Skip to content

Cellmate Reveals Bomber’s Secrets

May 22, 2010
Pat Shannan

Why had staff of Morris Dees’ Southern Poverty Law Center infiltrated the inside of the Elohim City Christian compound months prior to the Oklahoma City Bombing? When this was asked by a reporter in a 2003 public forum, Dees replied, “If I toldja, I’d have to kill ya!”

The story continues …..

One Comment leave one →
  1. Ross Wolf permalink
    May 22, 2010 6:50 pm

    Do You Believe In Multiple Coincidences?

    Before domestic terrorism was a problem in America, the first two major Domestic Terrorism bills were introduced months prior to the first two significant Acts of Domestic Terrorism: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; and the 1995 bombing of the Okalahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Building.

    Approximately six months before the 1993 bombing of the NY World Trade Center, (S.8) “The Crime Control Act of 1993” (S.8) was introduced by Rep. Orrin Hatch. The bill included large appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. At the time terrorism was not a problem in the United States. Under S.8, ordinary demonstrators could be charged with acts of terrorism if police alleged they blocked public access, intimidated or coerced a civilian population or tried to influence a government policy according to 18USC Sec. 2331. Almost immediately both the Right and Left protested S.8, something Rep. Hatch did not expect. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 after much adverse publicity failed to pass.

    Approximately six months before the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building, the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” was introduced that included provisions from the failed S.8. “Crime Control Act of 1993.” Then subsequently the Oklahoma Alfred P. Murrah federal building was bombed; Congress passed six weeks later the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act.” The passed bill included provisions from the failed “Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: allowing government to use Secret Hearings and Secret Witnesses to prevent defendants from cross-examining hidden witnesses and secret evidence. Other draconian provisions from “The Crime Control Act of 1993” were passed in the 2001 Patriot Act after the second bombing of the NY Trade Center.

    Importantly after the Oklahoma bombing, the passed “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” gave prosecutors the power to use secret witnesses including paid informants and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges including against the death penalty were made extremely difficult if not possible because government could use secret witnesses and testimony that defendants could not challenge.

    Also incorporated in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” were provisions taken from proposed S.45 titled the “Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991″ Both bills contained language that could charge “law abiding citizens” by mere association with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations. Similar provisions were passed in the 2001 Patriot Act to charge persons who donated money or provided anything deemed “material support” to terrorists including giving to charities; and to charge any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act; and imprison, fine and or forfeit their property. Subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court later qualified in the 2001 Patriot Act what was “material support” so lawful non-profits would not lose financial donors and other support.

    The 2001 Patriot Act like Rep. Hatch’ 1993 failed S.8, included as crimes, non-violent acts alleged to support terrorism e.g., intimidation and coercion of a civilian population or physical acts intended to influence a government policy. In 2010 lawful organizations, activists and demonstrators are currently according to vague and broad language of the Patriot Act, vulnerable to being charged by government for Acts of Terrorism based on bodily acts, e.g. a common fistfight at a demonstration; a picket line or protest can qualify as a terrorist act of it blocked public access or traffic and intimidate or coerced a population. A physical act need not cause bodily harm, under the Patriot Act, any violent or bodily act” may support a terrorism; Note that could include any physical movement.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 was written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws. A citizen who allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly would start out guilty having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332. The 2001 Patriot Act included similar provisions using terms that effectively state, Had reason to know.”

    S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and were written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Arrests and Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: “appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

    Horrors of “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” The Crime Control Act of 1993: Title VII Section 2337: would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured by Governments when pursuing a terrorist investigation. So if agents shot innocent persons pursuing a terrorist investigation, injured parties would have no civil redress. Note: Have not yet determined if that was included in 2001 Patriot Act.

    Under S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993” any assembly alleged to have intimidated or coerced a civilian population could qualify as a Terrorist Act. Should violence result for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing the forfeiture of attending demonstrators’ homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators that left messages on a member or organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the system and government seizure of its records: and forfeiture of the home where the system was located. Similar forfeiture provisions were included in the passed 2001 Patriot Act under “supporting terrorism and asset forfeiture.”

    Under provisions of S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993”…Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines and Prison Sentences could result from “activities that appear to support Terrorism or are “intended toward violence.” For instance distributing political action flyers although Constitutionally protected. Similar Provisions were passed in the 2008 FISA Amendments, except under the 2008 Amendments a Citizen could not be targeted for search and seizure based solely on exercising Constitutionally protected activities.

    “The Crime Control Act of 1993” Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression government was after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. That was a “Trojan Horse. The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be used against most anyone in the United States committing an undefined bodily act or attending an assembly: In 2001 nearly identical Terrorism and Forfeiture provisions were passed in the Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act additionally extended current federal statute of limitations for prosecution of several crimes, so government could retroactively go back years to arrest U.S. Citizens and or seize their property using the low standard of evidence “a civil preponderance of evidence.”

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: would have (blocked discovery) of Government Witnesses and Evidence being used against a defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII. Government would have been allowed to object to a defendant’s discovery, on grounds that compliance with discovery would interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident, or national security operation related to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. Example: Defending against any Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Defending against Government civil asset forfeiture would have been near impossible if citizens were denied access to learning the secret evidence against them or their property, Citizens’ would have been denied the right to cross-examine government secret witnesses in asset forfeiture proceedings. Those provisions were passed in the 2001 Patriot Act allowing government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses under the Patriot Act can be paid money by government, including part of the property their testimony causes to forfeit.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions: Secret Witnesses – Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses in Capital Cases: Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses (need not) be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of civil evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of civil evidence…subsequently included the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes: The United States Sentencing Commission would have had the power to increase the” base offense level” for Any felony committed in the United States that involved or was intended to promote international terrorism. Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches, Writings and Public Assemblies could be used as evidence by Government to show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization that they were alleged to have afforded support. Similar provisions were included in the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” following the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: Note: One person’s violent unlawful act at an assembly could be enough for Government to allege an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population.” The 2001 Patriot Act included language that would appear to get to the same place.

    Under current drug forfeiture laws, informants have testified to anything to mitigate their own arrest and or receive money from police/government to implicate innocent Americans. Police/government corruption can result in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents, forfeiture of their property and financial ruination. Under the proposed provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 special breaks would be afforded to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty getting informants to cause the arrest and incarceration of any U.S. Citizen believed by government to be a political threat. Similar provisions were included in the 2001 Patriot Act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have (approved) “illegal searches.” Searches, wiretaps and seizures” that resulted in obtaining evidence from an “invalid warrant” issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found to be invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth to “override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.” The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed government to use against citizens illegally seized evidence.” Bush II included that provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act. However it was not included in the final draft. The Obama government has since tried get to the same place asking for warrant-less government wiretaps and forced extraction of DNA from persons arrested but not convicted of a crime.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have amended the “Exclusionary Rule” to add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure: (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule. II.
    The aforementioned provisions would have set the groundwork for U.S. Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners’ homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only need {assert) “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.” These provisions failed to pass in the 2001 Patriot Act.

    More recently: March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” possibly the most anti-Free Speech and Liberties Bill in Modern U.S. History. McCain’s S.3081 if passed, will eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing U.S. Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government would need only charge that a demonstration “materially supported hostilities against U.S. Government or a civilian population”

    Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.
    See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: