------------

The MATRIX contains 20 billion records from private databases. It is the largest database on the planet as far as the public knows. It has received $12 Million in funding from the federal government. The project is billed as a tool for state and local police, but organizers are considering giving access to the Central Intelligence Agency. In light of the recent decisions by New York and Wisconsin officials to terminate their participation in the controversial Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, more commonly known as MATRIX, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania today called on the General Assembly to bring Pennsylvania’s participation in MATRIX under legislative control.  Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon, South Carolina and Utah have also dropped out of their participation in the MATRIX, at least this is what they are saying. MATRIX is a federally funded, but controlled by a private company, Seisint, Inc. of  Boca Raton, Florida. Seisint was founded in 1998 and has locations in Florida, Virginia, and London, England. Using MATRIX, governmental agents can instantaneously access information on firearms and hunting licenses, motor vehicle and driver record information, criminal history records, bankruptcy filings, professional licenses and voter registration information and numerous citizens are concerned about maintaining strict confidentiality of this information database, particularly data regarding driver’s licenses and firearm ownership. Steve Lillienthal, Policy Analyst at the Free Congress Foundation, called for states to enact laws to protect Americans from law enforcement databases. Lillienthal characterized MATRIX as a system that creates "more opportunities for misuse of your data, whether it is your credit history, drivers license information or photographs, Social Security number, business records, and whatever else they have on you in their files."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin commended Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager on her reported decision to end the state’s participation in the MATRIX, the data-mining project, funded by the federal government and controlled by a privateFlorida company, Seisint, Inc gives participating agencies unprecedented access to vast amounts of public and commercially available data on Americans. " The MATRIX is yet another attempt by the government to place the innocent public under surveillance," said Carrie Davis, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Ohio. "We want to know what sort of personal data Ohio is turning over to the MATRIX database and what procedures, if any, are in place to ensure accuracy and privacy.” The Multi-state Anti-terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) was created shortly after Congress killed the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" data-mining program over privacy concerns.  The program combines state government records, such as driver's license information, with commercially available data to create a vast database capable of compiling and analyzing a profile of every American. The MATRIX provides informational software products that allow organizations to quickly and easily extract valuable knowledge from huge amounts of data. These innovative products are made possible by integrating the Seisint Data Supercomputer™ technology, tens of billions of data records on individuals and businesses, and patent-pending data linking methods. Seisint's products are aimed at critical areas such as:

• Debt Recovery
• Due Diligence
• Fraud Detection
• Identity Verification
• Law Enforcement
• Legal Investigations
• Pre-Employment Screening
• Resident Screening
• Data Supercomputing

The FBI and numerous other global law enforcement agencies are recruiting cyber experts, hackers, programmers and others technology minded individuals, to fight the increase of rising computer crimes. Special Agent Gary Harter has been the public face that speaks on cyber crime and on ways to prevent it. The FBI now trains almost all agents in the field of cyber crimes. Agents are taking 20 hour courses that range from tracking a e-mails origin, beginning with the analysis of the e-mail's subject header. Trent Teyema, who operates a Washington computer intrusion squad stated," Allot of e-mails can literally be traced back to the original senders location, regardless of the numerous global email routes they use in trying to hide their tracks." Hackers pose another problem. One case involved FBI law enforcement officers working together with Romanian officers in a July 2003 attack. The target being hacked was The National Science Foundation's South Pole research office. The hackers were trying to extort money from the Foundation in exchange for not releasing the information they had acquired from the data base. The FBI and Romania authorities tracked the attack from a cyber cafe in Romania, and the hackers were caught and arrested.

One company, Fortify Software Inc., is working on ways to prevent hackers, viruses, trojan horses and other malicious
codes. One of the main roots of the problems, is the millions lines of code embedded in software programs. A programmer might neglect, or with intent, miss a line of pre written code that would allow a hacker to insert any amount of text or a hidden code within the lines of the original software. In laymen's terms, think of your home as a computer program. The obvious ways of keeping a person out of your home would be locking the doors, the windows, and so on. But a good thief can still pick a lock or break a window and get in. Now you install dead bolts on your doors and windows, install a burglar alarm with sound and motion sensors. Again, a good thief can override or compromise the alarm system, or simply cut the power lines to render the systems useless. Now do you see the problem? The theory behind Fortify Software, is to scan and analyze your system for problems at the end of each day. It explains the problems found, but the programmers themselves must manually make the changes themselves.Fortify Software launched its company on Monday April 4,2004 pitching its Source Code Analysis and Run-time Analysis software suites, designed to comb through source code in an application development project and point out likely security lapses. Application vulnerabilities are becoming more than just a nuisance in recent years. According to Carnegie-Mellon's CERT Coordination Center, the number of reported vulnerabilities has jumped from 171 in 1995 to 3,784 last year. The result: is crippling breaches and network shut downs, not just in Microsoft products, but in seemingly secure software such as FreeBSD and OpenSSL Project.  Mike Armistead, Fortify founder and vice president of marketing, stated that their software is a contradiction to most of today's security practices these days, that is to wall off the network using an array of routers, firewalls and other security devices.

The Global Travel Surveillance System

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized this plan to force the nation's airlines to turn over to the government the travel details of the hundred million Americans who fly. The plan was announced by the head of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) at a Congressional hearing on March 17,2004.  "It is a deeply significant step for the nation's airlines to begin feeding the details of Americans' travel records to the government for CAPPS II," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program. "It is a sign of things to come with a program that is simply incompatible with privacy and fairness for travelers." Speaking before the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, acting TSA Administrator David M. Stone said the airlines would be forced to turn over the information within a few months.
"It's putting the cart before the horse for the government to begin collecting vast amounts of personal details on Americans when it is so ill-prepared to handle that data," said ACLU Legislative Counsel LaShawn Warren. The TSA admitted it still lacks a proper infrastructure to protect privacy, and the airlines are not even set up to collect the data that the program will rely on, such as full name, address, phone number, and date of birth. There are still many unanswered questions about how this program is going to work, not to mention how it will be paid for. The costs of this program will be far steeper than proponents are letting on, not only in dollars, but in lost civil liberties.

                   SPYWARE ON YOUR COMPUTER

The most common and annoying type of spyware is unscrupulously placed on your computer to track surfing habits. The other type of spyware, sometimes known as spy software, is used to monitor or record all activities occurring on the computer.
Some of you might have already experienced this scenario. You get to work on Monday morning and upon turning on your computer, you realize that the settings for your homepage have been changed. No longer are you directed to your company's website but instead to some new Internet search engine with links to banks, gambling, pills, porn, and more. But a change in your homepage settings is the least of your worries. Spyware can track your surfing habits, abuse your Internet connection by sending confidential data to a third party, profile your shopping preferences and alter important system files, all of which can be done without you having any knowledge of it. There are currently hundreds and thousands of computers that become infected with spyware worldwide, everyday. This international form of cyber espionage is so recent that most people have yet to receive information about the nature of the hazards, the risks involved, or the tools necessary to combat the threat. Spyware can get into a computer as a software virus or as the result of installing a new program. Many popular programs that are distributed free on the Internet are actually comprised of some sort of spyware agent You must detect what Spyware is residing on your system as well as where it has decided to lay its ugly nest. There are currently hundreds of specialized software programs to detect its presence. Once found, all that is needed is to delete the programs. Hardware keyloggers, which are small devices about the size of an AA battery that are plugged in-line with your keyboard in order to record your keystrokes. However, consumers can easily spot a hardware keylogger.
-------------------------------
------------------------------------KEYLOGGER HARDWARE

In his classic novel, 1984, George Orwell described a totalitarian society in which the government had almost complete control over its people. Telescreens that could not be turned off displayed endless brainwashing propaganda government programs. The Telescreens not only transmitted governmental policies, they also transmitted back to the Thought Police both sounds and pictures from inside the homes. Although Spyware is nowhere near being as intrusive, it can be very damaging. What started with advertisers who wanted a cheap way to sell products to you over the Internet, has evolved into programs that can track your every keystroke and has become one of the leading causes of identify theft. There are now high-tech applications that can sit invisibly on your computer capturing and recording all your emails, chat conversations, keystrokes, even credit card and banking information. They can basically capture and transmit everything you do on your computer and relay that information to another party without your knowledge or consent.

THE DOOMSDAY BOMB & TIME TRAVEL
------------------------------April 22, 2004
The thought of Time Travel and a DoomsDay Bomb have been the subjects of fiction and fantasy for over 100 years. As JaysNet commits itself to research on various subjects contained on this web sight, and we try to stay clear of sensationalism. We felt you would find the below stories quite interesting. We must not forget that flying machines, and men on the moon were also seen as fiction and not possible 100 years ago. The two articles below, are true documented cases which occurred over 50 years ago. And if this technology were possible, individuals in the areas of science and the military have had over 50 years to refine this technology.
---------------------------------
On the dawn of July 16,1945, Robert Oppenheimer, the main inventor of the atomic bomb watched the first nuclear explosion in world history in the desert of Alamogordo New Mexico.Oppenheimer stated, "I remember the line from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita which says, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. " The ancient Greek provides the mythological story in which Pandora opened her box, and evils were released into the World.

There is a Doomsday Bomb
 
--
Photos of Oppenheimer with Einstein in 1949 writing the letter to President Roosevelt
that led to the Manhatten project & Edward Teller, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb.

2004 Estimated Nuclear ICBMs
United States  10,925
Russia            20,000
France                450
China                  400
Britain                 185
Israel                   100
India                      40
Pakistan                 15
North Korea            2

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT OF TIME TRAVEL

It was the early hours of August 15th, 1943 the USS Eldridge, a newly launched navy destroyer,  with  special authority  from the U.S. Naval Department to conduct our assignments; a highly secretive scientific experiment. During 1943-1944, Einstein was a part time consultant with the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance, undertaking theoretical research on explosives and explosions.
A scientific agenda, which was to explore the time/space continuum for scientific discovery; a military agenda, since we were at war (WW II) they wanted this ability as a weapon, to move personnel and cargo instantaneously from one point to another; and lastly, an extraterrestrial agenda, which was to map out the earths planetary magnetic grid work for inter dimensional travel. These experiments demonstrated that reflected light from an object could be refracted in such a way to create a mirage. This mirage would render that object transparent or invisible. The awesome technology that was used on the 15th of August, 1943, was technology that had been in the makings under Dr. Nikola Tesla’s guidance since  the early 1930’s.  Having  had much  success, the technology eventually  was  placed in the hands of our U.S.  government and overseen by the Naval Department for national security interests. By  the  time our government got involved, the possibilities of the technology had already been proven beyond a doubt of its abilities. A scientific agenda, which was to explore the time and space continuum for scientific discovery; a military agenda, since we were at war (WW II) they wanted this ability as a weapon, to move personnel and cargo instantaneously from one point to another; and lastly, an extraterrestrial agenda, which was to map out the earths planetary magnetic grid work for inter dimensional travel.

Unbeknownst to the sailors who were trained only in the operation of a naval ship, for the first time were involved in an attempt to accomplish a scientific feat never before undertaken.. the  USS Eldridge invisible by switching the generators to full  strength. The men were now experiencing horrors beyond their beliefs. They were not prepared for what was to come, thus, many of the  men's minds caved and cracked. When we switched the generators to full power,  it  had  created a strong  electromagnetic  field, which totally overcame and engulfed us within a heavy fog or a mist. It was at this precise  moment that  one of the crew stated being shook violently from a strong vibration and at the same time, noted the ship disappearing from around and below him. With a generator to his back,  all of a sudden as if in slow motion, the sailor felt a tremendous impact  in  which he sensed his entire body being  propelled outwards  into hundreds of fragmented pieces. With this impact, there  was a brilliant flash of light, so intense it was  not only blinding, but consuming; the piercing sound forced him to the ships deck and he was covering his ears with his  hands in a desperate attempt to relieve the pain. Now bleeding from the mouth, nose and ears, nothing seemed to help the discomfort  that the sailor was experiencing.

Dr. Albert Einstein was also involved,  and to a greater degree than most know. In fact, it was his “Special Theory of Relativity”, which became the theoretical cornerstone describing the  release of nuclear energy, and concerns itself with relationships between energy, time, matter, and the speed  of light. In his proposed “General  Theory of  Relativity”, he suggested that  the universe is four dimensional, the three dimensions of space (length, depth and breadth) plus time. But space,  instead of being flat as he had suggested in his special theory, was now curved, and that gravity was a consequence of his proposed space curvature. Einstein’s general theory was so astoundingly successful that scientists world wide rapidly accepted it and who in turn after reevaluation, took their experimentation into  the new direction in which Einstein  had pointed.  In short,  Einstein  vectored  mankind  onto  a new “Timeline”!   His  theories made it possible  for  the  warping, bending  or the morphing of time, blackholes, and traveling  through time. Einstein was also convinced that there was a link between the laws of electromagnetism and gravity, and that it could be expressed in a mathematical formula, known as the “Unified Field Theory”

The Eldridge had completely disappeared and many onboard claimed to have been transported into the future. After a hour the Eldride reappeared after being made optically invisible using strong electromagnetic force fields when a sailor onboard the merchant marine vessel SS Furuseth in 1943. He also claimed that during another test that went wrong, some of the men caught fire, went mad, and, the most bizarre of all, some were embedded halfway into the deck of the ship. The USS Eldridge was no longer sea worthy, extremely radioactive and unstable; and  of the  181  men, only  21 of us had survived. Forty men  were confirmed dead as a result of radiation exposure, burns, electrocution, and fright. Twenty seven of these 40 were men embedded within the structure of the ship, but who were not in all cases dead. Mercifully some were shot in the head using a standard military pistol, yet others were kept alive long enough for laboratory research. Lastly, the remaining 120 men were never seen from again.. I myself beleive that time travel is possible, but it's only a therory as of now.

FROM  ALAMOGORDO TO ARMAGEDDON
                  MAY 8, 2004

THE PATRIOT ACT II
-----------

The bill, H.R. 2934, or "Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003" was the subject of a subcommittee hearing last month at which the ACLU noted that federal law already provides 20 separate death penalties for serious terrorism crimes, including bombings, hijackings, assassinations and hostage taking. In its testimony, the ACLU said that the Justice Department has not been forthcoming in its disclosures regarding how the Patriot Act has been used so far, and called for Congress to review existing powers before any further expansions are considered. If adopted, the proposed legislation would do two things. First, it would make at least 23 additional crimes eligible for the death penalty. Second, it would create an unprecedented "catch-all" death penalty for any other federal crime punishable by more than a year in prison if it meets the PATRIOT Act’s over broad definition of terrorism and results in death. The concern with the definition of terrorism as enacted in the Patriot Act is that individual protesters and activists from groups including Greenpeace and Operation Rescue could be labeled "terrorists, and if this bill were to pass, they could run the risk of being sentenced to the death penalty if someone dies during the course of their civil disobedience, even if the death was unintended. The ACLU also noted that the proposal could actually hurt America's anti terrorism efforts. Many nations that have abolished the death penalty are unwilling to extradite or provide evidence in federal terrorism cases if the suspect could be subjected to the death penalty as a result of their cooperation with the United States. Suicidal, politically motivated terrorists such as members of Al Qaeda would be unaffected as often they are seeking to create martyrs for their causes and to generate publicity. "This measure, if adopted, will only increase mistrust both at home and abroad of anti terrorism efforts and further isolate America in the world," McCurdy said. "As we set out to make ourselves safer, we must not accept measures that undermine the very freedoms we are trying to protect."

The American Civil Liberties Union and its more than 400,000 members, dedicated to preserving the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, stressed it's concern on H.R. 2934, the “Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003.”
The proposed legislation, which expands the death penalty to acts defined by the USA PATRIOT Act as “terrorism” that are federal crimes punishable by more than one year in prison,[1] is one part of a planned sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act commonly known as “Patriot Act 2.”  Congress should not consider such an expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act until it has undertaken comprehensive oversight of the federal governments use of the Act and its other law enforcement powers.
The bill's expansion of the federal death penalty would be drastic.  In addition to creating twenty three separate new death penalties in one stroke, the bill also creates an unprecedented “catch-all” death penalty for any federal crime, or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, that meets the PATRIOT Act’s over broad definition of terrorism and is punishable by more than one year in prison. Such a drastic expansion of the death penalty will not make America safer from terrorism.  Rather, it will undermine international cooperation against terrorism by further complicating efforts to obtain the cooperation of governments that have abolished the death penalty. Adding even more death penalties will not deter suicidal, religiously motivated terrorists who have not been deterred by the twenty federal death penalties for crimes of terrorism already on the books (not to mention other federal and state death penalties that may be available) and may instead simply attract new followers to the cause.

The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion.  According to the Death Penalty Information Center, one hundred thirteen prisoners on death row have now been exonerated.  Chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial disparities, corrupt police and district attorney prosecutors, plague the death penalty system in the United States.  With twenty death penalties for federal crimes of terrorism already on the books, prosecutors have ample opportunity to seek the death penalty in serious terrorism cases.  The expansion of the death penalty potentially to any federal felony creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application of the death penalty. Continued grassroots controversy among Americans of all political persuasions about the impact of post 9/11 government policies on basic civil liberties has slowed the seemingly inexorable momentum of new federal government powers.  Conservative organizations, including the American Conservative Union, Free Congress Foundation and the Gun Owners of America, have joined with the ACLU, the American Library Association and many others to argue that America should not sacrifice its liberties in the name of security.   More than 291 local resolutions in thirty nine states, including four state-wide resolutions, have rejected some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other post 9/11 polices that infringe on basic rights and freedoms.  Altogether, these communities represent close to 50 million Americans.

As a result, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have not gone forward with a comprehensive sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act , a “Patriot Act 2” that many expected would be introduced last year.  Instead, the Administration has endorsed three separate bills expanding federal powers, including this legislation dramatically expanding the federal death penalty.[2]
Congress should firmly reject any effort by the Administration to add new powers to the USA PATRIOT Act until it has received the cooperation of the Department of Justice in comprehensive oversight of its existing federal anti terrorism powers.  For this reason alone, Congress should reject this legislation. The Bills Sweeping “Catch-All” Death Penalty Would Greatly Exacerbate the Chilling Impact of an Already Over broad USA PATRIOT Act Definition of “Terrorism” H.R. 2934 seeks to expand the USA PATRIOT Act to create new death penalties for any federal offense punishable by more than one year, if death results. The bills expansion of the federal death penalty would be drastic.

The USA PATRIOT Act, at section 802, provides that any actions, occurring primarily within the United States, are “domestic terrorism” if they (1) “involve” a violation of state or federal criminal law, (2) “appear to be intended” to influence government policy or a civilian population by “intimidation or coercion” and (3) “involve acts dangerous to human life.”  18 U.S.C.  § 2331(5).  The federal code definition of “international terrorism” is similar, except that the actions must occur primarily outside the United States or “transcend national boundaries” and may involve “violent acts” instead of (or in addition to) “acts dangerous to human life.”  18 U.S.C. § 2331(1). These definitions of “terrorism” are so broad that many legitimately fear they could cover the civil disobedience activities of diverse protest organizations, including Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, and the anti globalization movement.  Blocking entrances to abortion clinics, for example, could “involve” violations of federal law punishable by more than one year in prison and may certainly “appear to be intended” to influence government policy or a civilian population by “intimidation or coercion.”  Blocking clinics under some circumstances involves “acts dangerous to human life” in that such actions could threaten the lives of the protesters (if protesters block traffic, for example) or interfere with the ability of women to get needed medical treatment.  The anti globalization movement is also known for civil disobedience tactics, such as chaining protesters together to block traffic, that could meet the USA PATRIOT Act’s over broad definition of terrorism. Because of the chilling effect of this definition on ideologically diverse protest groups, section 802 is one of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that organizations on the left and the right have agreed must be amended to protect civil liberties.  Conservative Republican Reps. Butch Otter (ID) and Jeff Flake (AZ) have joined independent Rep. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Democrats such as Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI) and Rep. Barney Frank (MA) to introduce H.R. 3352, the Security and Freedom Enhanced (SAFE) Act of 2003.  The SAFE Act now has fifty five cosponsors and is pending before this Subcommittee. Section 6 of the SAFE Act reforms the definition of “domestic terrorism” so that it applies only to actions that constitute a “Federal crime of terrorism” under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5).  The SAFE Act would thus limit “domestic terrorism” to serious federal crimes, going a long way towards reassuring Americans of all political persuasions that the federal government will not treat them as terrorists because they may be involved in civil disobedience.  This narrower definition is strongly supported by groups from the right and left, including the American Conservative Union, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America and the ACLU.

The proposed legislation goes in exactly the opposite direction by not only leaving in place the USA PATRIOT Act’s definition of terrorism but broadening the definition by adding a potential death sentence.  Protest organizations have already been significantly chilled by the USA PATRIOT Act’s definition of some civil disobedience tactics as forms of terrorism.  A death penalty based on that definition would multiply the chilling effect dramatically. A few more examples help illustrate why such a “catch-all” death penalty would be so inappropriate:

Example 1.  A diverse group of American and foreign protesters at an international population control conference chain themselves together in a parking lot entrance to block access to a local reproductive services clinic in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248.  A woman seeking treatment because of complications from her abortion cannot gain access and the delay in treatment results in her death from those complications.  Under this proposal, a federal prosecutor could seek the death penalty against the protesters for “international terrorism,” because their violations of FACE Act were felonies[3] that “transcend[ed] national boundaries” through the involvement of international opponents of abortion, involved “acts dangerous to human life,” appeared to be intended to influence government policy or a civilian population by “intimidation or coercion,” and resulted in death.

Example 2.  An organization of gun rights supporters gather at a convention hall to demonstrate against a new federal gun control law that requires all sellers of firearms to be federally licensed dealers and conduct background checks.  Some of the demonstrators, saying they want to “send a message to those gun grabbers in Washington,” hold an illegal “gun show” of the kind the law was enacted to prohibit, committing felony violations of the federal gun control regime at 18 U.S.C. § 922.  A mentally unbalanced man purchases one of the firearms and uses it to kill a man.  Under this proposal, a federal prosecutor could seek the death penalty for “domestic terrorism” against those who participated in the illegal gun show because their violations of the 18 U.S.C. § 922 involved “acts dangerous to human life” and appeared to intended to influence government policy by “intimidation or coercion.”

Congress should not simply adopt, without examination, the list of “Federal crimes of terrorism” as a proxy for crimes that are serious enough to warrant the death penalty.  In listing “Federal crimes of terrorism,” Congress did not choose only the most serious terrorism offenses for which it considered the death penalty to be an appropriate punishment, but also included other crimes that Congress created for the goal of preventing and deterring terrorism, including terrorism financing, material support, and computer related offenses.   Some of these crimes have been defined very broadly to enable the government to prosecute persons whose actions may have some relationship to terrorism but whose involvement is more peripheral than those who commit bombings, hijackings, murders or other terrorist acts that already carry the death penalty. For example, one crime that currently does not carry the death penalty is the offense of providing “material support” to a designated foreign terrorist organization.  This offense was created in 1996 with a maximum sentence of ten years in prison.  The USA PATRIOT Act increased the maximum sentence to fifteen years in prison, with a possibility of a life sentence if death results. There remains substantial controversy about the breadth of the “material support” offense because a conviction requires only that the government show the individual “knowingly” gave assistance to an organization designated as a terrorist organization, even if the assistance was only for the organizations lawful activities.  The government argues that a defendant may be convicted even if he did not know of the designation, believed the assistance would support only charitable activities, and even if the assistance in fact only benefited charitable activities. One federal appeals court has now ruled the material support statute, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, must be construed to require knowledge of the designation or of the organizations unlawful activities, and that its prohibitions on providing “training” and “personnel” are void for vagueness.[4]  Adding a death sentence to such a broad statute will only contribute to its constitutional flaws.

Congress was certainly aware that creating the crime of material support of the lawful activities of an organization designated as “terrorist” by the government could be vulnerable to challenge under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause.  While Congress chose to pass the material support statute despite these concerns, by providing a maximum sentence of fifteen years (or a life sentence if death results), Congress indicated it did not believe this crime was as serious as direct participation in terrorist acts for which it provided the death penalty. While the bill would only permit the death penalty for material support if death results, a prosecutor could be expected to argue that any financial or other contribution to a designated foreign terrorist organization, even for humanitarian activities is fungible and therefore assisted the organization in committing terrorist acts that resulted in death. More following examples help illustrate why it is so wildly inappropriate to make the crime of material support a death eligible offense:

Example 3.  Joshua attends a function at a local community center in which he views a graphic film about suicide bombings in Israel.  The film praises unofficial “armed resistance” by Jewish militants to Islamic terrorist groups.  At the function, Joshua gives money for the “Kahane Chai Relief Fund” for widows of Palestinian attacks.  Joshua suspects the charity may be a front, but is angry enough after seeing the film that he does not care.  Joshua does not know that Kahane Chai has been designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.[5]  Under this legislation, Joshua’s actions are not only a crime, but he could now be facing the death penalty.

Example 4.  Sean is upset about that some Irish leaders have abandoned the goal of a united Ireland and wants to “send a message” by providing technical assistance to an anti British web site.  The web site features articles and comments that are strongly nationalist in tone, and Sean has been told the web site is run by the Real IRA, a designated foreign terrorist organization.  Under this legislation, Sean would not only face criminal changes, but could face the death penalty.

Supporters of the bill may argue that prosecutors can be expected to exercise discretion and will not seek the death penalty except in very egregious cases.  While prosecutorial discretion is an important element of the criminal justice system, prosecutors should not have unlimited discretion.  The federal criminal code already contains twenty terrorism crimes, and many other crimes not specifically listed as terrorism crimes, that carry the death penalty and cover a broad range of terrorist acts, including bombings, kidnappings, arson, aircraft hijackings and many others.  In very serious terrorism cases, federal prosecutors are likely to have at least one, and probably more than one, death-eligible crime with which to charge a defendant.  The bill’s expansion of the death penalty is likely to affect only the more peripheral cases in which prosecutors would not normally seek the death penalty, but where there may be political pressure to do so because the defendants belong to an unpopular religious, ethnic or political group.

Already, many nations that have abolished the death penalty are unwilling to extradite or provide evidence in federal terrorism cases if the death penalty might result from their cooperation. Other nations have become increasingly critical of the United States for its continued and even expanding use of the death penalty when the international trend has been towards abolition.  The exoneration of more than one hundred former inmates of Americas death row has not gone unnoticed abroad.  Diplomacy concerning the issue of the death penalty has become increasingly tense and complex.  The rift between the United States and many of its closest allies is likely to grow even wider as a result of a recent decision of the International Court of Justice concerning the death penalty.  The decision strongly rebuked the United States for its disregard of the rights of 51 Mexican nationals on death row to timely consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.[6] The European Union prohibits the extradition of any criminal suspect facing the death penalty.  After the bombing of United States embassies in Africa by Al Qaeda terrorists, Germany only extradited an alleged conspirator to face trial in the United States after negotiating assurances the suspect would not face the death penalty.  Many European nations, including the United Kingdom, have restated their opposition to the death penalty after September 11, 2001 and conditioned any extradition's in connection with the global fight against terrorism on similar assurances.[7] By dramatically expanding the number of death eligible offenses, the bill would dramatically multiply the number of cases in which prosecutors will have to negotiate special agreements with foreign governments to obtain needed cooperation in obtaining evidence or extraditing suspects. A dramatic expansion of the death penalty would, according to foreign policy experts, be likely to further impede the cooperation between nations that is absolutely critical to impeding terrorist organizations by arresting and prosecuting their members.  Milt Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and Sudan, warns, “If the U.S. routinely applies the death penalty to cases of international terrorism targeting American citizens, it may limit continued cooperation from the majority of countries most closely involved in combating terrorism.”[8]

Continuing and pronounced racial disparities in the imposition of the death sentence for serious street crimes has contributed to the harsh international criticism of the United States.  A dramatic expansion of the death penalty for crimes said to be terror related, making death eligible many crimes that would not normally carry a death sentence would confirm the suspicions of many in the Arab and Muslim world that the United States is creating a separate, and unequal, system of justice for mainly Arab and Muslim defendants as well as giving Terrorist Groups New “Martyrs” for the Cause and  to emulate the “courage” of the “martyr.” Put simply, the most dangerous terrorists do not fear death, they seek it.  Even for those who do not participate in suicide attacks, the risks inherent in terrorist activity are far more significant than the possibility that a death sentence would be imposed on any given terrorist suspect. For example, the United Kingdom voted to repeal the death penalty for terrorism in Northern Ireland on the basis that executing terrorists only increases violence and puts soldiers and police at greater risk.
Spain similarly rejected the death penalty as counter productive in its decades long campaign against the Basque terrorist group ETA.  Even as the Israeli government continues its controversial tactic of targeted killings of terrorist suspects, its judges do not impose the death penalty on terrorists in Israeli custody.

