INTELLIGENCE? +quot;What was the name of that last agent who decided that he was going to

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

INTELLIGENCE? "What was the name of that last agent who decided that he was going to expose our operation? Well, his name's unimportant . . . get him!" "Get him, Chief?" "Yes, I said get him! Whatever you have to do so he can't testify before the Grand Jury. We can't afford to have our methods of operation dragged out like some dirty wash and exposed to the public." The next morning, newspapers carried a story about the body of a man found just outside the door of his motel. The motel was in Virginia, just outside of Washington, DC. The medical examiner reported he died of a heart attack. The story carried a remark that he was an ex-CIA agent who was reportedly going to testify before the federal grand jury. Could this be true? We will never know if this was murder but they did discover the body of a former agent as described. It has also been admitted by experts that poisons are now available that would give the appearance of death by heart attack. Coincidence? Another former agent who wrote a book about the dirty tricks of the CIA is now forced to live in France. He fears he will be murdered if he returns to the United States. One of the hostages in the middle east was recently murdered by his captors. It was later admitted in the media that he had been the station chief for the Central Intel- ligence Agency. The camel jockey captors knew who they had and eliminated him. And people can say the SS of the German Army was a ruthless secret police force? We had better have the moral courage to examine what kind of idiots we have running loose. Not only here but around the world as well. Where can we find a rock large enough to look under to find the authority for an organization like the Central Intelligence Agency? James Madison points out in The Federalist Papers, No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (All references to 'paper no' are from this book.) To find out where the authority for this business of the federal government comes from, let's look to the opening statement in the Constitution: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITU- TION for the United States of America." In large and showy letters, the Preamble shows that WE THE PEOPLE granted power to the government. It was a novel concept in a new type of government which was republican in nature. This new concept is fragile. It needs constant watching by us to see that the government obeys the basic document. We have been guilty of looking the other way. Is this one of the reasons we have all been convinced that this is now a democracy? (See Volume 1 of The Traitor Within the Gates.) WE granted permission for the business of government. It means you and I are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. Don't you think it's about time we all began to act as sovereigns? Sovereign is "superior to all others" and "having supreme rank or power." From the Encyclopedia Americana, we learn that Title I of the National Security Act of 1947 established the Central Intelligence Agency. It's duty was to correlate, evaluate and disseminate intelligence having a bearing on national security. Now that ought to give you a nice warm feeling! You can check through the document from one end to the other and you'll find NO permission from us to enact a law to control, monitor or concern itself about national security. This is an illegal act of Congress (what else is new?) and a tremendous waste of our tax dollars. And from the garbage which was revealed during the so called Iran/Contra hearings, it's plain what unbridled power can do in DC! Why did no one question the illegality of the National Security Act? Is it because they are all in the same cesspool called government? Does that description in the 'National Security Act' magically grant authority to the US to lay mines in the harbors of Nicaragua, or to run guns to Iran or Nicaraguan rebels? How about publishing a how-to manual on assassin- ations? Or the running of drugs into the United States as reported on TV? How about interfering in internal affairs of other countries? Can we justify the existence of such an outfit when the preamble states that we ordained the Constitution to 'establish justice'? To look at it from another angle, can you read anything in those duties which allows their budget to be secret? If we check the Constitution for authority to spend money, all money bills must originate in the House of Representatives. (Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1) A little further on in the document, we find that no money shall issue from the treasury except by an appropriations bill. A statement of receipts and expendi- tures SHALL be published from time to time. (Art 1, Sec 9, cl 7) When the word 'shall' appears in the Constitution, it's a command. That means it will be done. It does not mean that they can decide whether or not to accomplish the act. Did you ever see a public statement of allocated money for the CIA? Perhaps they have a different copy of the Constitution than we have. Are they now operating by some secret set of rules we know nothing about? We are now at the point in time that they don't think we are the sovereign any longer. They are! In fact, they are so sure of it that the attitude has now become the people and the Constitution be damned. We will now do whatever we feel is necessary to run the government. After all, who are you? What gives you the right to challenge us? The arrogance we see each day on the tube will substantiate that. Again, at the risk of being redundant, let's look at the Tenth Amendment once more: Article X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Doesn't take a degree in English to understand that. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the government from assuming any power not delegated or granted. The Fifth Amendment command of due process of law binds the government to obey the entire document. Back to the first question -- where can we look to find the authority to establish an organization like the CIA? Why do you suppose the people at the federal level are not able to understand the Tenth Amendment? Maybe they've changed the Constitution. Just how can it be changed? Can an order from the executive branch eliminate constitutional restrictions? No. Can the Congress pass a law saying any restriction on the federal government is no longer binding? No again. Can an 'order' by a federal judge at any level amend the Constitution? Absolutely not. It can ONLY be changed through the Amendment process. ONLY if you and I agree to the change through the ballot box. Did you ever see an amendment proposal on any of our ballots asking for permission to establish the CIA? They do it because they are certain they are omnipotent. Now they can do what they want. They have a few catch phrases now that they feel will justify anything they attempt . . they say it 'affects our national security'. It's in our national interests. It's required because of urgent neces- sity, they claim. Now you wouldn't want to interfere with our national security, would you? Goodness, we wouldn't want to be called unpatriotic or worse! Yet does this somehow remove all the constitutional restrictions we placed on the government? The 'newspeak' George Orwell spoke of in his book 1984 is today a matter of governmental policy. The supremacy clause orders ALL laws enacted to conform with the power we granted in the Constitution. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." (Art 6, Sec 2) That is one of the keys to constitutional authority. EVERY law passed has to meet the criteria we established in the basic document. They have NO authority to pass ANY legislation which does not have a basis in the Constitution. It makes no difference whether it's a matter of national security or not. If national security is such an important issue for our royalty in Washington, let them propose an amendment to the Constitution and see if WE will agree to the change. For these people to assume such a power (or any power) is a crime. It is a violation of the oath we ordered for all who work for government at any level. Has that oath simply become a ritual with empty words which they recite when they assume a position with government? See what happens when we don't keep an eagle eye on what is being done in Washington D.C.? A wise man once said, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." He was Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman senator and historian. (A.D. c.56-c.115). It's clear we now qualify for the title of a corrupt state. These people we have elected as our 'representatives' have gone bonkers passing laws for which we gave no permis- sion. Hey, we are being taken for fools! We have to exert our power over these deceptive, greedy so and so's. We must make government operate within the permission we granted. I'd bet many citizens will say, "I don't want to get involved!" When will they want to get involved? When we have to line up to have our numbers tattooed on our arms? Or when we have our photographs taken for national ID cards? If we don't become involved, we'll get just what we deserve. The government may argue that they have the authority under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. This is what they consider kind of a 'catch-all' section that allows them to do anything. (Art 1, Sec 8, cl 17) This is a weak bureaucratic argument which is pure gobbledygook. This grants permission to Congress ONLY to implement powers that were granted in the basic document. This clause does not give the Congress latitude to write a law establishing a new autonomous organization. Or anything else for that matter. Hamilton, in Paper No. 25, makes a comment that fits in exactly with this discussion about the CIA . . . "All violent policy, contrary to the natural and experienced course of human affairs, defeats itself." There can be little doubt that the actions of the CIA, which we know about, are contrary to the natural course of human affairs. Now, how about the actions we don't know about? Hamilton goes on in the same paper to criticize politicos who violate our basic law: "Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know every breach of fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breasts of rulers toward the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent or palpable." Our wise politicians, of which he spoke, are a thing of the past. The first hundred or so years of our nation, politicians abided by the dictates of the law we established. Slowly, greedy and power hungry men were elected to be our representatives. The precedences to exceed constitutional authority were quietly started. A favorite trick of politicians is to take two steps toward a desired but illegal goal. If they are seriously challenged, they can take one step backwards. This appeases the challenger and they are one step closer to setting up the precedent. It's simple and it works. We don't have to look far to see that is what has happened. Our Founding Fathers feared standing armies and were adamant there should never be any in our republic. Yet today we have an army of agents, not only in this country, but around the world. And pulling tricks which are against the very principles we sought when the Constitution was ratified. At least, in the standing armies our Founding Fathers worried about, you could tell the good guys from the bad guys. They wore a uniform! CIA expertise is supposed to be in the area of intell- igence. Yet they show their ineptness by not knowing the security level of our foreign embassies. I've heard it said that they couldn't find their way out of a paper bag if someone didn't show them the opening. We are in such a state of affairs because we have been hoodwinked by devious men in their ivory towers. And they are experts in what they are doing. We must, for the very survival of our nation, get our government to follow our basic grant of power. Quoting Hamilton in Paper No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void." What they have done is invalid. It's the seizing of authority and illegal. Continuing, Hamilton goes on further: "To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Now we must figure out what we are to do to eliminate this unconstitutional organization and the illegal expenses for its operation. My first suggestion is to call the local offices of your senators and representatives. Ask them where the authority is for operating the CIA. Congress are the dudes who established this outfit. Expect dead silence at the other end of the phone! They will never have heard such a question before your call. Write to their offices at the cesspool in Washington. You should write to the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. I recommend you mail these letters by certified mail. It wouldn't be the first time they have ignored or lost an important piece of mail. Another problem surfaces with the congressional post office . . . they work by different rules and even though the mail is certified, there is no assurance you will get a signed receipt. Petitions for redress of grievances can be an effective tool. An ASCII file of a petition is included in a later chapter. Simply print it out on your printer. These people must be buried with petitions! Only one or two petitions would be annoying or laughable and very easily ignored. They claim concern for our 'national security'. Why didn't they have a civil defense program for Americans if we had a nuclear attack? There are only shelters for our 'officials' and other high non-officials roaming around Washington. Other than that, there is no civil defense program . . . the annoying 'attention getting signal' on the radio notwithstanding. Notice we don't hear that anymore? What will be the next step if they are not challenged? What will it be like in ten or twenty years for our children if ignoring our Constitution continues? Maybe barbed wire fences around anyone who protests their authority? Is that the future for our posterity? Readers who were in the service took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It doesn't disappear when you leave the service. It was a swearing to God to do what you promised when you took your oath. Why aren't you doing it? We now have domestic enemies coming out the kazoo. We should all heed the words of Cicero who warned the Romans just before the collapse of the empire . . . "Beware of the traitor within the gates!" Are you going to become involved now? There is much talk about this outfit being involved in the assassination of John Kennedy in spite of the whitewash job of the Warren Commission. Isn't it strange how our government can 'seal' important papers concerning the assassination? What authority do they use to hide something of this magnitude and keep it all secret from the people who gave them the authority in the first place? The new chief of the CIA appears on TV and promises to review the secrecy of the JFK papers. HE can review them? Is the CIA the outfit responsible for declaring those papers secret? Drivel. There is no power granted by us for such sleazy operations. I wonder if the new CIA chief carries his orange crate with him so he can reach the microphone? Not too long ago, we had an Attorney General of the United States make the statement that the Constitution gave the President the authority to order the execution of the head of another country. He probably had to be careful when he shook his head . . . people nearby would have been able to hear the rattle. Either he is and was extremely stupid or he was certain the American people are idiots! It was recently reported that Congress has allotted several million dollars to 'eliminate' Saddam Huessin. Our tax dollars at work again. Is this blood money? If people as private citizens want to become mercen- aries, that is their right. For a government to support execution operations when there is no authority, is a crime. No wonder there are people who want our Constitution done away with so they can establish a government where we have no say in it's operation. How do they get away with these violations of the power we ordained? The Constitution is not taught in our schools anymore and is a deliberate scheme to prevent us from knowing what is or is not allowed. All the obvious violations of our authority substantiates that probability. In about 1982, I believe, there was a disclosure on national TV that the CIA was running drugs in from the Golden Triangle (Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and then 'laundering' the money in major banks in Australia. Was there any investiga- tion by the Congress? None that I heard of, how about you? Did the government sue the TV station for libel? All negatives. Agents that want to bring out the dirt suddenly disappear or die mysteriously . . . Coincidence? Now a new drug scheme is unraveling . . . this one in Arkansas and supposedly with the full knowledge of Governor Bill Clinton, yes the current candidate for president. My feeling is that little George knows all about this operation also. It involves a secret airstrip near a town called Mena. This town of Mena is near Oklahoma with a population of 5000. There a 5000 foot long concrete runway . . . hardly a crop dusting strip! It is reported that secret operations since 1982 run guns and ammunition out of this strip and the planes return loaded with drugs. Hey, doesn't this sound familiar? Deja vu! TV reports are beginning to show that our famous outfit of creeps (the CIA) operates this strip and 5 others in the southwest. You see why they want us dumb, fat and happy? County prosecutors all agree there is a major coverup of covert activities from this strip which will go straight to the door of Clinton. Every effort to close the airstrip has failed and been stopped. A Mr and Mrs Hendricks had their son killed in one of the secret flights from Mena to Angola in Africa. They ran into the veritable stonewall when they tried to find out what their son was doing and who he was flying the plane for. And, not surprisingly, covert activities from Mena continue. Planes continue to land and takeoff from Mena, Arkansas. More on this as it is unfolds. How about the latest revelations that the CIA used the international bank known as the bank of crooks and criminals as a conduit for their illegal money? That's BCCI bank and the details are just coming out in the media. Stay tuned. Studying our Constitution would be an enormous help to all citizens. There's no need to memorize it. Nevertheless, you should know where to find their authority for what they're doing and what the limits are. They have been able to get away with all these illegal acts because they consider you and me as country bumpkins. This is probably the reason that our schools today don't even study the basic document. Why should you have the knowledge to challenge these jabonies? There have been numerous government workers questioned in US district courts who will admit they have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution yet don't know what the document says or means. How high up into the upper echelons of government this ignorance of our Constitution goes, we can only guess. At one point, the lack of knowledge has to become intentional. There are many good people working for the government who would like to see all the misuses and abuses of consti- tutional power halted. Not everyone who works for the government is power hungry or crooked. These people could help stem this abuse but they are also afraid for their jobs. The real problem is that if it isn't stopped, no one will have a job to worry about. Is this what's ahead for us?  PLEASE READ THE 'SALES PITCH' CHAPTER ... REGISTER WITH THE AUTHOR ...


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank