All Posts (12217)
Sort by
(1) The European Union Parliament (1999)
The European Parliament A4-0005/1999 Paragraph 27 calls for a worldwide ban on weapons that might enable “any form” of the "manipulation of human beings".
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/european-parliament-a400051999
(2) H.R. 1160 (2001)
Introduced March 22, 2001: terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency band
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-hr-1160-2001
(3) H.R. 2977 (2001)
Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich: peaceful uses of space; prohibiting (the unlawful use) of electromagnetic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hr-2977-ih
(4) The Human Rights org (2002)
Media Guide to Disarmament: electromagmentic resonance weapons
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) formally listed a special category of psychotronic [psycho-"mind" & tronic="electronic"] mind control and other electromagmentic resonance weapons in their 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament.
http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/2002-media-guide-to-disarmament-in-geneva-95.pdf ;
(5) Berkeley, California (2002)
Ban the weaponization of space and mind control
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/berkeley-resolution-of-ban-the
(6) Michigan: House Bill 4513 (2003)
Classify harmful electronic or electromagnetic devices
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-4513
(7) Michigan: House Bill 4514 (2003)
Add to statutes to define crimes
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/house-bill-4514
(8) Massachusetts: Chapter 170 of the Acts of (2004)
Possession of electronic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/massachusetts-act
(9) Maine: Chapter 264 H.P. 868 - L.D. 1271 (2005)
Criminal uses of electronic weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/maine-act-hp-868
(10) Missouri House bill 550
introduced by Jim Guest to against illegal chip implants.
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/584-jim-guest-of-mo-usa-bill
(11) Electronic Surveillance Laws in USA
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/ElectronicSurveillanceLaws/tabid/13492/Default.aspx#OH
(12) Michigan House Bill 1026
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hres1026-cointelpro
(13) H.R.5662 IH-- STALKERS Act of 2010 (Introduced in House - IH)https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/stalkers-act-of-2010-hr5662
(14) US Code: Chapter 32: 1520 and 1520a - Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/us-codechapter-32-1520-and
(15) Criminal Justice, New Technologies, and the Constitution , May 1988
http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8809.pdf
(16) 2010 California Code: Health and Safety Code: Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2010-california-code-human-experimentation
(17) European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection. State parties can also take cases against other state parties to the Court, although this power is rarely used. There are comparable protections issued in the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution as well as the English Bill of Rights. I used the European Convention on Human Rights as it is an International Agreement.
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.
2. Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"
1. Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
2. Article 13 - effective remedy
3. Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention.
(18) Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code
A victim may recover compensatory damages,
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/united-states-code-section-1983-of-title-42
(19) Russian Federation law
The addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law On Weapons, "was approved on July 26, 2001. It states: within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations" (30).
(20) International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons
International criminal justice standards and Non Lethal Weapons NATO policy that express : ... “The research and development procurement and employment of Non-Lethal Weapons shall always remain consistent with applicable treaties, conventions and international law, particularly the Law of Armed conflict as well as national law and approved Rules of Engagement.”
International criminal justice standards The following criminal justice standards were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations:
• 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the • 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force. (Page 36)
http://www.adh-geneve.ch/docs/projets/Non-Kinetic-EnergyOctober2010.pdf
(21) UNIDIR has listed non lethal weapons( mind control ) weapons as weapons of mass destruction.
“NON-LETHAL” WEAPONS It is difficult to oppose the development of new means and methods of warfare, which would lead to fewer deaths, injuries, disabilities or deprivation to civilians. However, the term “non-lethal weapons” is applied to a range of old and new weapons the use of which is, purportedly, associated with low lethality. Such weapons can be classified according to how they damage or incapacitate the human body. The following categories of weapon have been cited as having “non-lethal” capabilities: kinetic energy (rubber bullets, sponge bullets, etc.); entangling technologies (nets, sticky foam); chemical weapons; biological weapons; acoustic beams; electric shock technologies; infrasound; and electromagnetic waves of a variety of wavelengths.10
http://unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2359.pdf
http://www.unidir.org/html/en/search.html?q=non+lethal+weapons&sa=
Some lawsuits filed by Soleilmavis
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/some-lawsuits-filed-by
Kidnapped by Mind Control Weapons, and Sent to US Embassy in Hong Kong
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/kidnapped-by-mind-control
42 U.S.C. 1983
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides, in part:
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress,… “
Under this federal statute, a person who is deprived of their rights under the Constitution by someone acting under “color of law” (federal, state, or local) can bring a federal cause of action for damages and other relief. The statute provides a right of redress for parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official's abuse of his or her governmental position.
Elements of a Cause of Action
Generally speaking, there are three elements required to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiff must prove the following:
1) He or she was deprived of a specific right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States;
2) The alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law; and
3) The deprivation was the proximate cause of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
There must be a causal connection between the defendant’s action and the alleged injury. This means that harm experienced by the plaintiff must be the result of an action on the part of the governmental entity or its agent.
Who can be sued?
Anyone acting under “color of law” can be sued under this statute. Local governments, municipal corporations, and school boards can all be subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but only if their policies or procedures were the
proximate cause of the Constitutional deprivation and the injury alleged.
Generally, in the absence of a “policy claim”, individuals employed by federal, state or local government are the parties named as defendants. They are sued individually for actions they took in their official capacity. In some cases, private citizens can become liable in a “1983 action”, if they acted in concert with public officials to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights.
Qualified Immunity
An affirmative defense of qualified immunity is available to defendants who acted under circumstances where a reasonable official may not have understood that the conduct alleged was illegal. It is not necessary to show
that the defendant officer was acting in bad faith and, indeed, the officer’s subjective intentions, such as a good faith belief that what he was doing was lawful, are irrelevant. To defeat qualified immunity, it is necessary for the
plaintiff to show that, given the facts and circumstances alleged, any reasonable officer would have known that the conduct complained of violated well-established law at the time of the incident.
Damages
A victim may recover compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and (except in the case of municipal defendants) punitive damages. The prevailing plaintiff can also recover the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys fees.
Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons
2010 California Code
Health and Safety Code
Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
Health and Safety Code
Chapter 1.3. Human Experimentation
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 24170-24179.5
SECTION 24170-24179.5
24174. As used in this chapter, "medical experiment" means:
(a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject.
(b) The investigational use of a drug or device as provided in Sections 111590 and 111595.
(c) Withholding medical treatment from a human subject for any purpose other than maintenance or improvement of the health of the subject.
(a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject.
(b) The investigational use of a drug or device as provided in Sections 111590 and 111595.
(c) Withholding medical treatment from a human subject for any purpose other than maintenance or improvement of the health of the subject.
24175. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall be subjected to any medical experiment unless the informed consent of such person is obtained.
24176. (a) Any person who is primarily responsible for conduct of a medical experiment and who negligently allows the experiment to be conducted without a subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages awarded shall be five hundred dollars ($500).
(b) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages
awarded shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, and thereby exposes a subject to a known substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(d) Any representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company, who is directly responsible for contracting with another person for the conduct of a medical experiment, and who has knowledge of risks or hazards with respect to the experiment, and who willfully withholds information of the risks and hazards from the person contracting for the conduct of the medical experiment, and thereby exposes a subject to substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(e) Each and every medical experiment performed in violation of any provision of this chapter is a separate and actionable offense.
(f) Any attempted or purported waiver of the rights guaranteed, or requirements prescribed by this chapter, whether by a subject or by a subject's conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is void.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the right of an injured subject to recover damages under any other applicable law.
(b) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, shall be liable to the subject in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as determined by the court. The minimum amount of damages
awarded shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) Any person who is primarily responsible for the conduct of a medical experiment and who willfully fails to obtain the subject's informed consent, as provided in this chapter, and thereby exposes a subject to a known substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(d) Any representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company, who is directly responsible for contracting with another person for the conduct of a medical experiment, and who has knowledge of risks or hazards with respect to the experiment, and who willfully withholds information of the risks and hazards from the person contracting for the conduct of the medical experiment, and thereby exposes a subject to substantial risk of serious injury, either bodily harm or psychological harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or a fine of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or both.
(e) Each and every medical experiment performed in violation of any provision of this chapter is a separate and actionable offense.
(f) Any attempted or purported waiver of the rights guaranteed, or requirements prescribed by this chapter, whether by a subject or by a subject's conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is void.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the right of an injured subject to recover damages under any other applicable law.
24177.5. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any medical experimental treatment that benefits a patient subject to a life-threatening emergency if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) Care is provided in accordance with the procedures and the additional protections of the rights and welfare of the patient set forth in Part 50 of Title 21 of, and Part 46 of Title 45 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on December 31, 2010.
(2) The patient is in a life-threatening situation necessitating urgent intervention and available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory.
(3) The patient is unable to give informed consent as a result of the patient's medical condition.
(4) Obtaining informed consent from the patient's legally authorized representatives is not feasible before the treatment must be administered. The proposed investigational plan shall define the length of time of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator shall commit to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that length of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that length of time rather than proceeding without consent.
(5) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(6) Valid scientific studies have been conducted that support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the patient. Risks associated with the investigation shall be reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard
therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to relieve any party of any other legal duty, including, but not limited to, the duty to act in a nonnegligent manner.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.
(1) Care is provided in accordance with the procedures and the additional protections of the rights and welfare of the patient set forth in Part 50 of Title 21 of, and Part 46 of Title 45 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on December 31, 2010.
(2) The patient is in a life-threatening situation necessitating urgent intervention and available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory.
(3) The patient is unable to give informed consent as a result of the patient's medical condition.
(4) Obtaining informed consent from the patient's legally authorized representatives is not feasible before the treatment must be administered. The proposed investigational plan shall define the length of time of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator shall commit to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that length of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that length of time rather than proceeding without consent.
(5) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(6) Valid scientific studies have been conducted that support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the patient. Risks associated with the investigation shall be reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard
therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to relieve any party of any other legal duty, including, but not limited to, the duty to act in a nonnegligent manner.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.
Read more about Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of
US Code - Chapter 32: Chemical and biological warfare program
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32
US Code - Section 1520: Repealed.
related to use by the Department of Defense of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents, accounting to congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies, and notification of local civilian officials.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32/1520
50 U.S.C. § 1520a : US Code -Section 1520A: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or
biological agents
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32/1520a
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1520 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
-HEAD-
Sec. 1520. Repealed.
-MISC1-
Sec. 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, div.A, title X, Sec. 1078(g), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, and Pub. L. 105-277,div. I, title VI, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886. Section, Pub. L. 95-79, title VIII, Sec.808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1),Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822, related to use by the Department of Defense ofhuman subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents, accounting to
congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies, and notification of local civilian officials.
-End-
……………………………………………………………………
-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1520a 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
-HEAD-
Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
-STATUTE-
(a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) –
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human objects.
(b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section,the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
(c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
(e) "Biological agent" defined In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing –
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 105-85, div. A, title X, Sec. 1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915; Pub. L. 106-65, div. A, title X, Sec. 1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774.)
-COD-
CODIFICATION
Section is comprised of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85. Subsec. (f) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85 amended section 1523(b) of this title. Subsec. (g) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105-85 repealed section 1520 of this title.
Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and not as part of Pub. L. 91-121, title IV, Sec. 409, Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 209, which comprises this chapter.
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1999 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L.106-65 substituted "and the Committee on Armed Services" for"and the Committee on National Security".
-End-
HR 5662 IH
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.
July 1, 2010
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act of 2010' or the `STALKERS Act of 2010'.
SEC. 2. STALKING.
(a) In General- Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 2261A. Stalking
`(a) Whoever, with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person, engages in any conduct in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States that--
`(1) causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress to a person other than the person engaging in the conduct; or
`(2) occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be reasonably expected to cause the other person serious emotional distress;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is the same as that for an offense under section 2261, except that--
`(1) if the offense involves conduct in violation of a protection order, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is increased by 5 years, over the term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in section 2261; and
`(2) if the victim of the offense is under the age of 18 years, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is increased by 10 years, over the term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in section 2261.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 2261A in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`2261A. Stalking.'.
SEC. 3. BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING LAWS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
In the annual report under section 529 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall--
(1) include an evaluation of Federal, tribal, State, and local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
(2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such laws.
109th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. RES. 1026
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 20, 2006
Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
For the re-opening of investigative hearings into the Counter- Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and other intelligence and law enforcement programs and agencies, and an expansion of those hearings to include renewal of previously curtailed abuses, and other activities sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT.
Whereas the Congress affirms both constitutional and international law and all existing legislation and resolutions that protect, defend, and assert human and civil rights;
Whereas the Congress denounces the criminalization of political expression;
Whereas the Congress condemns any abuse of human, civil, and constitutional rights undertaken by Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies and agents;
Whereas the Congress acknowledges the violations of law perpetrated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted under the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), and other intelligence agency and law enforcement programs such as CHAOS, GARDEN PLOT, CABLE SPLICER, LANTERN SPIKE, and others, which targeted the leadership of progressive social movements and implemented extra-constitutional aggregations of executive power or martial law;
Whereas the Congress recognizes the findings of the Church Committee which identified COINTELPRO and related activities as an illegal, extra-judicial effort designed to disrupt and destroy opposition groups and movements, and anti-war protest, among others;
Whereas the Congress regrets that the government investigations stopped short of making recommendations for relief for the victims of COINTELPRO and, as a result, dozens still remain imprisoned, unjustly incarcerated as the result of FBI operations to `neutralize' the leadership of the civil rights movement; and
Whereas the Congress recognizes that such abuses have been renewed in the United States under special Executive branch orders and mandates following the attacks of 9/11, by existing and newly formed intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies including but not limited to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of nvestigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), and Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and by certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and related legislation: Now,
therefore, be it Resolved, That the U.S. Congress will release any related classified documents that do not involve compromise of an existing source, agent, or method, and renew and administer hearings by all appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress, or through the formation of a select oversight committee to investigate the past abuses and appropriate legal relief due to the victims of such abuses carried out under COINTELPRO and related programs by other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and to identify any renewal of similar abuses following the attacks of 9/11 by any Federal or local agencies or Executive branch orders, or under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT; and
Be it further resolved, That Congress intends to renew legislation that will end these abuses and fully protect the constitutional, civil, and human rights of all U.S. citizens and others who fall under the protection of our laws and international laws and treaties the United States is signatory to.
More Laws Against Criminal Uses of Electromagnetic Energy Weapons
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-against-criminal-uses-of
The followings are some suggestions from lawyers, We welcome more good suggestions, please leave your comments to this post.
Some suggestions from France lawyers
Summary report of Mr. Rudy (France) meeting with the lawyers in Paris
Only 3 lawyers turned up, the other 3 were held up at their offices at the last moment and briefly chatted with us on the phone.
1. They all know about the existence of various tecnological means which violate the fundamental human rights of innocent people , they know the existence of non lethal weapons and of highly sophisticated psychological pressures.
2. They do not have the slightest doubt about some governments' participation in influencing or even destroying the free will of some people.
3. They know that the exposure of such practices usually provokes sniggering and those who dare to complain are either made fun of or accused of paranoia.
Paranoia , of course, does exist and as it is characterized by an excessive mistrust of other people's acts or an excessive mistrust of power, it affects every social relationship and makes it possible to justify exclusion .
4. Utmost rigour and precision are therefore required when exposing the attacks on the victims' integrity, privacy and freedom of thought by invisible means. .
It is only by building up impeccable fact-files supported by official reports and scientific studies that public opinion worldwide can be sensitized and made aware of the problem.
It is only under these conditions of rigour and precision that the 3 lawyers present will agree to put the case for the defence.
The 3 lawyers all agreed on the following points:
Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence of the attacks, so we have to make do with:
a) statistics
b) similarities in symptoms and experiences
c) similarities of torture cases
d) existence of weapons'patents
e) existence of the technology patents for the use of V2K
f) complicity of a number of psychiatrists worldwide
G) the highly probable involvement of many governments ( two lawyers referred to the example of helicopters and said that not many people can afford to maintain aircrafts. Flights are logged and the airspace they are in is recorded).
September 13, 2008
add 1 point: the 3 lawyers think that our first help should come from the parliamentarians, because they are the ones who make the laws.
Suggestions from Mr. Bob who have good knowledge on COINTELPRO
(1) the necessary evidence for bringing a lawsuit with Universal Jurisdiction is to pursue a winning legal strategy that begins with the reopening of a COINTELPRO investigation and
(2) the appointment of an independent special counsel with subpoena powers for obtaining classified government documents that show a specific harm to a specific person by a specific federal agent.
USA Bill 1026 COINTELPRO
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/usa-bill-hres1026-cointelpro
Instructions for preparing a COINTELPRO statement
https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/instructions-for-preparing-a
About Greg’s lawsuit with Stein and Stein
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/stein-and-stein-the-law-firm
From Bob S, JD, Retired Attorney
First, a Canadian law firm cannot represent in a Canadian court US citizens who have suffered harm in the US from a US federal agency. The Canadian court does not have jurisdiction over such a case, and Canadian lawyers are not authorized to undertake such representation in a US court.
Second, if the lawyers had agreed to take such a case, they would have written to greg explaining what they would try to do and for whom. Greg would send a copy of this letter instead of his own vague email.
Third, the MKULTRA evidence can't be used to prove CIA responsibility for new forms of experiments using entirely different technology today. We have no way of accessing new evidence of responsibility by ourselves or through an attorney or a private investigator. It can only be accessed by a congressional investigation or by an
appointed Independent Prosecutor. No legitimate attorney would make the false claim that a detective can get such classified evidence. If the detective could actually do this by some illegal means, he would be subject to severe criminal penalties.
Fourth, the claims of TI's are far too diversified to be lumped together in a class action law suit. Any attempt to do this would be dismissed by the court. No legitimate attorney would claim that a class action lawsuit would be an appropriate form of legal action for the TI situation.
Bob S, JD, Retired Attorney
In a message dated 5/17/2011 6:40:15 A.
I just received another lawyers suggection on 24 May 2011,
Practices in US are not familiar to me. But basically location of court should follow the country of the victim. It is correct that US citizen can not go to court in Canada but must claim first all the processes in his home country. After that international courts are available based on international agreements or laws.
Basically evidences in court are here in Europe under various laws but itself court case here makes evidences and even non public materials more public for the case parties. It is universal law to have a right to know what concerns person's own matters. Others it makes quite impossible to audience parties in the court.
Related to possible illegal medical-type experiments, these materials should be public for the person they concern, also because of the court case. But in practice i see it quite demanding to go and ask these materials for public view. Also I can not say about evidence's hand out practical protocols in different countries, I am sure those vary country to country too much. Class action, I am not familiar. I know somehow group's right to make a group suit.
Here in Europe group suit must be based on law that qualifies the case. All cases can not be group cases.
The route to court or solution in mind control cases seems to me out of the court exercise, but of course it would be ideal to take people behind to the crimes to the court. Lets see how this kind of cases can come to public knowledge for masses.
Law says non-US citizens can still sue in US cvourts for torture:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100460/
Is Torture Against the Law?
What Uncle Sam has to say about it.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 5:26 PM ETAccording to an article in today's New York Times, the CIA is using "coercive interrogation methods" against some al-Qaida suspects. The piece notes that "defenders of the operation said the methods … did not violate American anti-torture statutes." What U.S. laws are they referring to?
The federal anti-torture statute is formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code. The law consists of three sections (2340, 2340A, and 2340B), which define the crime of torture and prescribe harsh punishments for anyone—an American citizen or otherwise—who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. (Domestic incidents of torture are covered by state criminal statutes.) A person found guilty of committing torture faces up to 20 years in prison or even execution, if the torture in question resulted in a victim's death.
The law was added to the books in 1994, as part of the United States' efforts to ratify and comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (more simply known as the CAT). The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1984, but not ratified by the U.S. Congress until a decade later. The CAT mandates that all parties to the treaty "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."
Advertisement
Another section of the U.S. Code (Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section 1350) also deals with the issue of torture. The so-called Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 allows victims of torture, or the families of those who were killed through extrajudicial means, to sue their tormentors in U.S. courts, regardless of their citizenship or where the crime occurred.
Both of these anti-torture statutes include identical, albeit imprecise, definitions of what constitutes torture. Among the proscribed actions are "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering"; the use of "mind-altering substances"; and threats against other people, presumably family members.
Despite its efforts to adhere to the directives of the CAT, the United States has recently grumbled over the United Nations' efforts to add an inspection regime to the treaty. In 2002, the United Nations added an "optional protocol" to the CAT, requiring signatories to permit surprise inspections of their prisons. The United States has so far refused to sign, contending that the inspections would infringe on states' rights.
Suggestions from Joan Farr Heffington, C.E.O.
Association for Honest Attorneys
7145 Blueberry
Lane, Derby, Kansas 67037
Ph: 316.788.0901
316.788.7990
www.assocforhonestattys.com
We have read some of the dialog going on between TIs and legal counsel concerning the Bioethics Commission and wanted to offer our opinion. If this email does not reach all the TIs on your list, please forward...
From all indications, this commission is only to give the appearance that they are doing something about the illegal surveillance/ targeting of innocent people. Our research and substantial evidence shows that the targeting of innocent people (in any form, whether it's by microwave surveillance/microchips/steroid cocktail mix IVs in the hospital) is the result
of National Security Letters (NSLs) that were legalized under the Patriot Act in 2001. Anyone with connections to a Washington insider or your state governor/attorney general can have one issued against a person at any time for any reason. We have evidence to show that NSLs were delivered to hospitals three times in 2007 in the Wichita, Kansas area by CIA operatives/Blackwater contractors stationed at McConnell Air Force Base (read Case # 3 on our website under "Supporting Documents" - one woman was killed in the hospital using the steroid cocktail mix I.V.) NSLs are also delivered to banks if they want to get
into your bank account, and this also flags employers not to hire you. Our research shows that anyone who fights the system in any way has an NSL against them. When a 22-year old boy working out at McConnell was targeted with H1N1 in Oct. 2009, we pushed for a Congressional inquiry and a false lawsuit was brought against me (personally) by our state attorney general for practicing law without a license. They do not want us to keep showing people how to file their own lawsuits because they know that numerous pro se suits are the only thing that works - they overload the system. You can talk til you're blue in the face, but a lawsuit is a written record that forces them to respond (if they don't, you win by default judgment). A guide is on our website under "How to File a Federal Suit" with TI claims similar to Case # 3. You can take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by mail in three easy steps. Your best evidence is an affidavit from another TI who agrees with what happened to you, because it also happened to them. We have helped people with cases in the past and attached these as evidence, and this keeps the court from dismissing it as a frivolous suit. Don't let anyone tell you this is not good evidence - it is the BEST.
of National Security Letters (NSLs) that were legalized under the Patriot Act in 2001. Anyone with connections to a Washington insider or your state governor/attorney general can have one issued against a person at any time for any reason. We have evidence to show that NSLs were delivered to hospitals three times in 2007 in the Wichita, Kansas area by CIA operatives/Blackwater contractors stationed at McConnell Air Force Base (read Case # 3 on our website under "Supporting Documents" - one woman was killed in the hospital using the steroid cocktail mix I.V.) NSLs are also delivered to banks if they want to get
into your bank account, and this also flags employers not to hire you. Our research shows that anyone who fights the system in any way has an NSL against them. When a 22-year old boy working out at McConnell was targeted with H1N1 in Oct. 2009, we pushed for a Congressional inquiry and a false lawsuit was brought against me (personally) by our state attorney general for practicing law without a license. They do not want us to keep showing people how to file their own lawsuits because they know that numerous pro se suits are the only thing that works - they overload the system. You can talk til you're blue in the face, but a lawsuit is a written record that forces them to respond (if they don't, you win by default judgment). A guide is on our website under "How to File a Federal Suit" with TI claims similar to Case # 3. You can take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by mail in three easy steps. Your best evidence is an affidavit from another TI who agrees with what happened to you, because it also happened to them. We have helped people with cases in the past and attached these as evidence, and this keeps the court from dismissing it as a frivolous suit. Don't let anyone tell you this is not good evidence - it is the BEST.
If what we are telling you is wrong, they wouldn't be trying so hard to put us out of business. But a top priority right now is to pressure your Congressmen/Senators to let the Patriot Act (or relevant portions) expire on May 27. Then they can no longer issue National Security Letters against innocent people. We also need a law in place, and that is why a
Congressional inquiry is needed. If enough lawsuits are threatened, this can force them to address the issue so it is covered by mainstream media, as it should be...
"The answer to world peace is to eliminate arrogance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
Congressional inquiry is needed. If enough lawsuits are threatened, this can force them to address the issue so it is covered by mainstream media, as it should be...
"The answer to world peace is to eliminate arrogance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
USA PATRIOT Act
Main article: USA Patriot Act
Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters.[6] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure.
"How to File a Federal Suit" at www.assocforhonestattys.com.
Case # 3 under "Supporting Documents" can be used as a template.
Lawyers who know mind control abuses and tortures
https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawyers-who-know-mind-control
Below is an accurate statement of my personal COINTELPRO experiences except that “Maria” is a fictional name. The original letter was sent separately to all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We received no answers from any of them.
From 1989 onward, we sent similar letters to our California senators and representatives. Some did not reply. Others sent non-responsive replies. No one offered any sincere help. Recently, there has been talk in the House of a new COINTELPRO investigation. We can write letters to encourage this proposed investigation. However, it is very unlikely that we can persuade elected representatives to meet their responsibility to us. Only public pressure can force a new COINTELPRO investigation.
We need an organized effort to bring our story to the public in an attempt to arouse public pressure, which can force congressional investigation. This will require the work of many people. I can tell you what to do, but I cannot do all the work for you. We need volunteers with writing and editing skills to work on this major project. Let me know if you can contribute.
I do not recommend that you write letters and send them to anyone at this point. I do recommend that you prepare letters following the guidelines below. They should be reviewed and edited by people who understand what is needed and who can edit them to conform them to the standards that I have set. Good editing is of crucial importance. It is counterproductive to send letters that sound confused and unbelievable.
THINGS TO AVOID:
Avoid repeating my words. Restate your experiences in your own words. Your words may be similar to mine, but we don't want it to appear that you are copying a form.
Avoid going into detailed descriptions of complex experiences. Describe your experiences in the kind of general terms that I have used.
Avoid speculating about the reasons why you were targeted unless you have good reason to believe that you were targeted for political reasons. I will prepare a general explanation of what is behind these operations. I don't want conflicting personal theories in the statements.
I cannot do the editing of statements by myself, but I can lead a team of editors if there are volunteers who will do the basic work.
Bob S bobsdewtell@gmail.com
SAMPLE STATEMENT
The Hon. John Smith
House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Dear Rep. Smith:
I am writing to ask for your help in seeking a new investigation of present-day COINTELPRO operations. These illegal and unconstitutional forms of government agency harassment and crime are rampant today.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church Committee investigations of 1976-78 did not end these covert forms of government persecution of citizens. No legislation was enacted to provide effective oversight or to provide future COINTELPRO victims with any effective remedies. None of the proven government criminals was prosecuted or fired. So the same COINTELPRO operations have continued to the present day.
Our personal experiences are proof that the evil of COINTELPRO lives on today in forms even more vile and destructive than what the Church committee uncovered. We are in touch with other victims who have similar COINTELPRO experiences.
Many of our COINTELPRO experience demonstrate capabilities that could only belong to a government intelligence agency. Other COINTELPRO experiences demonstrate the typical COINTELPRO modus operandi.
These COINTELPRO experiences began for me in 1954 as the result of my activism against McCarthyism while in college. The same experiences began for Maria in 1971. Here is a summary of our personal experiences with COINTELPRO forms of harassment and crime:
Access to our mail: Interception of our most important letters coming and going; long delays in delivery; and tampering with the contents of our mail. We have written dozens of letters of complaint and made dozens of oral complaints about 14 years of mail interference. Neither the postal inspectors nor any postal officials will deal honestly or realistically with the facts. Their evasive, unrealistic responses have caused us to believe that they must know the truth about continuous postal crimes committed against us with the consent of postal officials.
Ability to access the contents of shipments via UPS, Federal Express, Airborne Express, etc., without leaving any evidence of opening the packages. We find clear and unmistakable evidence of tampering and sabotage to the contents of packages delivered by these carriers but no sign of the packages having been opened. The FBI has the capability to open and reseal letters and packages so perfectly that the opening cannot be detected.
Ability to access the contents of safe deposit boxes that we rented at four different locations. They did this repeatedly at each location, taking things from the boxes and putting things in the boxes to let us know that they had been there and that we could not have safety for our personal belongings anywhere. Employees denied that our boxes had been entered.
Ability to enter our apartment and cars at any time without breaking in. We continually see evidence of illegal entries for harassment purposes, not investigative purposes. To let us know that someone has been in our apartment, things are moved from one place to another; cigarette butts and chewing gum are dropped on the floor; human excrement was once left in a waste paper basket. Items having great personal value to us and no value to anyone else are stolen. Evidence and documentation of harassment activities are stolen. We recently discovered the theft of approximately 40 VHS cassettes taping from C-SPAN of House and Senate Judiciary hearings relating to the FBI. Our medications have been openly tampered with and sometimes undetectably altered to produce very noticeable effects. Maria was taking a medication just before going to bed. Sometimes she couldn't sleep all night. Other times she slept so soundly that she had difficulty awaking on time to get to work and felt drowsy all day. The same thing was happening to her dog. Sometimes the dog stayed awake all night walking around the bedroom. Other nights the dog was so unconscious that Maria could not awaken it, and it continued to sleep through the morning. I was sometimes drugged unconscious just after drinking from an open beverage in the refrigerator. Twice I was taken to the emergency room because of apparent poisoning. The FBI budged $23 million in 1993 for r&d to enable it "to defeat modern electronics-based locking systems and the largest multi-laser technologies." (See 1993 FBI Budget request to the White House Office of Management and ``Budget, pp 4-5.) Now you know what they have been using the money for. Any lock that we can put on an apartment door is useless. Our tax dollars are used to pay for the development of state-of-the-art government burglary technology to be used in committing crimes against us.
Ability to know things that we say or do within the "privacy of our home" by means of electronic surveillance devices. This has been proven to us by harassment operations possible only through a knowledge of things that we say in our apartment and an ability to find things of personal value which we have hidden in places that would normally take hours to find. They have entered the living room during the day while we were in other rooms. They steal and are gone in an instant. We know that they have been there when we return to the living room and find something missing that was there minutes earlier. They could only do this by having surveillance equipment to tell them when we are away from the living room. They show us that they are able to watch us in every room at any hour of the day or night.
Ability to keep our phones tapped and to hear our conversations on calls from pay phones. They have demonstrated this capability by arranging harassment requiring use of information that could only be obtained by hearing our phone calls. It makes no difference if we go to a pay phone. The FBI has the capability to tap pay phones instantly. No court order is needed for this or for any other illegal act. The FBI does whatever it has the technological capability to do. It has never been concerned about the illegality of its acts because there has never been anyone to investigate or prosecute its crimes. We get frequent harassing phone calls. Changing numbers doesn't help. Having Pacific Bell put on a three week phone trap stops the harassing calls for those three weeks. As soon as the trap is taken off, the harassing calls resume. The harassers know when the trap is put on and taken off.
Availability of unlimited numbers of people to harass us in various ways. For years they openly followed us and approached us to start strange conversations. When we went to a deserted park area to have a picnic, one person after another came to settle at a point near us until they had us surrounded in a circle. No one else was in sight, but we were surrounded. Every time we went to a coffee shop, someone with a book would come to sit at a table within earshot, order coffee, and pretend to read. This routine was repeated continuously for months to make it appear that we were always under surveillance. If we went to a pay phone, someone would come to stand close enough to hear what we were saying. This was a blatant show of false surveillance purely for harassment. We never saw the same person twice. They showed us that they had an unlimited number of people available to keep repeating the same harassment operations.
Police participation. Local police have traditionally done whatever the FBI has asked them to do. They have become a part of the COINTELPRO machine. They cover up COINTELPRO crimes and sometimes participate in COINTELPRO harassment. For years, we saw police cars always present wherever we went. When Maria was living alone, police cars followed her openly and obtrusively on the streets. She took some Polaroid photos of the cars and took a photo showing a police car license number to the police station to complain about police harassment. The next time that she went to the park where she often walked her dog, approximately 10 police cars showed up and parked just outside the park. Soon afterward, the Polaroid camera and the photos of police cars were stolen from Maria's apartment. West Hollywood police gave me a ticket for parking on a hill without my wheels curbed. I saw several other cars parked without their wheels curbed but with no tickets. I kept the ticket and later started to write a letter complaining about discriminatory ticketing as police harassment. I intended to enclose a copy of the ticket, but before I could finish the letter, the ticket was stolen from the apartment. On one occassion, four police officers awoke Maria in the middle of the night by pounding loudly on her apartment door. They claimed to be looking for someone at her apartment number but at a different street address which did not exist. Police refused to investigate our reports of continuous burglaries.
Ability to obtain cooperation by employees of private business organizations in harassment operations. This might be accomplished by using FBI clout to request cooperation from business managers in harassment operations disguised as legitimate FBI investigative operations. It might be accomplished by bribing employees to participate in harassment without the knowledge of management. The FBI has unlimited funds to pay anyone to do anything. They can get people in any business organization to cooperate.
Ability to alienate friends and relatives through false accusations or false evidence used to create false negative beliefs about us. Friends and relatives suddenly broke off long relationships for no apparent reason or for reasons that made no sense. They tried to destroy my relationship with Maria by planting legal documents harmful to me with our signatures forged on them.
We have no direct proof of responsibility of a specific federal intelligence agency for the COINTELPRO forms of crime and harassment that we experience. It is impossible for the victims of covert government operations to prove responsibility. This is why investigation of COINTELPRO operations by congress is essential in order to determine responsibility and to provide remedies to citizens who have no legal means available to protect themselves against COINTELPRO forms of secret persecution.
Although we cannot prove responsibility of a specific federal agency or of specific government officials, we know that our experiences are typical of the COINTELPRO forms of crime and harassment which were originally developed and carried out by the FBI developed under J. Edgar Hoover and which this agency has been using for more than 50 years against thousands of innocent citizens.
The motive for the covert war against us is consistent with the motive for the covert wars waged by the FBI against innocent citizens throughout its history. Asserting constitutional rights or opposing activities and policies have been reasons for secret government retaliation against thousands of innocent American citizens.
A vast amount of information on this subject is available on the Internet. A Google search for "COINTELPRO" will produce hundreds of thousands of links with documentation of experiences similar to ours. Much of it is historical, but there is substantial evidence of the continuation of COINTELPRO operations to the present day.
The situation since 9-11 has produced extreme infringement on personal liberty. COINTELPRO operations such as we describe are the worst form of government abuse. These illegal and unconstitutional, covert government operations deserve your immediate attention and your serious investigation. We can provide you with much more detailed information about our personal experiences with COINTELPRO harassment and crime.
We are asking you and your colleagues to study information and documentation which we can provide to prove the truth about our long experience with these secret wars by government against innocent citizens. We are asking you to investigate responsibility for these wars and to take the necessary action to bring the wars to an end. We are asking you to restore to us and to all citizens the freedom and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Please tell us that you intend to meet this responsibility.
Sincerely yours,
(As entered into the record)
January 22, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Today, Senator Specter and I are introducing the “State Secrets Protection Act.” I’ve been working on this bill with Senator Specter for several months, and I thank him for his commitment and leadership on this very important issue. I hope that our collaboration on this legislation will demonstrate that even the most sensitive problems can be addressed through bipartisan cooperation if we keep the interests of the nation front-and-center and roll up our sleeves to do the work of seeking a realistic and workable solution. The State Secrets Protection Act is an essential response to a pressing need.
For years, there has been growing concern about the state secrets privilege. It’s a common law privilege that lets the government protect sensitive national security information from being disclosed as evidence in litigation. The problem is that sometimes plaintiffs may need that information to show that their rights were violated. If the privilege is not applied carefully, the government can use it as a tool for cover-up, by withholding evidence that is not actually sensitive. The state secrets privilege is important, but there’s a risk it will be overused and abused.
The privilege was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1953, and it’s been asserted since then by every administration, Republican and Democratic. Under the Bush Administration, however, use of the state secrets privilege has dramatically increased—and the harmful consequences of its irregular application by courts have become painfully clear.
Injured plaintiffs have been denied justice; courts have failed to address fundamental questions of constitutional rights and separation of powers; and confusion pervades this area of law. The Senate debate on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has become far more difficult than it ought to be, because many believe that if courts hear lawsuits against telecommunications companies, the courts will be unable to deal fairly and effectively with the government’s invocation of the privilege.
Studies show that the Bush Administration has raised the privilege in over 25% more cases per year than previous administrations, and has sought dismissal in over 90% more cases. As one scholar recently noted, this Administration has used the privilege to “seek blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs” related to its war on terrorism, and as a result, the privilege is impairing the ability of Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional duty to check executive power.
Another leading scholar recently found that “in practical terms, the state secrets privilege never fails.” Like other commentators, he concluded that “the state secrets privilege is the most powerful secrecy privilege available to the president,” and “the people of the United States have suffered needlessly because the law is now a servant to executive claims of national security.”
In 1980, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to provide federal courts with clear statutory guidance on handling secret evidence in criminal cases. For almost 30 years, courts have effectively applied that law to make criminal trials fairer and safer. During that period, Congress has also regulated judicial review of national security materials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Because of these laws, federal judges regularly review and handle highly classified evidence in many types of cases.
Yet in civil cases, litigants have been left behind. Congress has failed to provide clear rules or standards for determining whether evidence is protected by the state secrets privilege. We’ve failed to develop procedures that will protect injured parties and also prevent the disclosure of sensitive information. Because use of the state secrets privilege has escalated in recent years, there’s an increasing need for the judiciary and the executive to have clear, fair, and safe rules.
Many have recognized the need for congressional guidance on this issue. The American Bar Association recently issued a report “urg[ing] Congress to enact legislation governing federal civil cases implicating the state secrets privilege.” The bipartisan Constitution Project found that “legislative action [on the privilege] is essential to restore and strengthen the basic rights and liberties provided by our constitutional system of government.” Leading constitutional scholars sent a letter to Congress emphasizing that there “is a need for new rules designed to protect the system of checks and balances, individual rights, national security, fairness in the courtroom, and the adversary process.”
The State Secrets Protection Act we are introducing responds to this need by creating a civil version of CIPA. The Act provides guidance to the federal courts in handling assertions of the privilege in civil cases, and it restores checks and balances to this crucial area of law by placing constraints on the application of state secrets doctrine. The Act will strengthen our national security by requiring judges to protect all state secrets from disclosure, and it will strengthen the rule of law by preventing misuse of the privilege and enabling more litigants to achieve justice in court.
Recognizing that state secrets must be protected, the Act enables the executive branch to avoid publicly revealing evidence if doing so might disclose a state secret. If a court finds that an item of evidence contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively separated from other evidence that contains a state secret, then the evidence is privileged and may not be released for any reason. Secure judicial proceedings and other safeguards that have proven effective under CIPA and the Freedom of Information Act will ensure that the litigation does not reveal sensitive information.
At the same time, the State Secrets Protection Act will prevent the executive branch from using the privilege to deny parties their day in court or shield illegal activity that is not actually sensitive. A recently declassified report shows that the executive branch abused the state secrets privilege in the very Supreme Court case, United States v. Reynolds (1953), that serves as the basis for the privilege today. In Reynolds, an accident report was kept out of court due to the government’s claim that it would disclose state secrets. The court never even looked at the report. Now that the report has been made public, we’ve learned that in fact it contained no state secrets whatever—but it did contain embarrassing information revealing government negligence.
In recent years, federal courts have applied the Reynolds precedent to dismiss numerous cases—on issues ranging from torture, to extraordinary rendition, to warrantless wiretapping—without ever reviewing the evidence. Some courts have even upheld the executive’s claims of state secrets when the purported secrets were publicly available, as in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet.
In that case, there was extensive evidence in the public record that the plaintiff was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA on the basis of mistaken identity, but the court simply accepted at face value the government’s claim that litigation would require disclosure of state secrets. The court dismissed Mr. El-Masri’s case without even evaluating the evidence or considering whether the case could be litigated on other evidence.
When federal courts accept the executive branch’s state secrets claims as absolute, our system of checks and balances breaks down. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, courts give the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and innocent victims are left unable to obtain justice. The kind of abuse that occurred in Reynolds will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act.
The Act requires courts to examine the evidence for which the privilege is claimed, in order to determine whether the executive branch has validly invoked the privilege. The court must look at the actual evidence, not just government affidavits about the evidence, and make its own assessment of whether information is covered by the privilege. Only after a court has considered the evidence and found that it provides a valid legal defense can it dismiss a claim on state secrets grounds.
The Act also gives parties an opportunity to make a preliminary case with their own evidence, and it allows courts to develop solutions to let lawsuits proceed, such as by directing the government to produce unclassified substitutes for secret evidence. Many of these powers are already available to courts, but they often go unused. In addition, the Act draws on CIPA to include provisions for congressional reporting that will ensure an additional layer of oversight.
I’m pleased that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have been able to work together to produce this bill. We expect to have a hearing soon on the state secrets privilege in the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Leahy. I look forward to a full airing of the issues and the important feedback that will come from the Committee’s thoughtful consideration of the legislation.
In particular, as the bill moves forward, we intend to continue to explore the possibilities for providing relief to plaintiffs who have a winning case, but cannot get a trial because every piece of evidence they need is privileged. This is an extremely difficult subject, which Congress should address if we can find a fair way to do so that will also protect legitimate secrets. We will also explore other measures to make the bill stronger, such as providing expedited security clearance reviews for attorneys.
Under the State Secrets Protection Act, the nation will be able to preserve its commitment to individual rights and the rule of law, without compromising its national defense or foreign policy. Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts, and it’s long past time for us to exercise this authority on such an important issue. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this needed legislation as soon as possible.
###
State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533)
Protecting National Security and the Rule of Law
The State Secrets Protection Act provides guidance to federal courts in civil lawsuits.
· The state secrets privilege is a common law doctrine that the federal government can invoke to prevent evidence from being publicly disclosed in judicial proceedings, if it would harm national security.
· Congress has established clear procedures to govern secret evidence in criminal cases under the Classified Information Procedures Act. But Congress has not yet provided guidance on the use of secret evidence in civil cases, and federal courts are applying the privilege in different ways, leading to inconsistent results.
· Some federal judges have viewed the executive branch’s state secrets privilege claims as absolute. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, these judges have given the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and have left innocent victims unable to obtain justice.
· Reports document that the Bush administration has used the state secrets privilege more aggressively than previous administrations on cases ranging from kidnapping and torture to domestic warrantless wiretapping. As scholars have noted, the administration has used the privilege to “seek[] blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs,” and as a result, “the executive is stripping Congress of its ability to collaborate with the judiciary to curb executive power.”[1]
The State Secrets Protection Act will enhance national security.
· The Act will enhance national security by clarifying for courts the definition of a state secret. There is no settled definition now, resulting in inconsistent decisions.
· The Act ensures that the litigation process will not reveal state secrets, using many of the same safeguards that have proven effective in criminal cases and in litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. For example, a court may limit a party’s access to hearings, court filings, and affidavits, or require counsel to have appropriate security clearances.
· If a court finds that an item of evidence contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively separated from other evidence that contains a state secret, then the evidence is privileged and may not be released.
· The Act allows the government to refuse to admit or deny items in a complaint, if the mere act of admitting or denying those claims would divulge a state secret. The Act also allows the government to intervene in a case to which it is not a party in order to protect state secrets.
· To prevent flawed judicial rulings from erroneously authorizing the release of state secrets, any court order under the Act is subject to expedited interlocutory appeal.
The State Secrets Protection Act will provide oversight of the executive branch.
· The Act clarifies that the courts, not the executive branch, must review the evidence and determine whether information is covered by the state secrets privilege.
· If the court agrees that certain evidence is privileged, the court must, if possible, order the government to develop unclassified alternatives to the evidence. If the court determines that the evidence is not protected by the state secrets privilege, the evidence must be disclosed to the other parties and made available in the litigation, pursuant to the regular rules of evidence.
· In addition to providing careful judicial oversight, the Act requires the Attorney General to report regularly to congressional committees on the use of the privilege.
· Recently declassified information about the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the state secrets privilege, United States v. Reynolds (1953), provides an early example of executive abuse of the privilege. In that case, three widows sued the government over the deaths of their husbands in a B-29 crash, and asked for the accident report and statements from surviving crew members. The Supreme Court accepted the executive branch’s false assertion that the report contained references to secret electronic equipment, and therefore refused to allow the report to be used as evidence—without ever looking at the report itself. The report was declassified in the 1990s, and it contains no discussion at all of any secret equipment.[2] That kind of abuse will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act.
The State Secrets Protection Act will provide justice to litigants.
· The Act gives parties an opportunity to make a preliminary case with their own evidence, and it allows courts to develop specific solutions to let lawsuits proceed whenever possible.
· The Act prohibits the practice of seeking to dismiss a lawsuit altogether on the basis of the state secrets privilege, before the court considers any evidence. It makes clear that the privilege is an evidentiary rule, not a justiciability rule.
· The Act protects innocent government defendants by allowing them to use state secrets evidence to establish a valid, meritorious defense in secure in camera proceedings. But it also prevents the government from invoking the state secrets privilege merely to cover up non-sensitive facts that would support a judgment for the opposing party.
Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the state secrets privilege.
· The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to enact “Regulations” concerning the jurisdiction of federal courts.[3] This constitutional power gives Congress authority to review and approve rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Congress retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution.”[4]
· Although Article II of the Constitution has been understood to grant the executive branch broad authority over the handling of secret information, this power is neither unlimited nor exclusive. Congress and the courts, as coordinate branches of government, also have an interest in creating rules for the federal courts and in the use of evidence in the judicial process.
· Congress has a history of acting to regulate judicial proceedings related to sensitive national security information. Congress has enacted FOIA, created the FISA court, and regulated the use of classified information in criminal trials. The constitutionality of these laws is well-established. Because of these laws, federal judges regularly review and handle highly classified evidence in many types of cases, but civil litigants have been left out.
State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533): Section-by-Section Summary
Section 4051: Definition
Defines state secrets as “any information that, if disclosed publicly, would be reasonably likely to cause significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.” Not included is information that is already public or that has only a remote chance of harming national security.
Section 4052: Rules governing procedures related to this chapter
Allows the court to determine who will have access to documents and proceedings under the Act. The court may, in the interest of justice and national security, limit a party’s access to hearings, court filings, and affidavits, or require that attorneys have appropriate security clearances. The court may also assign a guardian ad litem or appoint a special master to assist in the proceedings.
Section 4053: Procedures for answering a complaint
Allows the government to intervene in any civil lawsuit to assert the privilege, which is no change from current practice. The court may not dismiss a lawsuit on state secrets grounds at the pleadings stage; it may dismiss a case on state secrets grounds only under Section 4055, after the parties have presented their evidence and the court has reviewed it. The government must file an answer to a complaint, but it may avoid admitting or denying certain facts by pleading “state secrets” to any allegation in a complaint. Each time the government pleads the privilege, it must submit an affidavit signed by the relevant agency head explaining why it is claiming the privilege.
Section 4054: Procedures for determining whether evidence is protected from disclosure by the state secrets privilege
Sets forth procedures for determining whether evidence is protected by the state secrets privilege. The court schedules a hearing to consider the government’s argument. The government must present to the court the evidence it asserts is protected by the privilege, and support its assertion with a signed affidavit. The court must make a privilege determination for each piece of evidence; if it contains a state secret, or cannot be effectively segregated from other evidence that contains a state secret, the evidence is privileged and may not be released. If the court finds that the evidence is privileged, it shall order the government where possible to create a non-privileged substitute for the evidence, such as an unclassified summary, a redacted version, a statement admitting the facts that the privileged evidence would tend to prove, or another alternative crafted by the court. If the government refuses to provide a non-privileged substitute ordered by the court, the court shall resolve the relevant issue of fact or law against the government.
Section 4055: Procedures when evidence protected by the state secrets privilege is necessary for adjudication of a claim or counterclaim
If the court finds that evidence is protected by the privilege and it is impossible to create substitute evidence, the court may dismiss the claim if it finds that doing otherwise would substantially impair the ability of a party to pursue a valid defense to the claim. The purpose of this Section is to protect parties for whom privileged evidence would provide a valid legal defense if they were able to introduce it.
Section 4056: Interlocutory appeal
Allows any party an expedited interlocutory appeal of any order under the Act. Such an appeal ensures a timely additional layer of review.
Section 4057: Security procedures
Draws heavily on the Classified Information Protection Act to provide security procedures.
Section 4058: Reporting
Requires the Attorney General to report within 30 days to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on each instance in which the United States claims the state secrets privilege, including turning over copies of the affidavits required under Sections 4053 and 4054 of the Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Amanda Frost, The State Secrets Privilege and Separation of Powers, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 1931, 1939, 1933 (2007).
[2] See Louis Fisher, In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case (2006).
[3] U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
[4] Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 437 (2000).
