Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Space Preservation Act

The Space Preservation Act sponsored by representative Dennis Kucinich calls for a ban on the weaponization of space. This is an extension of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space. Its first introduction on October 2, 2001 included an extensive list of what could be called exotic weapons--psychotronics, chemtrails, weather modification, tectonic weapons, and others. On April 19, 2002 an unfavorable executive comment was received from the DoD pertaining to this bill. According to Doug Gordon, Kucinich’s spokesman, “[mind control] was not the concentration of the legislation, which is why it was tightened up and redrafted”. The bill was reintroduced on January 23, 2002 with exotic weapons presumably being redefined as 'undeveloped means'. Both bills died in committee. The redraft with some further edits was introduced in both the 108th and 109th Congresses only to again die in committee. As of now the bill has not been introduced in any subsequent Congress. The bill is summarized on Mr. Kucinich's website where peculiarly the 2001 version is not mentioned.

The most relevant line pertaining to space-based mind control was omitted in later versions of the bill:
The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:...(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)...(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations
Assuming this definition was redefined as an 'undeveloped mean' in later versions, would a space-based mind control weapon developed in secrecy still apply? And would the damage now have to be strictly physical instead of psychological considering the physical nature of the other redrafted definitions?

The purview of the bill also excludes putting a ban on any surveillance, reconnaissance or remote sensing activities that are not related to space-based weapons or systems. As clarification of this point Mr. Kucinich's website says "The use of space-based reconnaissance and intelligence equipment would be permitted". Does this mean a space-based system which facilitates telepathy is not a weapon? Or is it only considered a weapon when it is used for mind control. And what about the privacy of thought? Are we entitled to having our thoughts private or are they open for capture from space-based systems?

In my view there should be legislation banning these systems. It's the safe thing to do. For those affected it would grant rights and for the disbelievers it should not matter, it's not real, right?

Space Preservation Act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005

House Session 2974, Stop the Weaponization of Space, (5/19/05):

House Session 2991, H.AMDT.326 to H.R.2863 An amendment to add a new section entitled "Space Preservation Act of 2005", (6/20/05)

Saturday, January 15, 2011

John Akwei v. NSA

Those researching electronic harassment will no doubt come across the case of John Akwei v. NSA. Mr. Akwei alleges the NSA used it resources, including remote physiological devices, to illegally harass and surveil him for over a decade. Mr. Akwei brought his case before the US District Court in Washington DC in 1992 only to have it dismissed due to the Court being unable to identify any legal cause of action. In 1996 Nexus Magazine published Mr. Akwei's evidence dossier which he compiled after the ruling. The dossier has been republished on several websites sometimes with the spurious claim that Mr. Akwei is a former NSA employee. Other sites have taken the liberty of adding their own content without proper attribution. Wanting to filter the misinformation, I ordered the case file from the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, MD. I have also confirmed that Mr. Akwei is alive and well and as he acknowledges is not now nor has ever been employed by the NSA nor has he ever made any such claims. He also affirms that the images posted here are not his and that in other republications of his dossier the last paragraph has been changed. No other legal action has been taken by Mr. Akwei since the 1992 ruling.

In the interest of presenting the facts of this case I have uploaded the documents I received from the WNRC. Certain names have been redacted per Mr. Akwei's request to protect those who may have been falsely accused due to deception. The note in the case file saying "no page 4 per pltf." is due to a page numbering error by Mr. Akwei at the time of filing.

John Akwei v. NSA (Court Docket 92-CV-449)
John Akwei v. NSA (Case File 92-CV-449)
Covert Operations of the US National Security Agency (Nexus April-May 1996)
The Website of John Akwei