FBI foils their own terror plot once again
February 25, 2012
Brasscheck TV
2/25/2012
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has once again proven that the only thing Americans need fear, is their own government, with the latest “terror attack” foiled being one entirely of their own design.
The FBI is carrying out what is essentially a campaign of entrapment, as these ‘patsies’ serve to fuel fear and keep people willing to give up their rights for a false sense of security.
It’s not funny, but it IS interesting that, in each case, they admit running the operation from the ground up and yet people still fall for this fake terror routine.
Not as many any more though, as you’ll see, less and less people are falling for it …
2 Comments
leave one →
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
Do You Believe Repeated Coincidences?
In 1993 terrorists bombed the NYC Trade Center—killing six people and injuring 1,000.
Prior to the bombing, an FBI Informant secretly recorded his FBI handler when he discussed the plans of terrorists to bomb the Trade Center. After the bombing, excerpts from the FBI informant’s tapes were published by the New York and LA Times that showed the FBI had early knowledge of the plot to bomb the Trade Center. It was alleged the FBI was instrumental, allowed terrorists to make a “real bomb” that blew up part of the Trade Center.
Question: Did injured victims or love ones of those killed in the 1993 Trade Center bombing sue the FBI? Were there an out of court government settlements? Lawsuits would have been problematic. Are there existing lawsuit court records that can be recovered?
After the 1993 Trade Center bombing, there was rampant speculation in political circles that certain factions in government wanted a bombing in order to speed passage of new “anti-crime legislation.” Months prior “The Crime Control Act of 1993” had been introduced, also known as S.8 that included huge 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 the broad provisions of S.8, demonstrators could be charged with terrorism if police alleged they blocked public access—appear intended to intimidate to coerce a civilian population; or influence the policy of a government under 18USC 2331. Despite the 1993 Trade Center bombing S.8 failed to pass when both conservatives and liberals protested the legislation.
S.8. would have allowed government to imprison and fine Citizens; forfeit their property for speeches, writings, and assemblies. See below:
Months prior to the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma Alfred P. Murrah Federal building: (The Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act) was introduced: the act included provisions from failed S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” After the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress passed the (1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act); the bill included several provisions from failed to pass “Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act prosecutors could use Secret Hearings, Secret/Paid Informants, Secret Testimony, Secret Witnesses and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defending against government terrorist charges, even against the Death Penalty became very difficult if not possible; the passed legislation was particularly alarmingly because U.S. Government and Police routinely pay and make deals with informants to provide court testimony. Historically informants are not reliable.
Horrors: Title VII USC Section 2337 of The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from Government Agents in pursuit of terrorist acts. Also incorporated in S.8 were provisions taken from (Introduced S.45 titled (The Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991) that would allow government to use a low standard of evidence to charge “law abiding citizens” with being agents of or affording support to terrorist(s)—mirroring the future 2001 Patriot Act.
The Crime Control Act of 1993 (S.8) would have granted U.S. Government the power to arrest, charge, incarcerate, fine and execute Americans that participated in 1st Amendment activities (that were intended or used to support or provoke an act of terrorism); under S.8 any bodily act could be construed by government as a terrorist act or supporting terrorism; no actual or intended violence was required.
The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political 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.” Under S.8: Any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators’ homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators who left messages on a member or organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the system and seizure of its records and forfeiture of the home where the system was contained.
Under The Crime Control Act of 1993, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from “activities that (appeared intended) toward violence.” For example distributing political action flyers. The Crime Control Act of 1993 (S.8) would have granted government the power to forfeit the assets of Citizens and organizations that made Speeches, distributed writings and/or attended assemblies in the United States if he or she (should have had knowledge) that an associate might commit a terrorist act. 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.
Politically active organizations and labor unions would have been especially vulnerable to the broad provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 that defined bodily acts as “terrorist acts.” A common fistfight at a demonstration or picket line could qualify as a terrorist act. The physical act need not cause bodily harm, as S.8 provisions referred to “involving any violent or bodily act” that may be a terrorist act.
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. The bill’s undefined bodily act provision (constituting a terrorist act) and Asset Forfeiture provisions were nearly identical with those passed in the 2001 Patriot Act that allow Government to arrest U.S. Citizens and seize their property under Section 806 (even retroactively) go back several years based on a mere Preponderance of civil 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 could object 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. For Example: Trying to Defend against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture would have been about impossible where citizens were denied access to learning of the secret evidence against them or their property. Citizens’ would have had no right to cross-examine government secret witnesses. Unfortunately the 2001 Patriot Act allows government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses now under the Patriot Act can be paid by government part of the property their testimony causes to be forfeited.
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 the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of evidence. (Now in the Patriot Act)
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 would have been 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. One person’s violent unlawful act at an assembly would allow Government to allege an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population; or to influence a government.”
Under current drug forfeiture laws innocent citizens have been implicated by informants who may testify to anything to mitigate their own arrest and/or receive money from the government: this 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 have been given to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty creating informants to cause the arrest and incarceration of any U.S. Citizen believed by government to be a political threat. (Now Included in Patriot Act.)
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:
The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed “illegal searches.” Wiretaps and seizures” resulting in obtaining evidence from an (invalid warrant) issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth—could “override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections and be introduced as evidence if police and government acted in good faith.
Section 3509 would have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners’ homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to (assert) “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.” (Under the Patriot Act, U.S. Government and Police illegally wiretap Citizens phones; search Citizens’ homes and businesses and spy on every aspect of their lives.)
THE ENEMY IS WITHIN.