by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
I was in college in the 1960s. My mother was in college in the 1930s. Something was going on in my world, that I took to be part of the landscape, which had not been part of Mom’s understanding of the world when she was young. Namely, terrorism.
The main examples of it in the 1960s and ‘70s were the Irish Republican Army planting bombs in England, and Arabs doing hijackings or other shenanigans. It was constantly in the news.
Nowadays I believe that the terrorism, both of the Irish and the Arabs, came off the drawing board of MI-6. In fact the Brits had been doing such things for a long time. In the 1920s they designed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, most likely to create a pool of trouble makers.
Mother would hardly have heard of that sort of terrorism in the 1930s — American newspapers did not report much from such esoteric places as Egypt.
I speculate that 20th century terrorism got invented because it’s handy for rulers to keep people stirred up and apprehensive. It also pays to “teach” them that their fellow man is quite possibly a nutter who will do something absolutely crazy like produce a home-made bomb.
Main lesson for the public here: nothing is safe anymore, a lot of men are off their rocker, and “You just can’t trust anybody.” So let’s give up some rights.
The Anti-Terrorism Laws of 1996, 2001, 2005, and 2014
By the time the mid-1990s rolled around, Americans had begun to regard a terrorist, especially a religiously motivated one, as an ordinary product of human nature. (“Ya gotcha car thieves, ya gotcha bimbo’s, ya gotcha terrorists, etc.”)
It wasn’t until the early 2000’s that personal computers were flourishing and conspiracy theorists were able to urge citizens to take a second look at some of the mad bombers or shooters and see their terrorism as an Inside Job, usually done to incite wars.
Conspiracy writers didn’t make an appreciable dent, however — the public was scared and wanted protection.
So it seemed generally appropriate that our legislators would increase “law and order.” States began to give their local police increased powers, and Congress came up with some cutbacks on our freedoms.
I will list the major laws:
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This was allegedly prompted by the 1993 event known as the bombing of the WTC basement (never mind that that was an FBI sting operation) and by the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building in which 168 people died — including 19 children in the day-care center.
I have never seen such a thrown together stew as this 1996 law – it contains riders galore. The words “Effective Death Penalty” in the Act’s title refer to a change in the law of habeas corpus. Death Row prisoners had been sending one habeas petition after another; they were now told to wrap it up. That same law also drastically reduced the traditional protections of legal aliens, such that you can now get deported for a very minor crime (having nothing to do with terrorism).
This 1996 concoction of legislation is also the basis for the US demanding that an air carrier from any country be required to use the same security restrictions at boarding as are used in the US. And it allows freezing of a foreigner’s assets, and criminalizes the act of contributing money to certain organizations.
This very same law requires restitution to be paid by a terrorist to his victims. Recall Jahar Tsarnaev being “billed” for $101 million for the Marathon victims.
The 2001 PATRIOT Act. As everyone knows, this insult to the US Constitution came about in response to 9-11. It allows, for example, more surveillance of citizens. A stunning aspect of this law is that members of Congress ADMITTEDLY did not read it before signing it! (The “House leadership” received envelopes of anthrax to help everybody understand that this was SERIOUS.)
The internationally agreed laws regarding Anti-Terrorism, 2005. The September Summit of world leaders in 2005 concluded with agreements to “combat terrorism” (so to speak). Each country then legislated as appropriate.
Australia did this in 2005 mainly by making adjustments to the Crimes Act 1914. For example, Australia made it harder to get bail if your crime is related to terrorism. And now people would be forbidden to send “dangerous or threatening or hoax material” through the Post.
Australia had already passed, in 1989, the Crimes (Hostages) Act. It specified offences relating to hostage-taking, attempted hostage-taking and participating as an accomplice in hostage-taking. (Fascinating, in regard to the Seascape hostage at Port Arthur.)
This 2005 bundle also updated the Defence Act 1903, by adding Part IIIAAA. It allows the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to be called out to respond to an incident of domestic violence within Australia. (Fascinating in regard to the Lindt Café Siege of 2014).
As GumshoeNews.com has often mentioned, new anti-terror legislation was passed in Canberra on the night of September 25, 2014, following an alleged act of violence against an Australian Defence Force officer that very morning — which later was revealed to be, pardon me, a crock. (It was simply made up, I think.)
We call this the Bella Vista incident. The law is called The Anti-terrorism Amendment Act 2014.
Mother and I
I started this article by saying that my mother and I had different mindsets when growing up. My mindset was gullible to the so-called terrorism of the IRA or of Yasser Arafat . I believed whatever I read I the newspaper about that.
Mom died in 1990 — having believed, like myself, whatever American culture offered; why not?
Around 2005 I woke up from my stupidity. Presently I’m on a kick to question the bad legislation. Naturally I oppose anything that violates the US Constitution. If the parchment is outdated, the people must ratify amendments to it. Fine. Let them do that, but don’t use fear to make sneaky laws. I recommend that underhanded legislation be excised.
Three Events Were Inside Jobs
I have argued at book-length that three terrorist events were Inside Jobs. See Marathon Bombing: Indicting the Players; Inquest: Siege in Sydney; and Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough (co-authored by Dee McLachlan).
There is no room here to repeat those theses. However, I learned a convenient trick from Christopher Bollyn. He zeroed in (with regard to 9-11) on the question WHO HAD ACCESS? He looked to see who could control such things as:
the premises, the weapons, the cover story, the physical evidence, normal police alarms, media, the patsy, any insurance claims, “security” (as against leaks or unexpected interference), the official report, potential litigation, and the nation’s policy on terrorism.
Reformulating that into the “Who Killed Cock Robin approach,” I wrote a Gumshoe article on September 18, 2017 about the Marathon bombing.
Very roughly now I will claim that this approach illuminates the terrorist events of Boston, Sydney, and Port Arthur (“PA”). Yes, it was the government and only the government that had access and control. For starters, they recruited a patsy or a scapegoat for each event: Tsarnaev, Monis, Bryant.
Government had the ability to control insurance claims – by clever legislation and/or hush money to victims. Government, of course, decided what police action would be taken; in the two Australian cases that meant a complete police stand-down to let the event run for many hours, so the public could get educated about terrorism.
Regarding the Sydney siege, the government published a coroner’s report — in my judgement a whitewash — but so far the deaths at PA and Boston haven’t undergone inspection by a coronial court. In Boston, all physical evidence was handled by the FBI. Stunningly, the prosecuting party, the US government, also controlled the defense team. So there was no comeback from that quarter, for example no challenging of the FBI’s evidence. Ditto the non-trial of Martin Bryant at Port Arthur.
If the Events Came from a Drawing Board, What Is the Legitimacy of the Legislation?
Even if you don’t believe my claim that those three events are Inside Jobs, or that Muslim terrorism came from a British MI-6 drawing board, I ask that you grant it hypothetically for purpose of the question that now follows:
If someone in government designs and carries out a terrorist event, how are we to evaluate the legitimacy of laws that are related to those events?
Note: I’m a law protector par excellence. I rarely disparage law; I don’t like doing that. Society needs good law, and people had better obey it. But the entire sacredness of law is mocked if some Bozos think they can use it to fool people.
Consider a crazy example. Say a few ‘top men’ in Kansas were able to get that state’s legislature to pass what looked like a reasonable law about banking, but it had a loophole in it designed to advantage those same few men. Consequently, they were able to virtually rob the bank the day the law became effective.
Later, folks would get the picture, and would presumably recognize that that law should be voided, retroactively, to cause those men’s robbery-type deed to appear now as plain old robbery. They would say: that law was not legitimate.
I’d go a bit further and say that the making of such an act is criminal, but I haven’t decided which crime heading to place it under. Maybe fraud or treason. Anyway, it is not my goal here to talk about the wrongness of what they did in ‘Kansas’ but to evaluate the legitimacy of our anti-terrorism laws.
Quizzing Mother
I need to speak to someone who has never been in a terrorism-fraught atmosphere. As mentioned, my Mom died in 1990, so she never learned of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, the Marathon bombing of 2013, much less the Sydney siege hostage-taking of 2014.
I will use Mom as my example of someone whose thinking is not prejudiced by 21st century fearfulness. And who has not been “conditioned” to all the changes that were gradually introduced after 1990, such as the taking off of one’s shoes at airport security.
“So, Mother dear, please give me your reaction to a peculiar issue. In Australia in 2014, the Attorney General, George Brandis, had a law ready to submit to Parliament. It would lower the quality of a citizen’s rights. For example, it would let government issue ‘control orders’ to keep a person homebound, or to take away his passport.”
Mom: “Why did he want that?”
“Good question, Mom. I feel that he works for a higher-up, really someone who believes the whole world should be governed in a uniform way and with little respect for the individual.
I think Brandis’s bosses helped him get that bill through parliament by cooking up a small terror event that very day. The TV started blaring about an Aussie Navy man having got bruised in Sydney’s Bella Vista district. The attackers were ‘two Middle eastern men.’ Do you remember Yasser Arafat, Mom?”
Mom: “Of course.”
“Well, that night, Parliament said Yes to the legislation. Your poor dear daughter could be a target – that law would allow my Aussie passport to be confiscated and without that I can’t pass the exit door.”
Mom: “But, Daughter, you are law abiding.”
Mary: “Ha ha, Mom, you’re from the Dark Ages. Being a ‘good’ citizen is nowadays considered bad – If I carry a protest banner that could mean I’m seditious.”
Then I brief Mother on all that has occurred. I read her this passage from the September 25, 2014 edition of BusinessInsider.com.au:
An Australian Defence Force officer was allegedly threatened and assaulted in the north-western Sydney suburb of Bella Vista early this morning by two men described as of Middle Eastern appearance. New South Wales police say they are currently investigating the incident…. The officer, 41, … suffered minor bruising and reported the assault to police, first by phone, then in person at the Kings Cross police station.
Then I announced to Mom that the same magazine carried an update the next day saying “the officer withdrew the claim.”
Surely THERE WAS NO BELLA VISTA INCIDENT. It had been a way to push Parliament to sign the Anti-terrorism Amendment Act of 2014.
Mom looks kind of bewildered, but the first words out her mouth are “OK, then, the members of parliament would be furious and would repeal it.”
I know what the reader is thinking – that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, right?
Dear Reader, I request your help in the Comments section below. This thesis of mine is very new and tentative. I’d appreciate anything you can think of to beef it up, knock it down, or whatever.
Here’s my case: Elements within government have the power to create terrorist incidents. If they do so (think OKC bombing) and then use that event to prompt new laws (think 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act), those laws lack legitimacy and are therefore null and void.
And please help me think of a name for the procedure. “The voidization of underhanded statutes” just isn’t catchy enough.
Thanks a mil.
–Mary W Maxwell is getting that April-ish feeling about Port Arthur.
Job Titles of the three men shown in photos above:
George Brandis, currently Australia’s High Commissioner to UK, formerly the Attorney-General of Oz from 2013 to 2015.
Yasser Arafat, head of the OPLO — Palestinian Liberation Organization from 1969 to 2004.
Mark Binskin, Air Marshall and, since 2014, Chief of the Defence Force of Australia.
Gumshoe’s Mal Hughes had a bit to say about Binskin’s refusal to talk about Holsworthy’s mock-up of a ‘practice’ Lindt Cafe. Remember that one?
I’ve already addressed this issue several times on this forum. You have my submissions in a case I did back in 1988-89.
It is a Common Law concept that there be a ‘rational basis’ for legislation. It has a long history, ‘Heydon’s Case’ refers to the concept as ‘the mischief the legislation is designed to remedy’, however the concept goes back at least to Greek Law.
“The substance of Law is Reason.
A Law without a Reason does not have the substance of Law.
Something without substance is a VOID.”
I used the example of the gun laws after Port Arthur. Not only was there not a ‘rational basis’ for the legislation, it was based on FRAUD. In fact, it was based upon criminal activity, including MURDER. To allow such legislation to stand is contrary to all concepts of law and reason.
The problem I ran into in my case (and I expect in any future challenges to legislation) is that you need an INDEPENDENT judiciary.
You can’t win the case if the judiciary will pretend that you ran a different argument, you can’t win a case if the judiciary will ignore the evidence AND you can’t win a case if the judiciary does both – been there, done that – many times.
We have not enough members who do not understand who our government is? terrorism is useful to governments to save the people, when Thatcher said The Enemy Within? she forgot to say I am brainwashed and I am your enemy, we are subject to governments who are paving the way for the few to have enourmous wealth, to control us and program us to become obedient to a police state enforced by banking, military and local authorities to become servile to the laws that are created for the purpose of oppresing most people, the rich are able to get around the laws having access to lawyers, that the citizen cannot afford.
All of the so called incidents such as the Tasmania massacre, Lindt Cafe and so on are all part of the controlling theatre to controll the publics brain.
We are now all controlled by the multi nationals and corporation and am unable to fight these organizations as they are too big, naturally corporations such as Coles could within a few days collapse with enough support from the public, unfortuately this action is not possible because the the organization to deal with these people are no longer possible.
The reminder to say however as a non contribution it may seem is at least to outline the simplicity of what its about without becoming bogged down in to data that may not portray the bigger picture.
Mention has been made of the Irish and Arab terrorist activity, but the inventors of terrorism who were involved in such activity numerous times before and during the 1960s and ever since are the Israelis.
“It also pays to “teach” them that their fellow man is quite possibly a nutter who will do something absolutely crazy like produce a home-made bomb.”
This thinking is so true, but what is not mentioned is that the “nutter” is usually politicians, or intelligence officers or both planning together, an extraordinary crime. The real “nutters” are the Cabal, members or the Trilateral Commission, “other think tanks” and Freemasonry, who push the above “nutters” into action.
Any legislation that is created because of any false event should never be passed and when the event is proven to be false, that legislation should be repealed. However how do we get politicians to admit the event was false. The courts are of no help in this regard. Judges and lawyers are controlled by the Cabal, as are the politicians and intelligence agencies. The “trickle down” effect of power and control are hard to eradicate.
It appears that the only answer is for strong-willed men in the judicial area to take back the courts on behalf of the people. That is a big ask, as I believe most judges are Freemasons.
Mal, perhaps you missed my message posted above. I did that for 21 years – and the judicial system never got any better, it got worse. Justice Moffitt predicted the decline in 1985 in his book ‘A Quarter to Midnight’, but I think even he would be shocked at how bad it has become.
I expect that the newer generations will continue the slide. Check out this article – 24% of Millennials don’t believe the Earth is round –
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/04/05/millennials-flat-earth-survey/
And, quoting a US preacher… “We will spread the message right across the WHOLE world… from the east coast to the West coast”
Geez, that’s funny.
Law, by definition, is a consensus.
What interests me is that Courts are now acknowledging that “allowing” whilst in a state of insobriety cannot be classified as consensual
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108406/Courts-assume-women-t-consent-sex-drunk-Rape-report-s-controversial-proposal.html
A population intoxicated by fear can therefore hardly be counted as consenting to anything
Most restrictions and impositions are, of course, put into practice well before any sort of parliamentary/congressional process
which means that,in order to have any real effect, resistance must be preemptive
Terry, Don, Aussiemal, and Berry:
u r terrific.
I hope the trolls don’t show up to spoil this beaut thread.
I wonder if the 34% odd have ever seen an eclipse and if so, how do they explain a curved shadow of Earth, against the Moon, if the Earth is flat?
Another point is, if ALL the other planets are round or spherical, why would our planet Earth be the only known planet that is flat?
I have watched the video that claims to prove the Earth is flat. It is taken at Antarctica and is a load of crap. There is no sense to their argument. It has to have been put up by a fool or is a deliberate false information piece.
And yet so many ‘sheeple’ can believe it. If they can’t comprehend objective physical reality, then it is no wonder they can’t comprehend the physics of 9-11. As far as ‘Law’, those are concepts and principles that are at the subjective intellectual level. The sheeple are unlikely to ever grasp those concepts (I include many Australian judges in that group)
For the manipulators, dumbing down the population works in the short term, but long term the manipulators destroy the creative base that allowed the civilization to advance. – I wonder what percentage of the population of Russia or China believes the world is flat. It might give an indication of which cultures will supersede the Anglo/American empire.
Mal,
I equate the Flat Earth theory to the Universal Basic Income proposal.
Stupid is as stupid does.
You can’t fix stupid.
And why in hell did you waste a nanosecond watching a video on flat earth?? Better going for a walk with you grandkids. Or an afternoon snooze. Or anything.
Can somebody ‘elp me think of a forceful way to say We have got to stop accepting this?
So far I’ve only come up with a too-weak jingle:
“Shovel this shite
Out of our sight.”
(I’m referring to the nonsense about terrorism.)
I am quoting here from my Gumshoe review of Elias Davidsson’s book about the 2008 Mumbai bombings:
Elias pointed to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 visit to India. Rudd and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced they had agreed on a Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation “that will further strengthen our cooperation, including counter-terrorism.”
“Hyping the threat, Julie Bishop, shadow minister for Foreign Affairs, told Australia’s Parliament that “[t]errorist attacks rock a nation to its core and India continues to struggle with the aftermath of the attacks that began on this day 12 months ago.”
