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 populationsAssuming 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)