In conclusion, H.R. 2934 is an drastic and unwise expansion of the governments most sobering power, the power to take a life and imprison those they deem a threat, real.or fabricated.  The federal government already has twenty separate death penalties for crimes of terrorism. Terrorists might also face other federal death penalties, or state crimes that carry the death penalty.  While the government has not always obtained a death sentence in every terrorism case where it was sought, the reason was  because it could not charge or convict the defendant of a capital offense.  For example, in the cases involving the 1998 bombings of United States embassies in Africa, the jury found two defendants guilty of death eligible crimes, but chose not to impose a death sentence.  The bill is thus a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Passage of H.R. 2934 would be seen by many organizations of the right and left including anti-abortion and gun rights advocates, as a major and troubling expansion of federal power.  Congress should not move a major part of the Administration's agenda to expand the USA PATRIOT Act without far more detailed review of the effect of the Act, and other post 9/11 policies, on civil liberties.

H.R. 2934 will rightly be seen, both in the United States and abroad, as another federal infringement on civil liberties that will not make America safer.  It will, as a result, increase mistrust, both at home and abroad, even of legitimate anti terrorism efforts, dividing many Americans from their government and further isolating America in the world.  "Just as the Patriot Act was passed with limited debate, the Judiciary Committee has yet to hold any public hearings on this expansion," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. "Congress must move slowly before considering any further expansion of government powers. It should fully evaluate the original Patriot Act’s effects on public safety and civil liberties before further reducing judicial review of government wiretapping and taking other steps that reduce government accountability." The new bill, called the "Anti Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003" (H.R. 3179), includes many provisions of draft legislation leaked from the Justice Department last year. That bill was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats and never moved beyond a draft. The new proposals would increase the governments powers to secretly obtain personal records without judicial review, limit judicial discretion over the use of secret evidence in criminal cases, eliminate important foreign intelligence wiretapping safeguards and allow the use of secret intelligence wiretaps in civil cases without notice or an opportunity to suppress illegally acquired evidence. The legislation builds on many of the most troubling provisions of the Patriot Act, which passed with minimal debate a mere 45 days after 9/11. To date, more than 300 American communities, encompassing more than 50 million Americans in 40 states, have passed local resolutions asking Congress to revisit the Patriot Act and opposing any further expansion of the law. The American people do not want the government to rush into a feel good security, which is nothing short of propaganda to invoke a false sense of security, as well as the loss of constitutional and civil rights and the elimination of judicial process.

The U.S. Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Bush administration’s legal position that the President has the unilateral authority to define U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charges.
In the consolidated cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696) and Rumsfeld v. Padilla (03-1027) the Justices will today review arguments regarding Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, two American citizens who have been detained in military brigs for more than two years since their capture or arrest. "Our system of checks and balances was designed to ensure that individual liberty does not rest on the good faith of government officials and to place limits on the exercise of government authority," said Steven R. Shapiro, the National Legal Director of the ACLU. "By contrast, the government’s claim that it can indefinitely detain both U.S. citizens and non-citizens without any meaningful review rests on an assertion of executive power that is virtually boundless."

In the Padilla case, the ACLU has filed court briefs highlighting our nation’s long constitutional tradition favoring civilian justice over military justice except in very limited circumstances. In the Hamdi case, the ACLU’s brief points out that arbitrary executive detention has been seen as inconsistent with the rule of law since at least the Magna Carta. An appeals court in the Padilla case ruled that his military detention exceeded the authority of the executive branch and that U.S. citizens cannot be held at the sole discretion of the President without charges, trial or access to counsel. The appeals court in the Hamdi case found for the government. Yaser Hamdi is an American citizen who was captured by the Northern Alliance while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Jose Padilla, an American citizen and onetime Chicago gang member also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, has been accused of but not charged with plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States. He was arrested in Chicago in May 2002. Both have been detained in military brigs for nearly two years. Neither has been charged, or tried, or until very recently even allowed access to counsel. The sole basis for the detention is the President’s unilateral declaration that they are "enemy combatants." The security of our people depends not only on defending our borders but also on defending the constitutional principles that define us as a nation.

These two individuals, Padilla and Hamdi, are in fact victims of a new upcoming form of martial law regime. Martial law is a territorial form of military control and is enacted when civil order has broken down. The military will invoke it's ideology of law and order upon the citizens and their communities. The laws of current society are handled by elected or appointed officials, whereas martial law is directed by military officers. In Hawaii, martial law was put into motion after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The entire population was under the thumb of a military dictatorship. The coming new martial law, being created by legislation and government agencies that include The Patriot Act and the TIA, will no doubt be used against foreign and domestic society to ensure control and put down anyone who questions the coming One World Government.

    THE T.I.A

The current airline profiling system called CAPS II. would collect massive amounts of information about the tens of millions of American who fly each year and use that information to create profiles. Its use in the airline context gives it a lot more surface appeal, and it has been presented in a far less threatening manner, but it is based on the same faulty premise that terrorism can be prevented by collecting hoards of information about everyone and then subjecting them to a virtual dragnet. These virtual dragnet programs like TIA and CAPS II are based on the premise that the best way to protect America against terrorism is to for the government to collect as much information as it can about everyone. They could incorporate not only government records of all kinds but individuals' medical and financial records, political beliefs, travel history, prescriptions, buying habits, communications (phone calls, e-mails and Web surfing habits, school records, personal and family associations, and so on.

In the last decade we have witnessed an enormous explosion in the amount of tracking and information of individuals in the United States. The explosion of computers, cameras, location sensors, wireless communication, biometrics, and other technologies is making it a lot easier to track, store, and analyze information about a individuals' activities. Corporations in recent years have discovered that detailed information about consumers is extremely valuable, and are in the process of figuring out how to squeeze every available penny out of this revenue source.  That is why consumers are increasingly being asked for their information everywhere they turn.  As a result, private sector incentives are now aligned with the interests of those in government who wish to track everyone's behavior.  The government has not been shy about buying that data, and it is envisioned as a primary source for the TIA database. The information that is generated and retained about our activities is becoming so rich that if all that information about us was put together, it would almost be like having a video camera following us around.  Programs like TIA make such "data surveillance" a reality in today's global community.

Under the TIA program, every aspect of our lives would be catalogued and made available to government officials.  Americans have the right to expect that their lives will not become an open book when they have not done, and are not even suspected of doing, anything wrong and it harbors a tremendous potential for abuse. The motto of the TIA program is that “knowledge is power,” and in fact the keepers of the TIA database would gain a tremendous amount of power over American citizens.  Inevitably, some of them will abuse that power.  An example of the kind of abuses that can happen were chronicled in a July 2001 investigation by the Detroit Free Press (and December 2001 follow up): the newspaper found that police officers with access to a database for Michigan law enforcement had used it to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists, track estranged spouses, and to intimidate political opponents.  Experience has shown that when large numbers of Americans challenge the governments policy (for example in Vietnam), some parts of the government react by conducting surveillance and using it against critics.  The unavoidable truth is that a super database like TIA will lead us into a One World
Government and the surveillance of the human race.

TIA would represent a radical departure from the centuries old American tradition that the police conduct surveillance only where there is evidence of involvement in wrongdoing.  It would seek to protect us by monitoring everyone for signs of wrongdoing, by instituting a giant dragnet capable of sifting through the personal lives of Americans.  It would ruin the very American values that our government is supposed to be protecting. The TIA program is based on highly speculative assumptions about how databases can be used to stop terrorism, and this program in stopping terrorism is highly speculative, but the damage that it would do to American freedom is certain.

Some versions of  TIA described by Defense officials are based on the dubious premise that "terrorist patterns" can be ferreted out from the enormous mass of American lives using techniques known as "data mining" that try to identify hidden patterns in large masses of data.  What attracts proponents of this scheme is that data mining has proven very successful in some commercial contexts, such as the discovery of suspicious spending patterns that indicate credit card fraud.  The problem is that in order to be effective, data miners need an enormous amount of sample data to work from.  Credit card companies experience a vast amount of fraud, which allows them to go back and find patterns of  behavior that are associated with it.
 Publicly, TIA officials have recently said that they never intended to carry out such data mining.  Even their more modest descriptions of what TIA would do, however, are of questionable effectiveness and would devastate privacy.  Programs like TIA and The Patriot Act could actually reduce our security by draining resources from more effective measures like improved collection of on the ground foreign intelligence. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, numerous intelligence experts declared that the governments problem was a failure to sift targeted intelligence information from the masses of useless data.  The TIA solution to that problem would be to exponentially increase the amount of junk data that the government collects.
If  TIA is implemented, it will probably fail at preventing the next terrorist attack.  But once created, that kind of failure is unlikely to lead to the program being shut down.  Instead, it will probably just spur the government into an ever more furious effort to collect greater amounts of personal information on people in a vain effort to make the concept work.  We would then have the worst of both worlds: poor security and a super charged surveillance tool that would destroy Americans' privacy and threaten our freedom. Big Brother is growing at an accelerated rate and will continue to grow based on the governments ability to lie and manipulate it's citizens.

YOUR BEING MONITORED

Facial recognition software can be used to find individuals in a crowd, thus turning a mass of people into a big lineup. One test of this device you may have heard of and which JaysNet reported in 2000. The Tampa Police Department was testing out this technology,  that allows snapshots of faces from the crowd to be compared to a database of criminal mug shots. The test was held at Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa Bay, Florida. Those who attended the January 2000 event were part of the largest police lineup ever conducted, although they may not have been aware of it at the time. The $30,000 system was loaned to the Tampa Police Department for one year. So far, no arrests have been made using the technology. However, the 36 cameras positioned in different areas of downtown Tampa have allowed police to keep a more watchful eye on general activities. This increased surveillance of city residents and tourists has riled privacy rights groups.

Other biometrics companies such as Neven Vision, a leading provider of machine vision technology. Its facial analysis suite comprising modules for face detection, face recognition and facial feature tracking is widely respected as the most comprehensive and accurate solution for visual facial analysis. The software is currently integrated in numerous products ranging from facial biometrics for security and defense to facial feature tracking for new forms of visual communication on mobile phones and in use by leading research institutions around the world. A specialty of Neven Vision is embedded
machine vision code for low cost microprocessors and digital signal processors. Neven Vision's headquarters are in Los Angeles and it maintains an office in Tokyo. Neven Vision's computer vision technology represents some of the leading accomplishments in this field. Several U.S. patents have been granted to Neven Vision for its unique inventions. In recent years, this technology has become increasingly used in real world systems for a variety of commercial, industrial and military applications. Neven Vision's computer vision is largely focused on the subset of computer vision known as "visual sensing", which is the automated extraction of information regarding the objects or scene in one or more images. The capabilities of this software are truly remarkable.  Neven Vision's technology can automatically locate a human face in a video signal, recognize that face and track the facial features in real time. Neven Vision's Machine Vision SDK Suite is available for wireless service providers, system integrators and developers in a variety of industries. This modular software tool kit allows development of applications ranging from mobile phone avatar based chat to facial recognition for the purposes of security and access control.
The performance of  Neven Vision's facial sensing software is outstanding. It has won many competitions (for the face recognition engine) and awards (for its facial feature tracking software). Leading research institutions including MIT Media Lab, University of Cambridge and University of Southern California have licensed the facial analysis suite as a valuable foundation for their research.

Facial recognition systems are built on computer programs that analyze images of human faces for the purpose of identifying them. The programs take a facial image, measure characteristics such as the distance between the eyes, the length of the nose, and the angle of the jaw, and create a unique file called a "template." Using templates, the software then compares that image with another image and produces a score that measures how similar the images are to each other. Typical sources of images for use in facial recognition include video camera signals and pre-existing photos such as those in driver's license databases.
Unlike other biometrics systems, facial recognition can be used for general surveillance, usually in combination with public video cameras. There have been three such uses of face recognition in the U.S. so far. The first is in airports, where they have been proposed - and in a few cases adopted - in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Airports that have announced adoption of the technology include Logan Airport in Boston, T.F. Green Airport in Providence, R.I., and San Francisco International Airport and the Fresno Airport in California. The use of the technology such as the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa, where pictures were taken of every attendee as they entered the stadium through the turnstiles and compared against a database of some undisclosed kind. The authorities would not say who was in that database, but the software did flag 19 individuals. The police indicated that some of those were false alarms, and no one flagged by the system was anything more than a petty criminal such as a ticket scalper. Press reports indicate that New Orleans authorities are considering using it again at the 2002 Super Bowl.

Computers can do increasingly amazing things, but they are not magic. If human beings often can't identify the subject of a photograph, why should computers be able to do it any more reliably? The human brain is highly adapted for recognizing faces - infants, for example, remember faces better than other patterns, and prefer to look at them over other patterns. The human brain is also far better than computers at compensating for changes in lighting and angle. The fact is that faces are highly complex patterns that often differ in only subtle ways, and that it can be impossible for man or machine to match images when there are differences in lighting, camera, or camera angle, let alone changes in the appearance of the face itself. Not surprisingly, government studies of face recognition software have found high rates of both "false positives" (wrongly matching innocent people with photos in the database) and "false negatives" (not catching people even when their photo is in the database). One problem is that unlike our fingerprints or irises, our faces do not stay the same over time. These systems are easily tripped up by changes in hairstyle, facial hair, or body weight, by simple disguises, and by the effects of aging. A study by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for example, found false negative rates for face recognition verification of 43 percent using photos of subjects taken just 18 months earlier, for example. And those photos were taken in perfect conditions, significant because facial recognition software is terrible at handling changes in lighting or camera angle or images with busy backgrounds. The NIST study also found that a change of 45 degrees in the camera angle rendered the software useless. The technology works best under tightly controlled conditions, when the subject is starting directly into the camera under bright lights - although another study by the Department of Defense found high error rates even in those ideal conditions.  Grainy, dated video surveillance photographs of the type likely to be on file for suspected terrorists would be of very little use.
However, the government also has possession of a huge, ready made facial image database - driver's license photos - and is looking into how they can be used. By law, the government can't sell those photos to private companies, but there are no prohibitions on their use for surveillance purposes by the government itself. The Federal government has begun to fund pilot projects on expanding the use of driver's license photos to facial recognition databases.

The fact that facial recognition, in combination with wider use of video surveillance, is growing increasingly invasive over time. Once installed, this kind of a surveillance system rarely remains confined to its original purpose. New ways of using it suggest themselves, the authorities or operators find them to be an irresistible expansion of their power, and citizens' privacy suffers another blow. Ultimately, the threat is that widespread surveillance will change the character, feel, and quality of American life and the threat of abuse by Big Brother and it's military and intelligence infrastructure. While video surveillance by the police isn't as widespread in the U.S., an investigation by the Detroit Free Press  shows the kind of abuses that can happen. Looking at how a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used, the newspaper found that officers had used it to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists, track estranged spouses - even to intimidate political opponents.  The unavoidable truth is that the more people who have access to a database, the more likely that there will be abuse. Facial recognition is especially subject to abuse because it can be used in a passive way that doesn't require the knowledge, consent, or participation of the subject. It's possible to put a camera up anywhere and train it on people; modern cameras can easily view faces from over 100 yards away. People act differently when they are being watched, and have the right to know if their movements and identities are being captured. Facial recognition, or any security technology, should not be deployed until two questions are answered. First, is the technology effective? Does it significantly increase our safety and security? If the answer is no, then further discussion is beside the point. If the answer is yes, then it must be asked whether the technology violates the appropriate balance between security and liberty. In fact, facial recognition fails on both counts: because it doesn't work reliably, it won't significantly protect our security - but it would pose a significant threat to our privacy. The main question will be who is watching the watchers?

HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

July 16, 1945 1st atomic bomb detonated, Trinity Site, Alamogordo, New Mexico

Russia
First nuclear test: 1949
Most recent nuclear test: 1990
Total tests: 715 (496 underground)

United Kingdom
First nuclear test: 1952
Most recent nuclear test: 1991
Total tests: 45 (24 underground)

France
First nuclear test: 1960
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 210 (160 underground)

China
First nuclear test: 1964
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 43 (22 underground)

India
First nuclear test: 1974
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 7

Pakistan
First nuclear test: 1998
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 6

THE COMING OF THE B.E.A.S.T
--------------------May 18, 2004

" Broaden Electronic Analysis Surveillance Technology "

The program will attempt to develop a computer that will surpass Japan's Earth Simulator, built by NEC in 2002 and capable of sustaining nearly 36 trillion calculations per second. With the NEC computer in 2002, Japan became the world leader in having the most powerful computer for scientific research, one even faster than computers used at the government nuclear weapons laboratories. "This computer will propel the United States into the global lead in high speed computers aimed at scientific discovery," according to Abraham. Other applications which will be employed by The B.E.A.S.T remain unknown, but it's use in the military and law enforcement community is inevitable. Super fast computers do more than solve complicated sets of equations. They allow for sophisticated simulations that lead to scientific discoveries once only found through lengthy experimentation. For example, super computers are key in the Energy Department's attempt to simulate the forces of a nuclear explosion, replacing actual bomb testing. "We are making this significant investment in America's scientific infrastructure with the expectation that it will yield a wealth of dividends, major research breakthroughs, significant technological innovations, medical and health advances, enhanced economic competitiveness and improved quality of life," Abraham stated. While the Japanese are to be congratulated for their accomplishment, the United States "must make the commitment necessary to regain the clear cut lead" in super computing, he contends. "This is exactly what we are going to do," promised Abraham.

Over 20 years ago a christian science publication announced the existence of a massive computer which was named The Beast, supposedly located in Belgium. This story was later found to be untrue, but even the mention of a world computer which collects data on the human race for the possible purpose of monitoring and marking human beings, was eerily compared to a beast system mentioned in the christian Bible's Book of Revelation.

Other endeavors to improve technology in the areas of communication are also being completed. The U.S. Air Force launched it's new GPS satellite in March 2004 from Cape Canaveral in Florida. The satellite which is manufactured by Lockhead Martin has advanced features such as an upgraded antenna panel for improved power and performance. The launch was the 50th in the United States GPS program. As of May 2004, their are at least 28 of these GPS satellites in orbit, with 10 of them being the new GPS IIR spacecraft design.. Lockheed Martin already has designs for the a more improved GPS satellite which is scheduled for launch in March 2005. The satellite has been named GPS III.

DOOMSDAY AVOIDED ONCE AGAIN
------------------

THE BILL OF RIGHTS REDUCED TO THE BILL OF WRONGS

The theory of state and federal crime control requires that law enforcement employ more police, issue harsher sentencing laws, broaden the greater use of the death penalty. But today, with an unprecedented number of people behind bars, you are no safer than before. We are, however, much less free. The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. These are laws which are crucial to a free society, and they are going the way of the dinosaur, becoming extinct. It would take years of struggle and a bloody civil war before additional amendments to the Constitution were passed, giving slaves and their descendants the full rights of citizenship, at least on paper: The 13th Amendment abolished slavery; The 14th Amendment guaranteed to African Americans the rights of due process and equal protection of the law; The 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote But it would take a century more of struggle before these rights were effectively enforced.

The last 10 years have not been good concerning The Bill of Rights and The Constitution. One example concerns the death penalty and innocent citizens being thrown in jail due to the corruption of state and federal prosecutors. The increasing numbers of innocent people released from death row illustrate the criminal nature of this trend.  A study from the University of Michigan identified 199 murder exoneration's since 1989, 73 of them in capital cases.  The death penalty is also racially and economically discriminatory.  After its careful study of the death penalty in the United States, the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission in 1998 issued a report which rightly concludes: “Race, ethnic origin and economic status appear to be key determinants of who will, and who will not, receive a sentence of death.”  These problems are not confined to state systems:  a recent Department of Justice survey documents racial, ethnic and geographic disparity in the charging of federal capital cases.  Indeed, the review found that in 75 percent of the cases in which a federal prosecutor sought the death penalty, the defendant was a member of a minority group.  The explanation for these extremely troubling disparities is unclear, but the possibility of discrimination and bias cannot be ruled out.

Federal prosecutors appear to be seeking the death penalty more often than they did in the past, and the Attorney General has ordered an increasing number of United States Attorneys to seek the death penalty in cases when they had recommended against it. The governments latest attack is the creation and development of the Victims' Rights Amendment. The Victims’ Rights Amendment would amend the Constitution to give a number of procedural rights to crime victims, including the right to be notified of, guaranteed admission to and a chance to speak at a number of judicial proceedings including hearings on pre-trial release, plea bargains, sentencing and parole. The amendment is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it would undercut basic due process protections that are designed to keep innocent defendants out of jail. Victims of crime would likely be able to deliver inflammatory remarks during different stages of a trial, which could serve to unfairly prejudice juries against an innocent defendant. This amendment could actually obstruct justice in many cases by blocking plea agreements granted to compel the testimony of key witnesses. For instance, Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor Beth Wilkinson testified in 2000 that had the amendment been in place, victims of the bombing may have been able to block the plea bargain reached with defendant Michael Fortier, who was granted leniency in return for his testimony against the two primary culprits. The most appalling example of this leniency in return for his testimony was in the 1990s concerning John Gotti, whom was labeled as the modern day Godfather of organized crime. The government made a deal with Sammy "The Bull" Gravano to testify against John Gotti, which was a major factor that sent John Gotti to a federal prison in which he died. Sammy Gravano admitted to the murders of nearly 20 people, one of the victims was his own brother in law. Mr. Gravano served less than three years in prison, in which he was released into the witness protection program. A few years later Mr. Gravano was again arrested for dealing the drug ecstasy, in which many of his customers were high school students.

The American public is alarmed about crime, and with good reason. For more than past 20 years, state and federal crime control policies have been based on the belief that harsh sentencing laws will deter people from committing crimes. But today, with more than one million people behind bars, and state budgets depleted by the huge costs of prison construction, we are no safer than before. New approaches to the problem of crime are needed, but instead, our political leaders keep serving up the same old ineffective strategies.

Take the so called "3 Strikes, You're Out" law, for example. Embraced by state legislators, Congress and the President himself, this law imposes a mandatory life sentence without parole on offenders convicted of certain crimes. Despite its catchy baseball metaphor, this law is a loser for numerous reasons. States have had habitual offender laws and recidivist statutes for years. All of these laws impose stiff penalties, up to and including life sentences, on repeat offenders. The 1987 Federal Sentencing Guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing laws in most states are also very tough on repeaters. The government may be justified in punishing a repeat offender more severely than a first offender, but "3 Strikes" laws are overkill.
These laws will not stop criminals from committing future violent acts after being released from prison. For one thing, most violent crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a life sentence is not going to stop people who are acting impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their actions.

Another reason why repeat offenders do not consider the penalties they face before acting is because they do not anticipate being caught, and they are right. According to the American Bar Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests and the math is simple. Less than 10% of criminals who commit violent crimes are never caught. The American citizens whom are kept in the dark about such realities and deception by our government should not be surprised. The 911 hearings concerning the Iraq war clearly show the deceptive nature of the Bush Administration. The recent revelations in May 2004 of American soldiers who were caught beating and torturing Iraq prisoners is no doubt troublesome. What is more disturbing that these acts were photographed and video taped, either by American troop personnel or the media. To commit these acts and knowing they are being recorded shows the arrogance and lack of moral decency of those involved. These acts of barbaric behavior committed by American troops has further eroded the world's trust and respect of the United States. One government spokesman tried to justify these acts by labeling those who are being abused as terrorists with American blood on their hands, which indicates the rule of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law extinct. My anger was not the acts of torture and abuse, or the image of a American who was beheaded in a Arab
broadcast, in which alleged terrorist claimed it was retribution due to the acts of American troops. Also, I found it strange that over 30 of these Iraq prisoners were released from the prison the very next day My anger and sorrow was for the American families who have lost loved ones in this Iraq war, then seeing these acts of abuse being committed.  The American soldiers who have died in the belief that they were fighting a just war in Iraq, are crying from the grave. The United States is now being seen as nothing more than a world thug.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was reported as a result of a decision made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to expand a clandestine operation against al Qaeda to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, according to a report in The New Yorker by journalist Seymour Hersh. The Pentagon sharply denied the allegations, calling them outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture. If these allegations are true, then our current leaders of the world's most powerful nation, The United States, is heading down a treacherous road. Attorney General John Ashcrofts attack on The Constitution with his Patriot Act, President Bush's obsession with invading Iraq by manipulating facts and deceiving the world as well as American citizens, and the latest stories concerning Rumsfeld authorization of torture, should frighten all Americans and any democratic government that inhabits our world. In October of 2004, military Sgt. Ivan Fredrick received an eight year prison term due to the now proven abuses at The Abu Ghraib prison.

---------------------------------------
--------------------Major General. Antonio Taguba testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee
--------------------------------on the torture and abuse of imprisoned Iraq citizens.

The criminal courts already suffer from serious backlogs. The extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs" have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse. Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand costly and time consuming trials rather than submit to plea bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to defend, while a full blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000. Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public defenders, the expense of their defense will be borne by taxpayers.

The passage of "3 Strikes" laws will lead to a significant increase in the nation's already swollen prison population, at enormous cost to taxpayers. Today, it costs about $20,000 per year to confine a young, physically fit offender. But "3 Strikes" laws would create a huge, geriatric prison population that would be far more expensive to care for. The estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is three times that required for a younger prisoner, estimated to be about $60,000 per year. Some experts tell us that age is the most powerful crime reducer. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and 24. Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African American men, in particular, are over represented in all criminal justice statistics: arrests, victimization's, incarceration and executions. This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs." Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or parole. Consider this scenario, A 18 year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers, Strike One. He gets out of jail and shoplifts a jacket from WalMart, pushing aside the clerk as he runs out of the store, Strike Two. He then gets out of jail, straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose, criminal behavior, to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life.

Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses, even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as "proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Many of the "3 Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft. Such laws offend our constitutional traditions and more laws will be introduced as felonies such as a individuals freedom of speech on issues that relate to a citizens resentment of certain government laws, which could be interpreted as a threat to national security.

One example of our government abusing law abiding citizens is when The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit today alleging that federal and state law enforcement agents violated the constitutional rights of a Pueblo family when they conducted an illegal SWAT type raid on the family's home with no warrant or other legal authority. “Once again, the war on drugs misses the target and instead scores a direct hit on the Constitution,” said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. “These government agents had no search warrant, no arrest warrant, and no lawful authority whatsoever. They carried out this armed home invasion in flagrant disregard of the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and arrests without probable cause.” According to the ACLU lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Dan and Rosa Unis and their two college aged sons, on August 19, 2000, the family was peacefully enjoying the privacy of their home when “black masked, black helmeted men brandishing automatic weapons and wearing all black uniforms with no insignias suddenly burst into the house unannounced, kicked the family's dog across the floor and ordered the entire family to "get on the fu*king floor." Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) held the family at gunpoint while they searched the house. Although they found no drugs or contraband, the family's two sons, Dave and Marcos, were taken away and imprisoned illegally and without charges. The two young men, age 19 and 22 at the time, spent two days in jail and then were released without charges filed, any explanation, or apology.

CAM PHONES THREATEN BIG BROTHER

Cell phone cameras are useful for the unusual moment that demands a picture, like when a congressional aide pulled one out of a pocket to get a snapshot of Michael Jackson strolling the halls of Congress. Some people, however, are using them for nefarious purposes, such as taking pictures beneath women's skirts and posting them on the Internet. Lawmakers want to make taking such surreptitious photos and other illicit uses of video technology a federal crime punishable by up to a year in jail.
"No one should have to go through the embarrassment of being secretly taped by an electronic peeping Tom, or seeing those pictures turn up on the Internet," said Rep. Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, a former FBI agent who is an advocate for the bill.
While there are no official studies on the intrusive use of camera phones, lawmakers and anti crime advocates say "video voyeurism" is a serious crime that deserves a serious response by the government. Simple voyeurism, secretly photographing or videotaping someone in a compromising position or in a private place, already is against the law in most states. The proliferation of tiny cellular telephones that can take pictures silently has facilitated the opportunity of  taking of illicit photos in public places.

Some states already are trying to deal with the problem. Twenty states have laws that cover only secret taping with cameras, and some are modifying them to include camera phones. Camera phones are becoming commonplace in American society, with sales expected to double or even triple in coming years. In 2003, about 6 million camera phones were shipped to the United States. The hidden truth behind this legislation is a simple one. This law is procured to make it illegal to video or record certain
circumstances. But as all laws, it will