Elias interjects:
“This statement was incorrect. Terrorist attacks do not “rock a nation.” A single killing spree, however ruthless, does not automatically translate into national concern. The sense of collective, national, threat can only be aroused by a massive media campaign.”
“We are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.”
JFK.Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City April 27, 1961 Shortly after, “They” killed him.
Guys, we all know the problem and it stems from the control of the monetary system. Central banks and their Fractional Reserve Lending, bought off politicians and media, senior SES bureaucrats, large parts of the clergy, educational system, global warmer “scientists”, and of course corrupt members of the intel. agencies and law enforcement and judiciary.
Seems like it’s too big to defeat, doesn’t it? Really makes one want to head for the hills.
Chin up guys. Help is on the way. “They NEVER thought she would lose”. But she did. The Cabal’s most powerful weapon WAS the Petrodollar. Now enter the Petro Yuan. Oil for Yuan for Gold.
Game Over.
The rest of the year should be one for the record. Buckle Up!! Enjoy the show.
“The Cabal’s most powerful weapon WAS the Petrodollar. Now enter the Petro Yuan. Oil for Yuan for Gold.
Game Over.”
Yep, just get out of the way, don’t get in the way of the collapse. Position yourself to survive/succeed on the other side of the collapse is the best advice that can be given.
Couldn’t agree more Terry. Few want to listen to Doom and Gloom. Be it on their own heads. I like silver gold and some of then better cryptos.
Although I think we may be OK in Aust because that criminal Gillard signed a currency swap agreement with the Chinese in April 2011.(the only thing I agreed with her on). When they back their currency with their reputed 40,000 tons of gold, revalue it upwards 5-10 times which makes it 200-400,000 tons of gold,our currency will automatically be backed by their gold. Just like it was with the US Dollar before Aug,15, 1971. Should be enough to calm everyone down. No doubt, it’ll be on the condition that we clean up our act, get rid of the corruption and the pedos, and become “grown up” again.
Guess we’ll see how it all works out. Personally, I’m thinking Trump, Putin and Xi are working together to rid the Central Banksters/Illuminati morons from the planet.
Gods Speed if this is true.
BTW, the latest Q post is telling. From Qanonposts.com:
about 4 hours ago.
Apr 08 2018 01:48:59
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ
947065
They are trying to start a war.
Deflection.
Public interest shift.
Pullout announcement.
Chem attack.
Coincidence?
These people are sick.
Q
Trying to start wars is not nice!!!!
Anyone else have conscriptable-age sons and daughters???
Daughters have never been conscripted in Oz.
My sister was, by accident. Her name is Vivienne. They didn’t know the diff between “enne” and “ian”. Morons.
US and UK find themselves in exactly the same bind that Germany was in, before Adolf Hitler came to power. The country was in the grips of the Zionist Jewish Mafia.
What did he do about it? He took back the financial power from them and put them out of business. He introduced “National Credit” to provide finance for infrastructure maintenance, new asset acquisition and to update the military for the threat from Stalin’s Communist USSR, which aimed to take over, not only Germany, but all of Europe.
He created millions of jobs, getting rid of the poverty created by the First World War, using a financial arrangement in tandem that FDR is continually praised for.
This arrangement is what the nations of the Western World should be implementing right now. It would then free us from the control of the Zionist tools of the IMF, World Bank and BIS.
“He created millions of jobs, getting rid of the poverty created by the First World War, using a financial arrangement in tandem that FDR is continually praised for.”
I used the wrong word (tandem), financial arrangement in PARALLEL to FDR, is what I meant.
Interesting. That means they did not produce their conscription list from a list of Registered 18-year-old Males, as they purportedly do in the US.
Our National Service was for males only, who turned 20 years of age by a certain date and calendar dates were selected to provide draftees (for want of a better word) from that pool.
The term was for two years, with a further five years on the Reserves roll. After initial training you were posted to a Regular Unit and if that unit was sent overseas so were you.
Mary, when conscription was enforced in the 1960s and 70s, there were very few women in the Services. However, these days it is different matter. Silly little females demand to be sent into harms way, nowadays after the brainwashing that has been done to convince them that there is no difference between males and females.
They believe that they have as much right as males to become heroines, sorry, heroes as men.
I believe that if Conscription is ever brought in again, a quota of females will be included because of political pressure of the female voice.
We need a song like this — “the People’s War.”
It gets dirty at 1.28 minutes.