93 Bombing World Trade Center Revisted: FBI Linked To Bombing : Miami IMC

The tapes became public knowledge when they were ordered released by a federal judge presiding over the case of the indicted suspects. The Justice Department fought hard to prevent their release. The terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center left six dead and over a thousand people injured. The tapes which have been published by the New York Times reveal that Salem warned his FBI bosses that the World Trade center was soon to be bombed and urged them to prevent it.

Speculation is now rampant in political circles that certain factions within the government may have desired the bombing in order to speed passage of new "anti-crime legislation." This suspicion was further fueled by the startling revelation that the FBI denied Salem's request to use phony explosives in the bomb he was helping to build under FBI supervision -- the bomb ultimately used in the World Trade Center explosion.

Former Watergate associate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste warned that these tapes pose "an absolute night-mare for federal prosecutors." One high-ranking law enforcement officer who insisted on secrecy said that in less than a years time the FBI has been linked to criminal abuse of power and the mishandling of cases in three different instances. "First we had Weaver, where an HRT member shot a mother with a baby in her arms, then Waco, where mishandling led to the deaths of a hundred people, and now the World Trade Center, where it appears the bombing could not have happened unless the agency let it."

All of this comes on the heals of a internal affairs report by the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility, linking FBI agents to everything from drug abuse to shoplifting. OPR's annual report provided further startling proof that the agency formally most respected for it's law enforcement skills - has gone bad. The report compiled by Michael Shaheen, the only person ever to hold the position of counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility, cites drug use, bribery, brutality, and other crimes as "representative examples of misconduct investigated by the office." Shaheen dutifully noted that his office also monitored several hundred misconduct cases being handled by the internal investigative unit of the FBI. The FBI is facing wide spread criticism that the bureau has become a police state agency enforcing political programs considered unpopular by the American people.

Response to Article: "93 Bombing World Trade Center Revisted: FBI Linked To Bombing by Louis Beam Tuesday"

I believe the author is referring to the failed to pass "Crime Control Act of 1993” introduced two months before the 1993 bombing of the NY World Trade Center. Subsequently several provisions of "The Crime Control Act of 1993” were passed in the 2001 Patriot Act after the second bombing of the Trade Center.

“The Crime Control Act of 1993” also known as S.8 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 U.S. Under S.8, labor demonstrators could be charged as terrorists if police alleged they blocked public access, intimidated or coerced a civilian population. Subsequently conservatives protested against S.8, something Rep. Hatch who introduced the bill may not have expected. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 did not pass.

Months before the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building, the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act was introduced.” This act included many provisions found in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” Then six weeks after the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress passed the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act. This bill still included provisions from in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example, the section dealing with Secret Hearings—Secret Witnesses. Most other provisions of “The Crime Control Act of 1993” were passed in the 2001 Patriot Act after the second bombing of the NY Trade Center.

U.S. Police routinely purchase court testimony to convict defendants. Under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act, prosecutors may use secret paid informants, secret testimony, secret witnesses, and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges, even against the Death Penalty, are now difficult if not possible.

Horrors of “The Crime Control Act of 1993”

The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have “redefined illegal Search and seizure” and eliminated injured citizen law suits against government officials and agents under United States Code Title VII Section 2337.

Also incorporated in S8 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” with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations.

Very similar to the subsequent 2001 Patriot Act, “The Crime Control Act of 1993” intended to invoke government property forfeitures against persons’ that made Speeches, writings and/or those attending assemblies. Under S8: Any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act may be arrested and/or have their property seized by the government.

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

Politically active organizations and labor unions would have been especially vulnerable to 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.

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 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 have 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.

Under S.8 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 located.

Under provisions of S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from "activities that appeared to be intended toward violence". For instance distributing political action flyers.

The Crime Control Act of 1993: The Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression the 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. S.8 Terrorism and Forfeiture provisions are nearly identical to those passed in the 2001 Patriot Act. Like S.8 Government can now retroactively go back several years to arrest U.S. Citizens and seize their property based on a low standard 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 could have objected 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 Government Civil Forfeiture. Defense against Government asset forfeiture would have been about impossible if citizens were denied access to learning the secret evidence against them. Citizens’ would also had no right to cross-examine government secret witnesses. The 2001 passed Patriot Act now allows secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses now under the Patriot Act, can be paid by government part of the property they cause to be forfeited.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions:
Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses
in Capital Cases

The Crime Control Act of 1993
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…

Title VII Section n2337
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.

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 which they were alleged to have afforded support.

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

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.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have approved "illegal searches." Searches, wiretaps and seizures" that would result 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 could "override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections against illegal search
and seizure." The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed government to use against its citizens illegally seized evidence.”

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.

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 that "a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment."