Skeptic Project

***************
BY AUTISTIC SKEPTIC

I am Clock, I am not the author of this article, I am simply reposting it as the authors blog went down.


Repeat, I am not Autistic Skeptic
Please enjoy,

Clock
****************************************


FEMA camps/Martial law DEBUNKED!!

1.What 'FEMA coffins' Really are.

A grave liner, also known as a burial liner, is an enclosure that is placed over a coffin containing human corpse, which is then buried in the ground. The casket serves as the inner enclosure of a deceased person; the liner serves as the outer enclosure. A burial liner is similar to a burial vault. The main difference between a burial vault and liner is that the liner only covers the top and sides of a casket, whereas a burial vault completely encloses a casket. In a burial liner, the bottom of the casket in this case is in direct contact with the ground. A burial liner serves to protect a casket during burial from being crushed and keeps the casket from being crushed when the heavy equipment that many modern cemeteries use pass over the grave. A liner helps keep the ground over the grave from sinking in, and helps keeps the ground even. To prevent sunken graves, many modern cemeteries require that either a burial liner or vault be used in burials. The use of burial liners is typical only in recent American history and is unheard of outside of the United States. The alternative to using a burial liner is to pile the earth up over the grave in order to allow for settling as is the practice in Europe and other parts of the world. For example, in the UK burial liners are never used because the inevitable subsidence of the earth over a grave is not viewed as a major problem: as the ground subsides over a number of years, earth is added to the depression to level it. Green cemeteries and some religions discourage the use of liners as they slow down the return of the body to the earth. A burial vault is a container that houses a casket when it is buried. The burial vault is placed in the grave, the casket is lowered into the vault and a top (lid) is placed onto the vault before the grave is covered. The purpose of the burial vault is to protect the casket from the weight of the earth and the equipment used in the maintenance of the cemetery property. Burial vaults also maintain the beauty of the cemetery by eliminating soil settlement. Burial vaults are most commonly made from concrete, but are also made from steel and plastic. The burial container known as a grave liner is not the same as a burial vault. The burial vault completely encloses the casket while a grave liner has no bottom or holes in the bottom. The present day funeral industry emerged in the aftermath of the American Civil War. At that time burial vaults were made from brick. The grave would be lined with bricks and the coffin would be placed inside and covered. Around the turn of the century the American funeral industry began to pick up steam and Americans' experience of death and body disposal was transformed. In the late 1880s companies began to manufacture a two - piece concrete burial vault. As the American funeral industry continued to grow, and gain respect as a reputable business, so did the burial vault industry. Burial vaults continued to be improved and in the late 1920s companies began to coat them with asphalt to keep moisture away from the casket. The growing demand for burial vaults led to the creation of The National Concrete Burial Vault Association (NCBVA) in the 1930 as a non-profit organization of concrete burial manufactures in the United States and Canada. As of 2009 the NCBVA has 350 independent concrete burial vault manufactures. The total number of burial vault manufactures is not known due to the fact that this organization is limited to only concrete burial vault manufactures (not plastic and steel) and not all manufactures are members. Just as with any product, over the last century burial vaults have continued to be improved. Now burial vaults are built to withstand up to 5000 pounds psf and are available in a variety of finishes and also liners to keep moisture from the casket.





2.NDAA myths debunked.
Does the NDAA expand the government's detention authority?

Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain: (http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/memo-re-det-auth.pdf)

persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war. The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the government's position. The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administration--and now Congress--would detain only on the basis of "substantial support," the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who "purposefully and materially support" the enemy, even if not substantially.

In light of all this, a law that writes the administration's successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the government's detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow it--if only very slightly. So let's compare the language of the administration's claimed authority (quoted above) to the language of the NDAA:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress's stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that's no small thing. But it does not--notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary--expand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.

The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only--that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention. The NDAA will ensure that this does not happen by making clear that independent support does count as a ground for detention (or at least it will do so as a matter of statutory interpretation; in theory, the door would remain open to some form of constitutional challenge, though it is difficult to see how that would work). So even as it marginally narrows the detainable class, the NDAA also tends to ensure that courts will not narrow the scope of that class further.

Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched--that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

The confusion associated with the NDAA's treatment of the citizenship issue is understandable. First, the NDAA's text relevant to this question changed quite a bit over time. Second, the relationship of the NDAA to pre-existing detention authority is difficult to follow if one does not keep up with this area regularly. So let's begin with an overview of that pre-existing authority, before turning to the NDAA itself.

During the administration of George W. Bush, the government used its detention authority under the AUMF (described above) in two instances involving U.S. citizens. The first involved Yaser Hamdi, who was captured by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in late 2001 and then later turned over to U.S. forces. He was at GTMO when the government determined he had a claim to US citizenship by virtue of having been born in Louisiana, and accordingly the government moved him to a military facility within the United States. A habeas proceeding followed, and ultimately went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the Court held that (i) the government's authority to detain under the AUMF at least included armed members of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan (at least so long as fighting continued there), (ii) citizenship was no bar to detention in that circumstance, and (iii) citizenship did, however, entitle a detainee to a fair opportunity to contest the factual claims asserted by the government in support of detention.

Meanwhile, the government had arrested a suspected al Qaeda member--and U.S. citizen--named Jose Padilla, taking him into custody at O'Hare Airport in Chicago. He eventually ended up in military custody, and he too brought a habeas proceeding. To make a long story very short, his case first proceeded through the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of which concluded that detention authority under the AUMF did not apply to a citizen suspected of being an al Qaeda member and captured in the U.S. After the Supreme Court required the petition to be refiled and relitigated in the Fourth Circuit (because that is where Padilla actually was held), a district court judge took the same position, but on appeal a Fourth Circuit panel held that Padilla could lawfully be detained after all--though in so holding, the panel focused on the factual assumption that Padilla had, like Hamdi, been on the battlefield in Afghanistan previously. The case was then set to go before the Supreme Court, but before it could weigh in on the merits, Padilla was shifted into civilian custody for a criminal trial (he was convicted, and is now in prison).

The government has not asserted authority to detain a citizen under the AUMF since this time, so the question of citizen detention has remained unsettled ever since. Which brings us at last to the NDAA.

An earlier version of the NDAA in the Senate contained language that strongly implied, without quite saying it, that citizens were included within the general grant of detention authority discussed above (see Bobby's contemporaneous assessment here [1]). This generated much debate and criticism, and eventually a group of senators offered an amendment to state explicitly that citizens could not be detained under the NDAA's restatement of detention authority. That amendment was rejected, and at that point, Senator Feinstein offered a compromise, fall-back amendment stating simply that nothing in the NDAA should be taken to address this issue one way or the other. The explicit idea was to preserve the unsettled status quo described above, leaving it to the courts to determine if detention authority extends to citizens should the government ever again attempt to assert it (see here [2] and here [3] ). That is the position on which the NDAA has now settled (here [4] ).

A final note: As Steve points out here [5], the courts may in the end adopt a "clear statement" requirement in relation to the citizen detention question. That is, they may hold that Congress must explicitly grant such authority before a statute like the AUMF or the NDAA can be read to grant it. If that occurs, of course, that likely will be the end of the matter, particularly in light of the explicit effort in the NDAA to remain agnostic rather than take sides on the question.

Does it repeal the Bill of Rights?

No federal statute can repeal the Bill of Rights. To the extent any provision of the NDAA is found to conflict with any provision of the Bill of Rights, it will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

So if it doesn't significantly expand the government's detention authority, doesn't authorize detention of citizens, doesn't really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn't do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, what's all the fuss about? Is it even important?

The final bill is, indeed, far less consequential than earlier versions would have been. Much of the fuss is overblown. That said, the bill has several important elements:

The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity--a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing.

The transfer restrictions will continue to have negative effects on administration management of detainee affairs, reducing flexibility and agility and compelling the continued detention of people the administration does not want to detain, in a status the administration does not wish to use, and at a facility it would prefer to vacate. That this is no change from current law--indeed, that the NDAA offers slightly more flexibility than does current law--does not make these restrictions any less troublesome.

The rump mandatory detention provision remains a bit of a wild card that could have mischievous effects in practice. Though it ends up requiring very little, it does impose--as we have described--a default option of military detention for certain categories of cases. And this option might prove politically difficult to jettison.

Is there anything in the NDAA about which human rights groups and civil libertarians ought to be pleased?

Yes, actually, there is. Section 1024 of the bill, as we've noted, requires that people subject to long-term military detention in circumstances not already subject to habeas corpus review--think the Detention Facility in Parwan, Afghanistan--henceforth shall have the right to a military lawyer and a proceeding before a military judge in order to contest the government's factual basis for believing them to be subject to detention.
This is an extraordinary and novel development. Detainees in Afghanistan currently have access to the Detainee Review Board process, which as described in this article [6] already provide a relatively robust screening mechanism, particularly compared to years past. The DRB process does not include lawyers and judges, however, and human rights advocacy groups have criticized them on this ground. Requiring lawyers and judges to staff out the screening process is a pretty remarkable shift in the direction of accommodating those concerns.

What's more, while human rights groups have decried the codification of detention authority, the codification does preclude certain interpretations of the AUMF that human rights groups hated. For example, while the difference between the D.C. Circuit's embrace of the "purposefully and materially support" standard and the administration's language seems pretty slight, the D.C. Circuit language did--which the NDAA now jettisons--keep critics up at night [7]. And the D.C. Circuit famously flirted in one case with the notion that international law does not inform or limit detention authority under the AUMF--a position that the explicit references to the "law of war" in the NDAA seems to reject

3.Patriot act myths.

Quotations used by Justice.gov

Summary:

Permits sharing of grand jury and wiretap information regarding foreign intelligence with federal law-enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national-defense and national-security personnel.

Myth:

"While some sharing of information may be appropriate in some limited circumstances, it should only be done with strict safeguards. . . . The bill lacks all of these safeguards. As a result it may lead to the very abuses that the Church Committee exposed decades ago." [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Oct. 23, 2001]

Reality:

Before USA PATRIOT

, federal law sharply limited the ability of federal law-enforcement to share terrorism-related information with national-defense officials and members of the intelligence community in order to protect the American People from terrorism. As the recent 9/11 Congressional Joint Inquiry Report confirms, prior to September 11th our ability to connect the dots was inhibited by the inability to coordinate throughout our own government.

For example, suppose that a federal prosecutor learned during grand jury testimony that terrorists were planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in Manhattan in the next 30 minutes. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) would have prevented him from immediately notifying national-security officials.





Section 203 facilitated a coordinated, integrated antiterrorism campaign by allowing the sharing of information acquired by wiretaps or through grand jury proceedings. Thanks to section 203, the right hand now knows what the left hand is doing.

Section 203 contains a number of privacy safeguards. An individual who receives any information under this section can use it only "in the conduct of that person's official duties." And any time grand jury information is shared, the government is required to notify the supervising court.

On September 23, 2002, the Attorney General issued privacy guidelines governing the sharing of information that identifies a United States person. These rules require that all such information be labeled before disclosure, and handled according to specific protocols designed to ensure its appropriate use.

The Department has made disclosures of vital information to the intelligence community and other federal officials under section 203 on dozens of occasions.

The authority to share wiretap information will sunset on December 31, 2005. The authority to share grand jury information will not sunset.






Section 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Summary:

Allows FISA court to authorize "roving surveillance" when it finds that the target's actions may thwart the identification of a communications company or other person whose assistance may be needed to carry out the surveillance.

Myth:

"These wiretaps pose a greater challenge to privacy because they are authorized secretly without a showing of probable cause of crime.This Section represents a broad expansion of power without building in a necessary privacy protection." [ACLU, Oct. 23, 2001]

Reality:

For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps"

- in which a wiretap authorization attaches to a particular suspect, rather than a particular communications device - to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. The authority to use roving wiretaps in drug cases has existed since 1986.

Section 206 authorized the same techniques in national-security investigations. This provision has enhanced the government's authority to monitor sophisticated international terrorists and intelligence officers, who are trained to thwart surveillance, such as by rapidly changing cell phones, just before important meetings or communications.

A wiretap under section 206 can be ordered only after the FISA court makes a finding that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the surveillance.

A number of federal courts - including the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits - have squarely ruled that roving wiretaps are perfectly consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Whether the Department has used section 206 is classified. Details about its use were provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 29, 2003, in response to a request by the House Committee on the Judiciary.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.

Summary:

Allows law enforcement to obtain voice mail stored with a third party provider by using a search warrant, rather than a wiretap order.

Facts:

Under previous law, law enforcement could use a search warrant to obtain voice messages stored on an answering machine inside a terrorist's home. But agents had to go through the burdensome process of obtaining a wiretap order if the same messages were stored with a third party provider.

Section 209 allowed investigators, upon a showing of probable cause, to use court-issued search warrants to obtain voicemails held by a third-party provider. Simply put, the law now treats these voicemail messages the same as voicemails on a home answering machine.

Section 209 preserved all of the pre-existing standards for the availability of search warrants. For example, law enforcement still must: (1) apply for and receive a court order; and (2) establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot.

Since passage of the Act, such warrants have been used in a variety of criminal cases to obtain key evidence, including voicemail messages left for foreign and domestic terrorists.

Under previous law, the wiretap statute governed access to stored wire communications such as voicemail, because the definition of "wire communication" (18 U.S.C. § 2510(1)) included stored communications.

This provision will sunset December 31, 2005.

Section 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.

Summary:

Broadens the types of records that grand juries can subpoena from electronic communications providers to include the means and source of payment, such as bank accounts and credit card numbers.

Facts:

Before USA PATRIOT

, federal law allowed grand juries to subpoena a limited class of information from electronic-communications providers. Grand juries could not subpoena certain information - such as credit card and bank account numbers - that is indispensable in tracking down a suspect's true identity.

Section 210 updated the law

by allowing grand juries to subpoena the full range of information necessary to determine suspects' identities. Now, grand juries can issue subpoenas for the means of payment that customers use to pay for their accounts. That includes "any credit card or bank account number."

This information will prove particularly valuable in identifying the users of Internet services where a company does not verify its users' biographical information.

Prosecutors in the field report that this new authority has allowed for quick tracing of suspects in numerous important cases, including several terrorism investigations and a case in which computer hackers attacked over fifty government and military computers.

As is true of all subpoenas, recipients of a section 210 subpoena can go to court and ask the judge to quash it. And, if the recipient refuses to comply with a section 210 subpoena, the government must ask a judge to enforce it; agents cannot enforce it unilaterally.

Before section 210, grand jury subpoenas of electronic-communications providers generally were limited to obtaining customers' names, addresses, and length of service.






Section 211. Clarification of scope.

Summary:

Clarifies that the statutes governing telephone and Internet communications - not the burdensome provisions of the Cable Act - apply to cable companies that provide Internet or telephone service.

Facts:

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, some cable companies, citing restrictions in the federal Cable Act, ignored lawful court orders requiring them to turn over records about their customers' Internet or telephone use - even though any other Internet or telephone provider would have had to comply.

Section 211 clarified that when a cable company provides telephone or Internet service, it must comply with the same disclosure laws that apply to any other telephone company or Internet service provider.

Terrorists no longer can exempt themselves from lawful investigations simply by choosing cable companies as their communications providers.

Section 211 preserved all of the pre-existing standards in the applicable electronic-surveillance laws.

If agents want to use a pen register or trap-and-trace device (which record the numbers a telephone dials and from which it receives calls, but do not allow agents to listen to or record the contents of communications) or use a wiretap to listen to a cable customer's phone conversations, they still must apply for and receive a court order.

If agents want to use a wiretap, they must establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot.

Section 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.

Summary:

Allows computer-service providers to disclose communications in life-threatening emergencies.

Facts:

Before USA PATRIOT, communications providers could not disclose records about their customers in emergency situations. If an Internet service provider learned that a customer was about to commit a terrorist attack, and notified law enforcement, it could be subject to civil lawsuits - even if the disclosure saved lives.

Section 212 allows communications providers voluntarily to turn over information in emergencies without fear of civil liability. Now, providers are permitted - but not required - to give law enforcement information in emergencies involving a risk of death or serious injury.

This is the equivalent of allowing citizens to tell police that, while walking down a public street, they overheard two people discussing a crime they were about to commit and decided to notify the police.

Section 212 does not impose an affirmative obligation to review customer communications in search of such imminent dangers.

Communications providers have used this new authority to disclose vital information to law enforcement in a number of important investigations, including a bomb threat against a high school.

An anonymous person posted on an Internet message board a bomb death threat that specifically named a faculty member and several students.

The message board's owner initially resisted giving law enforcement any information about the suspect for fear that he could be sued. Once agents explained section 212, the owner turned over evidence that led to the timely arrest of the individual responsible for the bomb threat.

The message board's owner later revealed that he had been worried for the safety of the students and teachers for several days, and expressed his relief that the USA PATRIOT Act permitted him to help.

Section 212 also played a key role in a case where two unknown individuals, using a U.S.-based email account, threatened to kill executives at a company in another country unless they were paid a hefty ransom. The email provider used section 212 to disclose key information about the suspects. The Justice Department then transmitted this information to the authorities in that country, less than two hours after we were first contacted. Both suspects later were apprehended overseas.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.

Summary:

Allows courts, in certain narrow circumstances, to give delayed notice that a search warrant has been executed.

Myth:

"It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner." [ACLU, Apr. 3, 2003]

Reality:

Delayed notification warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography.

Section 213 of USA PATRIOT Act simply codified the authority law enforcement already had for decades. Because of differences between jurisdictions, the law was a mix of inconsistent standards that varied widely across the country. This lack of uniformity hindered complex terrorism cases. Section 213 resolved the problem by establishing a uniform statutory standard. Section 213 is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant.

The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979). In yet another case, the Court said, "officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise [duly] authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

If the Otter Amendment, passed in the House July 22, 2003, becomes law, it would have a devastating effect on our ongoing efforts to detect and prevent terrorism, as well as to combat other serious crimes. This amendment could tip off terrorists or criminals to investigations before law enforcement could obtain the needed information to locate their terrorists or criminal associates, identify and disrupt their plans, or initiate their arrests.

Premature notification of a search warrant could result in the intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, physical injury, and even death.

In all cases, section 213 requires law enforcement to give notice that property has been searched or seized. It simply allows agents to temporarily delay when the required notification is given.

This authority can be used only upon the issuance of a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances. Courts can delay notice only when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation.

Under section 213, courts can delay notice if there is "reasonable cause" to believe that immediate notification may have a specified adverse result. The "reasonable cause" standard is consistent with pre-PATRIOT Act caselaw for delayed notice of warrants. See, e.g., United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990) (government must show "good reason" for delayed notice of warrants).

Section 213 is important to law-enforcement investigations of a wide variety of serious crimes, including domestic and international terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, and child pornography.

In United States v. Odeh, a recent narco-terrorism case, a court issued a section 213 warrant in connection with the search of an envelope that had been mailed to a target of an investigation. The search confirmed that the target was operating a hawala money exchange that was used to funnel money to the Middle East, including to an individual associated with someone accused of being an operative for Islamic Jihad in Israel. The delayed-notice provision allowed investigators to conduct the search without fear of compromising an ongoing wiretap on the target and several of the confederates. The target was later charged and notified of the search warrant.


During an investigation into a nationwide organization that distributes marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine, the court issued a delayed notice warrant to search the residence in which agents seized in excess of 225 kilograms of drugs. The organization involved relied heavily on the irregular use of cell phones, and usually discontinued the use of cell phones after a seizure of the drugs and drug proceeds, making continued telephone interception difficult. Interceptions after the delayed notice seizure indicated that the suspects thought other drug dealers had stolen their drugs, and none of the telephones intercepted were disposed of, and no one in the organization discontinued their use of telephones. The government was able to prevent these drugs from being sold, without disrupting the larger investigation.

Section 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.

Summary:

Allows the United States to obtain a FISA pen register order by certifying that the resulting information would be relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Myth:

"The amendment significantly eviscerates the constitutional rationale for the relatively lax requirements that apply to foreign intelligence surveillance." [EPIC, Mar. 19, 2003]

Reality:

Section 214 streamlined the process for obtaining pen registers under FISA. It preserved the existing court-order requirement. Now, as before, law enforcement cannot install a pen register unless it applies for and receives permission from the FISA court.

Section 214 goes further to protect privacy than the Constitution requires. The Supreme Court has long held that law enforcement is not constitutionally required to obtain court approval before installing a pen register.

Under long-settled Supreme Court precedent, the use of pen registers does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As such, the Constitution does not require that law enforcement obtain court approval before installing a pen register. This is so because "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties," and "when he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).

Section 214 explicitly safeguards First Amendment rights. It requires that any "investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution."

A pen register is a device that can track routing and addressing information about a communication - for example, which numbers a particular telephone dials. Pen registers are not used to collect the content of communications.

Whether the Department has used section 214 is classified. Details about its use were provided to the House Judiciary Committee on May 29, 2003.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 215. Access to business records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Summary

: Allows the FISA court, in an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, to issue an ex parte order requiring the production of any tangible things.

Myth:

"Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." [ACLU, July 22, 2003]

Reality:

The library habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those conducting terrorism investigations. However, historically terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. We should not allow libraries to become safe havens for terrorist or clandestine activities.

Obtaining business records is a long-standing law enforcement tactic. Ordinary grand juries for years have issued subpoenas to all manner of businesses, including libraries and bookstores, for records relevant to criminal inquiries.

In a recent domestic terrorism criminal case, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.

In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach.

In the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a New York grand jury subpoenaed records from a public library in Manhattan. Investigators believed that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who had checked out his books.

Section 215 authorized the FISA court to issue similar orders in national-security investigations. It contains a number of safeguards that protect civil liberties.

Section 215 requires FBI agents to get a court order. Agents cannot use this authority unilaterally to compel any entity to turn over its records. FISA orders are unlike grand jury subpoenas, which are requested without court supervision.

Section 215 has a narrow scope. It can only be used (1) "to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person"; or (2) "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." It cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism.

Section 215 preserves First Amendment rights. It expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations "of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Section 215 provides for congressional oversight. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented.

On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."

There is much misinformation - even disinformation - about the supposed use of section 215 at libraries.

On November 3, 2002, the Hartford Courant alleged that the FBI installed software on computers at the Hartford Public Library that lets agents track a person's use of the Internet and email messages. The article even said that individuals' library use could be surveilled even if they weren't suspected of being a terrorist. In reality, the FBI obtained a single search warrant to copy the hard drive of a specific computer that had been used to hack into a business computer system in California for criminal purposes. No software was installed on that or any other computer in the library. The Hartford Courant has retracted the story in full.

Section 215 actually is more protective of privacy than the authorities for ordinary grand jury subpoenas.

A court must explicitly authorize the use of section 215 to obtain business records. By contrast, a grand jury subpoena is typically issued without any prior judicial review or approval.

Section 215 expressly protects the First Amendment, unlike federal grand jury subpoenas.

Section 215 can only be used, in investigations of U.S. persons, to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. A grand jury can obtain business records in investigations of any federal crime.

The requirement that recipients of these orders keep them confidential is based on "national security letter" statutes, which have existed for decades. (An NSL is a type of administrative subpoena used in certain national-security investigations.)

The details of FISA-related investigations, including requests for business records, are classified. Classified details about the use of section 215 were provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on July 29, 2002, in response to a request by the House Committee on the Judiciary, and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 7, 2003, in response to a request by the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The new tool improved on FISA's original business-records authority in a number of respects:

It expanded the types of entities that can be compelled to disclose information. Under the old provision, the FBI could obtain records only from "a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility or vehicle rental facility." The new provision contains no such restrictions.

It expanded the types of items that can be requested. Under the old authority, the FBI could only seek "records." Now, the FBI can seek "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)."

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.

Summary:

Amends the pen register/trap and trace statute (1) to clarify that it applies to Internet communications, and (2) to allow for a single order that is valid across the country.

Myth:

"Section 216 would worsen the problem by giving the FBI access to communications of non-targets and to portions of the target's communications to which it is not entitled under the court order it obtained. The 'trust us, we're the government' solution the FBI proposes is entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment." [ACLU, Oct. 23, 2001]

Reality:

For years, law enforcement has used pen registers to track which numbers a particular telephone dials. See 18 U.S.C. § 3123. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, it was not clear that they could be used to gather the same routing and addressing information about Internet communications.

Section 216 updated the law to the technology. It ensures that law enforcement will be able to collect non-content information about terrorists' communications regardless of the media they use.

Section 216 also allows courts to issue pen-register orders that are valid across the country. As a result, law enforcement no longer needs to waste precious time by applying for new orders each time an investigation leads to another jurisdiction.

Section 216 preserved all of the law's pre-existing standards. As before, law enforcement must get court approval before installing a pen register. And as before, law enforcement must show that the information sought is relevant to an ongoing investigation.

In fact, section 216 enhanced the privacy protections in the pen-register statute. It made explicit that anyone using a pen register has an affirmative obligation to avoid the collection of content.

The Department is committed to complying with the Act's mandate that pen registers not be used to capture content. On May 24, 2002, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum instructing field offices to: (1) minimize any possible collection of content; (2) refrain from using any content that may be acquired inadvertently; and (3) coordinate with Department headquarters about what constitutes content.

Department field investigators and prosecutors have used section 216 in a number of terrorism and other important criminal cases.

Section 216 was used in the investigation of the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, to obtain information that proved critical to identifying some of the perpetrators.

Section 216 was used in a case where two unknown individuals, using a U.S.-based email account, threatened to kill executives at a company in another country unless they were paid a hefty ransom. The use of a pen register enabled Department investigators to provide the foreign authorities with critical information about the suspects' identities - which led to their prompt apprehension overseas.

Investigators also have used section 216 to collect routing information about the Internet communications of (1) terrorist conspirators; (2) at least one major drug distributor; (3) thieves who obtained victims' bank-account information and stole the money; (4) a four-time murderer; and (5) a fugitive who fled on the eve of trial using a fake passport.

A pen register is a device that can track routing and addressing information about a communication - for example, which numbers a particular telephone dials. Pen registers are not used to collect the content of communications.

Under long-settled Supreme Court precedent, the use of pen registers does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As such, the Constitution does not require that law enforcement obtain court approval before installing a pen register. This is so because "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties," and "when he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).

The law provides for robust oversight of law enforcement's use of pen registers. The pen register statute has always required that a report be made to Congress every year as to its use. In addition, the USA PATRIOT Act added a requirement that law enforcement report to the supervising court anytime it uses its own pen register to collect Internet information.

Section 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.

Summary:

Allows victims of computer-hacking crimes to request law-enforcement assistance in monitoring trespassers on their computers.

Myth:

"The new law places the determination solely in the hands of law enforcement and the system owner or operator. . . . [T]he amendment has little, if anything, to do with legitimate investigations of terrorism." [EPIC, Mar. 19, 2003]

Reality:

The law has always recognized the right of landowners to ask law enforcement to help expel people who illegally trespass on their property.

Section 217 made the law technology-neutral, placing cyber-intruders on the same footing as physical intruders. Now, hacking victims can seek law-enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.

Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the law prohibited computer service providers from sharing with law enforcement that hackers had broken into their systems.

Computer operators are not required to involve law enforcement if they detect trespassers on their systems. Section 217 simply gives them the option of doing so.

Section 217 preserves the privacy of law-abiding computer users. Officers cannot agree to help a computer owner unless (1) they are engaged in a lawful investigation; (2) there is reason to believe that the communications will be relevant to that investigation; and (3) their activities will not acquire the communications of non-hackers.

This provision has played a key role in a number of terrorism investigations, national-security cases, and investigations of other serious crimes.

Section 217 is extremely helpful when computer hackers launch massive "denial of service" attacks - which are designed to shut down individual web sites, computer networks, or even the entire Internet.

The definition of "computer trespasser" does not include an individual who has a contractual relationship with the service provider. Thus, for example, America Online could not ask law enforcement to help monitor a hacking attack on its system that was initiated by one of its own subscribers.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 218. Foreign intelligence information.

Summary:

Encourages an integrated antiterrorism campaign by allowing the use of FISA whenever "a significant purpose" of the investigation is foreign intelligence.

Myth:

"It permits the FBI to conduct a secret search or to secretly record telephone conversations for the purpose of investigating crime even though the FBI does not have probable cause of crime. The section authorizes unconstitutional activity - searches and wiretaps in non-emergency circumstances - for criminal activity with no showing of probable cause of crime." [ACLU, Oct. 23, 2001]

Reality:

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, a perceived metaphorical "wall" often inhibited vital information sharing and coordination. Intelligence investigators were concerned about sharing information with, and seeking advice from, law enforcement investigators and prosecutors. There was a fear that such sharing and consultation could mean that they would not be able to obtain or continue FISA coverage.

Previously, courts had ruled that FISA could be used only when foreign intelligence was the "primary purpose" of an investigation.

Section 218 expressly permitted the full coordination between intelligence and law enforcement that is vital to protecting the nation's security. Now, FISA can be used whenever foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" of a national security investigation. Moreover, section 504 of the USA PATRIOT Act specifically permits intelligence investigators to consult with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against threats from foreign powers and their agents.

Generally, a surveillance or search under FISA can be ordered only if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

This provision already is producing important dividends in the war on terror. The Department recently obtained the indictment of Sami al-Arian, an alleged member of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) cell in Tampa, Florida.

PIJ is alleged to be one of the world's most violent terrorist outfits. It is responsible for murdering over 100 innocent people, including Alisa Flatow, a young American killed in a bus bombing near the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom.

Section 218 enabled criminal investigators finally to obtain and consider the full range of evidence of the PIJ operations in which al-Arian allegedly participated.

The Department has issued several new directives that have fostered cooperation among national-security and law-enforcement personnel.

The Attorney General instructed all U.S. Attorneys to review intelligence files to discover whether there was a basis for bringing criminal charges against the subjects of intelligence investigations. More than 5,000 files have been reviewed as part of this process. Information from this review has been used to open many criminal investigations.

The Attorney General directed every U.S. Attorney to develop a plan to monitor terrorism and intelligence investigations, and to ensure that information about terrorist threats is shared with other agencies and that criminal charges are considered.

In November of last year, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review upheld in full section 218, as well the Department's procedures to implement it.

The court expressly held "that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable." In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 746 (FISCR 2002).

The old "primary purpose" standard was derived from a number of court decisions, including United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That standard was formally established in written Department guidelines in July 1995. While information could be "thrown over the wall" from intelligence officials to prosecutors, the decision to do so always rested with national-security personnel - even though law-enforcement agents are in a better position to determine what evidence is pertinent to their criminal case. The old legal rules discouraged coordination, and created what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review calls "perverse organizational incentives." In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 743.

On March 6, 2002, the Department issued guidelines that expressly authorized - and indeed required - coordination between intelligence and law enforcement. These revised procedures were approved in full by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review on November 18, 2002. In December 2002, the Department issue field guidance with respect to the March 2002 procedures and the Court of Review's decision.

In addition to upholding the Department's revised procedures, the Court of Review also noted that the old "wall" standards were not required even prior to the USA PATRIOT Act. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 723-27, 735.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.

Summary:

Allows courts to issue search warrants that are valid nationwide in terrorism investigations.

Facts:

Under prior law, a court could only issue a search warrant authorizing searches within its own district. That created unnecessary delays and burdens when investigating terrorist networks, which often span a number of judicial districts.

Section 219 eliminated those time-consuming loopholes. Now, a court in a district where terrorism-related activities have occurred, upon a showing of probable cause, may issue search warrants that are valid within or outside the district.

Section 219 preserved all of the pre-existing standards governing the availability of search warrants. Law enforcement still is required to demonstrate, and courts still must find, probable cause that criminal activity is afoot.

Section 219 has made available resources that otherwise would have been devoted to administrative tasks, thereby maximizing the law enforcement personnel available to investigate terrorists.

This new tool has been used in a number of important terrorism cases. For example, section 219 enabled prosecutors in Virginia to obtain a single search warrant to simultaneously search multiple offices of affiliated charities in two different states. Such coordination is extremely important in cases where one entity may be able to warn another of an impending search.

Section 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.

Summary:

Allows courts with jurisdiction over the offense to issue search warrants for communications stored by providers anywhere in the country.

Facts:

Under previous law, some courts declined to issue search warrants for email stored on servers in other districts. Requiring investigators to obtain warrants in distant jurisdictions has delayed many time-sensitive investigations. It also placed an enormous administrative burden on districts in which major Internet service providers are located (such as E.D. Va. and N.D. Cal.).

Section 220 allows courts to issue search warrants for electronic evidence outside the district where they are located. Now, courts can compel evidence directly, without requiring the intervention of agents, prosecutors, and judges in the districts where major ISPs are located.

Section 220 has made available resources that otherwise would have been devoted to administrative tasks, thereby maximizing the law enforcement personnel available to investigate terrorists.

This new tool has been used in a number of important terrorism cases. For example, one section 220 search warrant was used in a case in one state regarding an individual who had set up a website promoting jihad for an organization in another state. The judge where the case was being brought, who was most familiar with the case, was able to sign the search warrant.

The enhanced ability to obtain this information quickly also has proved invaluable in several sensitive non-terrorism investigations, including: (1) the tracking of a fugitive; and (2) a hacker who stole a company's trade secrets and then extorted money from the company.

This provision can only be used by courts with jurisdiction over the investigation.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.

Summary

: Creates a cause of action and authorizes money damages against the United States if officers disclose sensitive information without authorization.

Facts

:

There have been no administrative disciplinary proceedings or civil actions initiated under section 223 of the Act for unauthorized disclosures of intercepts.

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

Section 319. Forfeiture of funds in United States interbank accounts.

Summary:

Permits the forfeiture of funds held in United States interbank accounts.

Facts:

Section 319 allows the government to seize funds subject to forfeiture, which are located in a foreign bank account, by authorizing the seizure of the foreign bank's funds that are held in a correspondent U.S. account.

This is true regardless of whether or not the money in the correspondent account is directly traceable to the money held in the foreign bank account.

The Department has used section 319 in several significant cases.

On January 18, 2001, a federal grand jury indicted James Gibson for various offenses, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, and mail and wire fraud. Gibson, a lawyer, allegedly defrauded his clients, numerous personal injury victims, of millions of dollars by fraudulently structuring settlements. Gibson fled to Belize, depositing some of the proceeds from the scheme in two Belizean banks. The Department's efforts to recover the proceeds initially proved unsuccessful. But following the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, section 319 was used to serve a seizure warrant on the Belizean bank's interbank account in the United States. The remaining funds were recovered.

In December 2001, the Department also used section 319 to recover almost $1.7 million in funds. This money will be used to compensate the victims of the defendant's fraudulent scheme.

Section 373. Illegal money transmitting businesses.

Summary:

Makes it unlawful to run an unlicensed foreign money transmittal business, and eliminates prior requirement that the defendant have known about the state licensing requirement.

Facts:

Section 373 has enhanced the government's ability to crack down on unlicensed foreign money-transmittal businesses - which terrorists and their supporters often use to raise funds for terrorist operations.

The Department has used section 373 in a number of important terrorism and national-security cases.

On April 30, 2002, a federal jury in Boston convicted Mohamed Hussein for running a foreign money transmittal business (Barakaat North America, Inc.) without a license in violation of section 373. The al-Barakaat network was affiliated with and received funding from al Qaeda. In 2000 and 2001, after the Hussein brothers ignored Massachusetts's warning that their business needed to be licensed, nearly $3 million was wired from his Boston bank account to the United Arab Emirates. On July 22, 2002, Mohammed Hussein was sentenced to one and a half years in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Fourteen out of 15 defendants have pled guilty to charges stemming from an illegal money transmitting business based in the Eastern District of New York, involving funds sent to Yemen, including over $1 million sent just in March 2002. The final defendant is a fugitive. The lead defendant, who ran the money-transmitting operation, was sentenced to serve 63 months in federal prison. Consensually monitored telephone calls made during the investigation show that this case has had a major deterrent effect on other hawala operators in the Brooklyn area.

On December 17, 2002, three defendants were indicted in connection with an illegal money transmitting business based in the Northern District of New York, which allegedly sent $486,000 to Yemen.

Two individuals have been charged with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in Kentucky. On November 1, 2002, one of the defendants was convicted of transferring over $594,000 out of the United States.

Section 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.

Summary:

Requires the detention of aliens who are certified as threats to the national security, pending their removal from the United States.

Myth:

"Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in 6 month increments without meaningful judicial review." [ACLU, Feb. 11, 2003]

Reality:

Section 412 allows the government, with extensive judicial supervision, temporarily to detain terrorist aliens until they are removed from the country. It is the equivalent of denying bail to a criminal defendant. Section 412 ensures that terrorists are not released to live among the people they seek to harm.

Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from section 412. It applies only to aliens who engage in terrorism or otherwise pose a severe threat to the national security. And detention lasts only as long as it takes to remove an alien from the U.S.

An extremely narrow class of aliens can be detained under section 412. There must be "reasonable grounds to believe" that the alien: (1) entered the United States to violate espionage or sabotage laws; (2) entered to oppose the government by force; (3) engaged in terrorist activity; or (4) endangers the United States' national security.

Section 412 expressly grants aliens the right to challenge their detention in court. Aliens may file a habeas petition in any federal district court that has jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that detaining aliens may be appropriate in terrorism and other national-security cases: "special arguments might be made for forms of preventive detention and for heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696 (2001).

Once the Attorney General has taken a certified alien into custody, he has seven days to initiate removal proceedings or file criminal charges. If the Attorney General does neither, he is required to release the alien. If an alien has been detained "solely" under section 412, and his removal is unlikely in the foreseeable future, the Attorney General "may" continue to detain him for additional periods of up to six months. Additional detention periods are authorized only if releasing the alien "will" threaten national security or cause harm to "the community or any person."

As of February 2004, the Attorney General had not used section 412. Numerous aliens who could have been considered have been detained since the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act. But it has not proven necessary to use section 412 in these particular cases because traditional administrative bond proceedings have been sufficient to detain these individuals without bond. The Department believes that this authority should be retained for use in appropriate situations.

Section 507. Disclosure of educational records.

Summary:

Allows the Department to seek a court order to obtain educational records that are relevant to an investigation of a grave felony or an act of terrorism.

Myth:

"This means that the Attorney General may obtain the private educational records of a student involved in the Vieques protests by asserting that the records are relevant to a domestic terrorism investigation." [ACLU, Dec. 6, 2002]

Reality:

Section 507 has an extremely narrow scope. Records are available only in investigations of the severest terrorist crimes, such as biological-weapons offenses, chemical-weapons offenses, bombing government property, and destroying airliners.

In order to obtain records under section 507, law enforcement is required to apply for and receive a court order. Law enforcement cannot unilaterally compel educational institutions to turn over any information.

Section 507 can only be used if law enforcement certifies to the court that there are "specific and articulable facts" giving reason to believe that the records sought contain information relevant to the terrorism crimes being investigated.

Only high-ranking Department officials - all of whom are Senate-confirmed - are entitled to ask a court to order the disclosure of records. This ensures accountability.

Section 507 requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines to protect confidentiality.

Section 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys.

Summary:

Allows the Department to seek a court order to obtain records from the National Center for Educational Statistics that are relevant to an investigation of a grave felony or an act of terrorism.

Facts:

Section 508 has an extremely narrow scope. Records are available only in investigations of the severest terrorist crimes, such as biological-weapons offenses, chemical-weapons offenses, bombing government property, and destroying airliners.

In order to obtain records under section 508, law enforcement is required to apply for and receive a court order. Law enforcement cannot unilaterally compel educational institutions to turn over any information.

Section 508 can only be used if law enforcement certifies to the court that there are "specific and articulable facts" giving reason to believe that the records sought contain information relevant to the terrorism crimes being investigated.

Only high-ranking Department officials - all of whom are Senate-confirmed - are entitled to ask a court to order the disclosure of records. This ensures accountability.

Section 508 requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines to protect confidentiality.

Section 801. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems.

Summary:

Makes it a federal offense to engage in terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems.

Facts:

The attacks of September 11 confirmed that terrorists are committed to attacking mass transit systems such as airliners. Section 801 created a new offense prohibiting violent offenses against mass transportation systems, vehicles, facilities, or passengers.

The Department recently used section 801 in a case where a female passenger on a cruise ship sent threatening notes to the ship's crew. On May 15, 2003, Kelley Marie Ferguson pleaded guilty to making the threats while on board the Legend of the Seas, en route to Hawaii.

The Department also attempted to use section 801 in the case of "shoebomber" Richard Reid, who now stands convicted of attempting to ignite a bomb hidden in his shoes during an international flight. Reid was sentenced to life imprisonment.

A federal judge dismissed the section 801 charge, concluding that an airliner is not a "vehicle" within the meaning of the statute.

Congress fixed this loophole in section 609 of the "Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003," or "PROTECT Act."

Section 801 prohibits disabling or wrecking a mass transportation vehicle; placing a biological agent or destructive substance or device in a mass transportation vehicle with intent to endanger safety or with reckless disregard for human life; setting fire to or placing a biological agent or destructive substance or device in a mass transportation facility knowing or having reason to know that the activity is likely to disable or wreck a mass transportation vehicle; disabling mass transportation signaling systems; interfering with personnel with intent to endanger safety or with reckless disregard for human life; use of a dangerous weapon with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to a person on the property of a mass transportation provider; conveying false information about any such offense; and attempt and conspiracy.

The provision carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, or life imprisonment if the crime results in death.

Section 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.

Summary:

Adds to 18 U.S.C. § 2331 a new definition of "domestic terrorism," similar to the existing definition of "international terrorism."

Myth:

"Expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." [ACLU, Feb. 11, 2003]; The Patriot Act includes "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" [ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor, "Backlash Grows against Patriot Act- But Critics Miss the Mark," Fulton County Daily Report, Aug. 5, 2003]

Reality:

Section 802′s definition of "domestic terrorism" is extremely narrow - indeed, it is much narrower than the pre-existing definition of "international terrorism."

Individuals and groups would be eligible for surveillance under this definition only if they engage in criminal wrongdoing that could result in death. That is so because the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life.

In addition, law enforcement would have to show that the conduct appears to have been committed with a specified terrorism related intent, and that the conduct occurred primarily in the U.S.

By contrast, an individual would fall within the definition of "international terrorism" whenever he or she commits a crime that involves "violent" conduct.

Section 805. Material support for terrorism.

Summary:

Strengthens the existing ban on providing material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations.

Facts:

Before the PATRIOT Act, it was not certain that the ban on "material support or resources" encompassed expert advice and assistance - for example, advice provided by a civil engineer on destroying a building, or advice by a biochemist on making a biological agent more lethal.

Section 805 enhanced the material-support statute in several crucial respects, including by making it expressly apply to those who provide expert advice or assistance to terrorists.

Other changes that section 805 made to the material-support statute include: (1) making it apply to acts outside the United States; (2) expanding the list of terrorism crimes for which it is illegal to provide material support; and (3) clarifying that material support includes all types of monetary instruments. Section 810 increased the maximum penalties for providing material support from 10 years to 15 years.

Section 806. Assets of terrorist organizations.

Summary:

Amends federal forfeiture law to authorize civil forfeiture of assets owned by persons engaged in terrorism.

Myth:

"Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware." [ACLU, Dec. 6, 2002]

Reality:

Forfeiture under section 806 is authorized only in narrow circumstances. The subject must be engaged in conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law; (2) involves violence or the risk of death; and (3) is committed with a terrorist intent.

Prior law did not specifically authorize the confiscation of terrorist assets. Instead, forfeiture was authorized only in narrow circumstances for the "proceeds" of murder, arson, and some terrorism offenses. But most terrorism offenses do not yield proceeds, and available forfeiture laws required detailed tracing that is difficult for accounts coming through the banks of countries used by many terrorists.

Section 806 increases our ability to strike at terrorists' economic base by permitting the forfeiture of their property regardless of the source of the property, and regardless of whether the property has actually been used to commit a terrorism offense.

Section 806 is similar to the forfeiture previously available under RICO. In parity with the drug forfeiture laws, the section also authorizes the forfeiture of property used or intended to be used to facilitate a terrorist act, regardless of its source.

As of April 1, 2003, the Department has not yet used section 806. In most cases, it has not been necessary for the Department to seek forfeiture under this provision, because the suspects' assets already had been frozen by the Treasury Department.

Section 812. Post-release supervision of terrorists.

Summary:

Courts may authorize post-release supervision periods of up to life for persons convicted of terrorism crimes that involved the occurrence or foreseeable risk of death or serious injury

Facts:

Prior federal law generally capped the maximum period of post-imprisonment supervision for released felons at 3 or 5 years. The drug laws mandate longer supervision periods for persons convicted of certain drug crimes, and specify no upper limit on the duration of supervision, but before the PATRIOT Act there was nothing comparable for terrorism offenses.

Thus, for a released but unreformed terrorist, there was no means of tracking the person or imposing conditions to prevent renewed involvement in terrorist activities beyond a period of a few years.

Section 812 authorized longer supervision periods, including potentially lifetime supervision, for persons convicted of certain terrorism crimes. This permits appropriate tracking and oversight following release of offenders whose involvement with terrorism may reflect lifelong ideological commitments.

In order to qualify for post-release supervision under section 812, one must have committed a specified terrorism-related crime, and the offense must have resulted in, or created a foreseeable risk of, death or serious injury.

ACTUALLY READ THIS PART BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

4.Protect america act myths.

In August, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Protect America Act of 2007, which modified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to give our intelligence community necessary tools to acquire important information about our enemies.

Passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, the Act restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the civil liberties of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on targets located in foreign countries. But this new statute is a temporary and narrowly focused measure to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law. It is essential that Congress make the Protect America Act permanent and pass legislation to provide meaningful liability protection to those alleged to have assisted our Nation following the 9/11 attacks. Today, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on FISA. The following are key myths about FISA amendments in the Protect America Act, and the facts that refute them:

1. MYTH

: The Protect America Act of 2007 eliminates civil liberty protections under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FACT

:

The new law simply makes clear - consistent with the intent of the Congress that enacted FISA in 1978 - that our intelligence community should not have to get bogged down in a court approval process to gather foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. It does not change the strong protections FISA provides to Americans in the United States - surveillance directed at people in the United States continues to require court approval as it did before.

FACT

:

When FISA was enacted 30 years ago, the law did not generally require a court order to obtain foreign intelligence information from a target located outside the United States.

The mechanism Congress used to identify which government activities required a court order under FISA was a careful and complex definition of the term "electronic surveillance," framed in reference to the specific communications technologies used when the law was enacted in 1978.

Telecommunications technologies have changed radically since 1978, and those changes have upset the careful balance established by Congress. As a result, prior to the Protect America Act of 2007, the government was often required to obtain a court order before collecting foreign intelligence on targets in foreign countries.

FACT

:

The Protect America Act restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of Americans within the United States while clarifying the definition of "electronic surveillance" to make clear that - as was the intent when Congress drafted the law - a court order is not required to target persons located overseas.

2. MYTH

: The Protect America Act gives the Federal government new powers to target people in the United States for warrantless surveillance.

FACT

:

The Protect America Act leaves untouched the strong protections FISA provides to Americans in the United States - electronic surveillance targeting a person in the U.S. required a court order before the Protect America Act, and that requirement remains in place today.

FACT

:

The Protect America Act does not authorize "domestic wiretapping," and our intelligence professionals are not using the new law either to acquire domestic-to-domestic communications or to target the communications of persons in the United States.

FACT

:

If a foreign target communicates with someone in the United States and the communication involves terrorism or foreign intelligence, the new law remains consistent with the intent of the old law - intelligence professionals can intercept that communication without a court order. As the President has said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it."

FACT

:

FISA has always been designed to allow the executive branch to monitor the communications of those in foreign countries planning to harm our Nation, and the Protect America Act merely restores the law to its original intent by accounting for changes in technology.

3. MYTH

: The Protect America Act allows the government to target Americans in the United States under the guise of surveilling a person located overseas - a practice known as "reverse targeting."

FACT

:

"Reverse targeting" was, and remains, prohibited by law.

FACT

:

The provisions of FISA that protect against this practice remain unchanged by the Protect America Act. The law excludes from the category of "electronic surveillance," and thus from the FISA warrant requirement, only surveillance directed at individuals reasonably believed to be in foreign countries.

FACT

:

"Reverse targeting" constitutes electronic surveillance and thus generally requires a court order under FISA. Nothing in the Protect America Act changes this.

FACT

:

"Reverse targeting" makes little sense as a matter of intelligence tradecraft. If the government believes a person in the United States is a terrorist, it is more useful to obtain a court order to collect all of the person's communications than to conduct surveillance on that person by listening only to a fragment of the person's calls to individuals overseas.

4. MYTH

: Requiring intelligence operatives to get a court order before collecting foreign intelligence on overseas targets will not hinder the government's ability to collect intelligence.

FACT

:

According to Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the delays caused by applying for warrants before collecting foreign intelligence from overseas targets meant our intelligence community was "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."

FACT

:

Requiring intelligence professionals to apply for and wait on a court order before gathering vital intelligence from overseas targets can prevent the swift gathering of intelligence necessary to identify and provide warning of threats to our country.

FACT

:

A mandatory court-approval process also requires the intelligence community to divert scarce intelligence experts to the time-consuming process of compiling court submissions.

5. MYTH

: The Protect America Act authorizes the executive branch to conduct physical searches of domestic mail, computers, or the homes of Americans without a warrant.

FACT

:

The Protect America Act does not authorize physical searches of the homes, personal belongings, or computers of individuals in the United States, or the opening of domestic mail without a court order, and our intelligence professionals are not using the Act to conduct such searches.

FACT

:

Critics are misreading provisions of the law that allow the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct communications service providers and similar private entities to assist in authorized foreign intelligence activities targeting individuals located outside the United States. The Act safeguards against abuse of this provision by allowing these private entities to challenge any such directive in the FISA Court.

6. MYTH

: The Protect America Act would allow the government to obtain, without a warrant or any court approval, the business records of Americans in the United States.

FACT

:

The Protect America Act does not authorize the collection of most business records, such as medical or library records.

FACT

:

The Executive Branch will not use the Act to acquire any business records of Americans in the United States.

7. MYTH

: The Protect America Act allows the intelligence community to intercept communications without any oversight.

FACT

:

Under the Protect America Act, the Attorney General is required to submit for review to the FISA Court the procedures by which the Federal government determines that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance requiring court approval under FISA.

FACT:

Congress will be able to see for itself that the law is being implemented responsibly and as intended. The Administration has committed to informing the full membership of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of acquisitions authorized under the Protect America Act, and of the reviews the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will conduct to assess compliance by the implementing agencies.

3.Historical suspension of habeus corpus.

Habeus corpus (the suspension thereof) is a prime veiw of evidence for martial law. Let's debunk this shall we?

Quoted by usgovinfo.about.com

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, really, a time of shame this is..."

To President Bush's support for the law -- the

Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."[8]

But it was not the first time.

In fact, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was not the first time in the history of the U.S. Constitution that its guaranteed right to writs of habeas corpus has been suspended by an action of the President of the United States. In the early days of the U.S. Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. There were, however, both similarities and differences between the actions of Presidents Bush and Lincoln.

What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.

Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From

The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Bush's Suspension of Habeas Corpus

President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through his support and signing into law of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006. The bill grants the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting military commissions to try persons held by the U.S., and considered to be "unlawful enemy combatants" in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition, the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in their behalf, writs of habeas corpus. [9]

Specifically, the Act states, "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Importantly, the Military Commissions Act does not affect the hundreds of writs for habeas corpus already filed in federal civilian courts on behalf of persons held by the U.S.as unlawful enemy combatants. The Act only suspends the accused person's right to present writs of habeas corpus until after their trial before the military commission has been completed. As explained in a

White House Fact Sheet on the Act, "... our courts should not be misused to hear all manner of other challenges by terrorists lawfully held as enemy combatants in wartime."

Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the

American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states. [10]

In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln 's order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in

Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney's ruling. [11]

On Sept. 24, 1862, President Lincoln issued a proclamation suspending the right to writs of habeas corpus nationwide.

"Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:"



Additionally, Lincoln's proclamation specified whose rights of habeas corpus would be suspended:

"Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission."



In 1866, after the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus throughout the nation and declared military trials illegal in areas where civilian courts were again able to function.

Differences and Similarities

Recalling that the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus when "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it," let's consider some of the differences and similarities between the actions of Presidents Bush and Lincoln.

Presidents Bush and Lincoln both acted to suspend habeas corpus under the powers granted to them as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military during a time of war.

President Lincoln acted in the face of an armed rebellion within the United States - the U.S. Civil War. President Bush's action was a response to the Global War on Terrorism, considered to have been triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and the Pentagon. Both presidents, however, could cite "Invasion" or the much broader term "public Safety" as constitutional triggers for their actions.

President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus unilaterally, while President Bush's suspension of habeas corpus was approved by Congress through the Military Commissions Act.

President Lincoln's action suspended the habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed by President Bush, stipulates that the right of habeas corpus should be denied only to aliens "detained by the United States."

Both suspensions of habeas corpus applied only to persons held in military prisons and tried before military courts. The habeas corpus rights of persons tried in civilian courts were not affected.

Certainly the suspension -- even if temporary or limited -- of any right or freedom granted by the U.S. Constitution is a momentous act that should be carried out in only in the face of dire and unanticipated of circumstances. Circumstances like civil wars and terrorist attacks are certainly both dire and unanticipated. But whether one or both, or neither warranted the suspension of the right of writs of habeas corpus remains open for debate.

Conclusion:the suspension of Habeus corpus has happened before and it does not affect us civilians, nor does it indicate martial law. Martial law is nowhere near being declared, and FEMA camps do not exist.
*********
Sources
[1] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/
[2] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-and-us-citizen-detention/
[3] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/clarification-ndaa-could-still-be-read-to-apply-to-citizens-if-seized-abroad/
[4] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-conference-version-of-the-ndaa-lingering-ambiguity-as-to-citizens/
[5] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-problematic-ndaa-on-clear-statements-and-non-battlefield-detention/
[6] http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Bovarnick-Detainee.pdf
[7] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/02/steve-vladeck-on-hatim/
[8] http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/commissions.htm
[9] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.03930:
[10] http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/civiloverview.htm
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

****ATTENTION*****
I am not Muertos and I do not know him. I am simply reposting these articles because I had found them on the Internet Wayback Machine. Do not contact me when it comes to this blog, I am not its author and my views are not necessarily his. REPEAT: I AM NOT MUERTOS.

Enjoy.
-Clock
******************


This blog is going to be about Ron Paul and global warming. As soon as you take on either one of those topics you know right off the bat that you're in for a bruising. Putting them both together and you're going to ruffle some feathers for sure.
The main point of this blog is this: Ron Paul is pushing lies about climate change, and anyone who believes him is being duped.
The term "polarizing figure" is custom-made for Ron Paul. Chances are, unless you were previously a Libertarian, the U.S. Congressman (ostensibly a Republican) from the 14th District of Texas first came to your attention in 2007 or so, when he began running for the 2008 Republican nomination. Congressman Paul was noteworthy at that time for being the only Republican candidate to be critical of George W. Bush's Iraq war, which made him very attractive both to the sizable number of anti-Bush Republicans, and also independents who rejected the Democrats but couldn't bring themselves to line up with the likes of John McCain, Mike Huckabee or (God forbid) Willard "Mitt" Romney.
Paul never had a snowball's chance in Hell of getting near the Republican nomination, but he made a lot of waves. Along the way he also became the favored candidate of conspiracy theorists, most notably 9/11 Truthers ("Twoofers") and people opposed to the current federal monetary system, especially the U.S. Federal Reserve. Why is Paul a darling of the conspiracy crowd? Well, for such views as the following, printed over a course of 30 years in his newsletters which first debuted in 1978. (My source is a National Review article linked here [1]).

• Urging readers in 1990 to leave major cities for rural retreats because of a coming "race war."
• The 1992 Los Angeles riots, sparked over public outrage about the acquittal of the white police officers in the videotaped Rodney King beating, ended "when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
• Referring to the national holiday of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday as national "Hate Whitey Day."
• Fostering conspiracy theories claiming that the world is secretly controlled by the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, despite not a shred of evidence that either claim is true.
Now Ron Paul is turning his ire on people who believe that global warming is real and is caused by the activities of human beings--a scientific fact supported by undeniable evidence and the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. On Paul's website, on June 14, 2009, Paul lays out the case for "31,478 American scientists" who have supposedly signed a petition who allegedly claim:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
There's just one problem. The "petition" is a fabrication which was debunked more than a decade ago.
What Ron Paul is referring to is the infamous "Oregon Petition," a public relations stunt started in 1998 by a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, whose acronym, OISM, is a dyslexic version of OMSI, the well-respected Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland. OISM has nothing to do with OMSI, but they're probably hoping you mix up letters easily. OISM is a conservative group concerned about "socialism in public schools" which also happens to believe that climate change is a liberal conspiracy. In 1998--yes, twelve years and two Presidential administrations ago--OISM circulated a "petition" signed by a varying number of scientists (usually 19,000, 30,000 or Ron Paul's current number, 31,478) claiming that they agree with the position that there is no scientific basis for global warming.
Who are these "scientists?" You may recognize some of their names: Perry S. Mason, Michael J. Fox, and John C. Grisham. Sound like more like a fictional lawyer, an 80s actor and a novelist than respected climatologists? Yeah, they are. Most of the "scientists" who supposedly signed the petition are fake. Some of them, such as Geraldine Halliwell, have said they never signed it, yet her name is listed three times under various permutations. Others are dead. Many of the "Ph.D.s" don't have Ph.D.s in anything even remotely related to climate science. W. Kline Bolton, for example, is an M.D. specializing in kidneys. Zhonggang Zeng has a Ph.D., but it's in mathematics--he knows nothing about climate science. Hub Hoagland is a dentist and sometime basketball player. These are climate experts?
I'm not just making this stuff up. You can browse detailed debunkings of the Oregon Petition here and here.
The Oregon Petition was intended, upon its release in 1998, to resemble closely the format of documents put out by the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS was troubled enough by the resemblance to put out a press release stating that they had nothing to do with it. For the past dozen years there have been numerous debunkings of the Petition, and you might think that Paul's latest take on it would correct some of the problems that were so obvious 12 years ago. It didn't. Evidently even basic veracity is not required to achieve the level of holy writ from the unimpeachable Ron Paul. The Oregon Petition, and the write-up offered of it on Paul's website since at least June 2009, is nothing more or less than a lie.
Why is Paul pushing lies on climate change? It probably has something to do with his ideological position, which is so convoluted and difficult to follow that one is never sure, listening to his screeds, whether he's a Libertarian, a Republican or a fascist. (I don't believe he is a fascist, but certainly some of the stuff from his newsletters seems to be in that category). This opacity is probably intentional. If anyone really knew what policies Ron Paul advocated, he wouldn't have any friends left. He coasted through the 2008 campaign allowing conservatives angry at Bush to believe that he was one of them and opposed the Iraq war on principle. Despite not being a 9/11 Truther himself--and I do not believe Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther--he certainly did little to discourage conspiracy theorists from latching on to him in the mistaken belief that he was sympathetic to their demands to "reopen the investigation" of September 11, presumably to "prove" that it was an inside job. This tack was similar to the one Dennis Kucinich also took, but Kucinich was never more than a temporary crush by the conspiracy crowd; eventually most of them came to understand that he wasn't going to advance their interests.

Can reasonable people disagree on how best to combat climate change? I believe they can, and they should. Only through disagreement and the clash of various opinions can a responsible national and international policy on global warming be hammered out. Can it be denied by reasonable people that science supports the fact that global warming is happening, and that is substantially caused by humans? No, it cannot. [2]

Let me repeat that: the science of climate change is unassailable. [3] Just to make sure there's no mistaking my position, I'll say it a third time: the science that climate change is happening, and that it's caused mostly by human activity, is overwhelming. [4] Why, then, is Ron Paul choosing to advance his disagreement with ideas about climate change mitigation with proven lies and obfuscations like the Oregon Petition? I can't believe that no one in the Ron Paul organization hasn't looked into the matter and discovered the very real problems with the Oregon Petition. If that is the case, there's a major quality control problem in Ron Paul's communications organization. And if it's not, then Paul or someone who speaks for his organization is consciously choosing to push lies at the American public. Why, if Congressman Paul believes that global warming is some sort of "hoax," does he not resort to better evidence to validate his position? Why the lies, the obfuscation?
Ron Paul cannot be taken seriously as a reliable voice on environmental policy. If this is the kind of crap he's going to sink to, then he richly deserves the oblivion to which history will inevitably consign him. I guess that's par for the course for him. What amazes me is that Ron Paul remains so popular, and that so many otherwise reasonable Americans would even listen to anything he has to say.


************
Sources
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca#
[2] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
[3] http://web.archive.org/web/20120105225442/http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
[4] http://web.archive.org/web/20120420212553/http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

****ATTENTION*****
I am not Muertos and I do not know him. I am simply reposting these articles because I had found them on the Internet Wayback Machine. Do not contact me when it comes to this blog, I am not its author and my views are not necessarily his. REPEAT: I AM NOT MUERTOS.

Enjoy.
-Clock
******************


By Muertos
In the two previous blogs in this series Part 1 (http://paranormal.skepticproject.com/blog/50/muertos-blog-communion-at-25-whitley-striebers-alien-claims-re-examined-part-i/) and part II (http://paranormal.skepticproject.com/blog/51/muertos-blog-communion-and-sequels-25-years-on-whitley-striebers-alien-claims-re-examined-part-ii/) I examined Communion and Transformation, the books written by horror author Whitley Strieber in which he claimed that he has been abducted by aliens repeatedly for most of his life. Communion came out in 1987 and began with the claim that Strieber was abducted from his New York cabin on December 26, 1985, which was 25 years ago this week. From there his claims evolved to include the following: (i) the beings that abducted him, which he initially declined to state were objectively real, actually are physical reality; (ii) that these "visitors" are conducting a large-scale program of "contact" with the human race; (iii) that the point of this "contact" is to transform human consciousness and get us to pay attention to spiritual matters; and (iv) that there are a number of weird side effects of "contact," such as the ability to have out of body experiences (OBEs).
In this blog, the last of this series, I'm going to deal with Strieber's 1995 book Breakthrough, which completes the alien abduction trilogy. As I warned at the end of the last blog, Breakthrough is easily the strangest of the bunch. If you were finding your disbelief tough to suspend through Communion and Transformation, get ready for a serious ride.
Breakthrough: The Next Step?
I read Breakthrough many years after I stopped believing in the literal truth of Strieber's claims. It wasn't published until 1995, by which time I was in law school, and I don't even remember the book coming out-I found it in a used bookstore some years later and thought it might be interesting, given how fascinated I was by the first two books when I was a teenager.
As I did with Transformation, I want to spend a few words describing the book itself, its presentation and packaging. I'm working off the first Harper Collins paperback edition that came out in June 1996. First of all there's the title. Transformation, published in 1988, had the subtitle "The Breakthrough." Now here we have a whole book called Breakthrough. So, which is the real "breakthrough?" Was the first "breakthrough" a fake-out, or what? I'm reminded of the Friday the 13th sequels, where they kept saying this one was the "Final Chapter" only to be followed by another sequel a year or so later. If Strieber keeps coming out with these "breakthroughs," the credibility of each successive one declines.
The tag line on the cover reads, in large letters, "THEY ARE HERE..." Underneath that, in smaller letters, it says, "...With A Message of Hope."
Next there's the tag lines, excerpted from reviews of the hardback edition, right inside the cover. Some paper called Kirkus Reviews which I've never heard of says, "Highly convincing evidence of a government cover-up regarding UFO's." This telegraphs immediately that Breakthrough is going to contain conspiracy theories. The last of four quotes, from the Dixon, ILTelegraph, says, "Compelling proof of the existence of extraterrestrials here on earth."
This is all marketing, not content, but I think it's very telling. In Communion, Strieber bent over backwards (or gave the appearance of doing so) to not come to a firm conclusion about what he thought the "visitors" were. He didn't even assert absolutely that they were real! Remember, he did not do that until an experience he described in Transformation-a series of banging noises on the side of his house that frightened his cats-supposedly convinced him that the "visitors" existed anywhere outside his head. Sure, the implication was there that he thought they were aliens from another planet, and it's undeniable that he at least considered this a possibility given all the talk of UFOs in both books. Now here he is eight years later with a book that is unequivocally and undeniably targeting itself at an audience of people who want to believe in UFOs. From reading the cover, the tag lines and the review excerpts, which you can do in thirty seconds, the target audience for this book knows:
• Strieber is going to assert that the "visitors" are in fact aliens from another planet.
• Strieber is going to accuse the evil gubbermint of covering it up. (Hint: the word "Roswell" will appear somewhere in this book!)
• Strieber is going to present "proof" that aliens are here on Earth.
• The aliens he's going to talk about are benevolent and friendly.
The last point is the most important, and I'll eventually discuss it at length. But it's very clear, even without yet getting into the contents of the book, that Breakthrough presents the standard-issue trifecta of UFO cult literature: (i) supposed "proof" of aliens and their presence; (ii) identification of the aliens as benevolent; and (iii) anti-government conspiracy theories. It's telling that Communion, far and away the best-selling of Strieber's three alien abduction books, has none of these elements, at least none that are unequivocal. In fact I think the reason Communion was able to cross over to a mainstream audience was because it wasn't standard UFO cult literature. But by the third book in the series, he's obviously preaching to the choir.
OK, let's get into the guts of the book.


Strieber's "Proof": A Knock-Knock Joke.



Much of Breakthrough, especially the beginning, is very repetitive. Strieber recaps his life dealing with the visitors. He insists again that they're here to transform our consciousness. He says they're contacting thousands of people everywhere. He whines that no one believes him and says that only those who are "committed to denial" can deny the reality of his experiences. Then he finally gets to the "proof" promised in the critical write-up.
Here it is: more knocking. He recounts an incident that he says occurred in Glenrock, Wyoming on February 27, 1988 and reported in a local newspaper where (according to the paper, which he quotes) "strange, unexplained noises interrupted the slumber of many Glenrock residents early Sunday morning." Some people in Glenrock reported weird knocking noises in three groups of three. Since this resembled the banging Strieber claims to have heard on his own house 18 months previously-and he thinks the fact that it was exactly 18 months previously is significant-this, to him, is absolute undeniable proof that everything he claims about aliens is real.
Strieber is further convinced by a letter he got in 1994 from a resident of Glenrock. This person claims to have read Transformation five times, and only then, re-reading the part in that book about the knocking on Strieber's house, suddenly remembered that he too heard nine knocks in February 1988. Strieber says, "Since the claims he made in the letter are already supported by published news reports, they cannot be disputed." This statement alone reveals that Strieber's threshold for "proof" of alien visitation is disastrously low.
He goes a step further. I am going to quote a section of Breakthrough, which the copyright page of the book says I may do for purposes of a critical review, which this blog clearly is. Here's Strieber's comment after his lengthy explication of the Glenrock knock-knock joke:
"It would seem to me that there are serious moral issues involved at this point in upholding denial, especially if the act itself is an impediment to contact. Every human being alive has a right to meet the visitors that is as fundamental as the right to breathe, and those who knowingly contrive to spread denial, confusion, and fear must be violating a moral law of singular importance."
Did you get that? If you don't believe that weird knocking noises in the middle of the night proves Whitley Strieber's elaborate mythology of alien abduction, you're not only wrong-you're violating a moral law!
The believers out there will probably say, "Well, if you don't think the knocks were done by aliens, how do you explain them?" Strieber himself sneers at conventional explanations, such as mine subsidence, and dismisses them out of hand, predicting that "various officials" (who?) "will be brought forward" to say that the knocks are conventional phenomena. (Strange that he phrases this in future tense, considering the knocks were already 7 years in the past at the time Breakthrough was published). This is again indicia of a complete lack of critical thinking.
Think about it. Something bangs on your house in the middle of the night in a highly unusual manner, waking you up. You have no idea what it is. Which do you think is more likely?
1. Something unusual but conventional: mine subsidence, earth tremors, hailstones, sonic booms, or even something exotic but explainable like ball lightning.
2. Alien beings from another planet who are abducting people and trying to get us to "break through" to a higher level of consciousness.
Anyone who jumps immediately to conclusion #2 is not being rational. This is unfortunately a trap that UFO skeptics fall into as easily as believers-by letting the argument be framed in terms of, "Well, if you can't explain it, then it's more likely that it really was a UFO!" As if there are only two choices: either I can explain the knocks on the houses in Glenrock, WY in February 1988 right here, right now in terms of conventional phenomena, and if I can't that means they are proof of alien visitation. Either-or, 50-50, black or white, no middle ground. Skeptics who immediately begin assuring us that it must be mine subsidence or earth tremors miss the point that the believers' explanation does not get any more likely if you fail to explain the phenomena right now.
So, I'll say this about the Glenrock knock-knock joke. I have no idea what it was. Maybe it was earth tremors or mine subsidence. But what I amextremely confident of is that whatever caused it is conventional and explainable-even if highly unusual. Jumping to the conclusion that, since I don't know what caused the Glenrock knock-knock, it must have been Whitley Strieber's aliens, is completely asinine.
Yet this is exactly the kind of "reasoning" Strieber wants you, the reader, to engage in. Get used to it-it gets worse.



An Alien Ride-Along: ET Moonlights as a Cat Burglar.



Now that Strieber has "proved" that aliens exist and tarred the "deniers" as immoral, it's time for high adventure-or at least some breaking and entering. Strieber claims he thought really hard about wanting to know more about these aliens. Since they can read his mind (naturally), of course they obliged him. In Chapter 4, he makes the absolutely jaw-dropping claim that the aliens took him with them in their spaceship when they zoomed off to abduct someone else-sort of the extraterrestrial equivalent of a "ride-along" you see on Cops or other reality shows.
Strieber describes seeing a strange vehicle about the size of a car sitting on the deck behind his house. He goes inside, finds himself with some aliens, and then suddenly the "car" is whisked away to Boulder, Colorado, where Strieber and the ET's get out and proceed to conduct a home invasion and assault on one of Strieber's close friends, a woman named Dora Ruffner, and her young daughter.
I am not making this up. The description is absolutely horrific. Strieber and the aliens go into Ms. Ruffner's house and scare the bejeezus out of her. He describes holding her down with some sort of slab and preventing her from going to help her daughter. She and the daughter scream and scream, as you expect someone would if a bunch of weird aliens suddenly showed up in your bedroom in the middle of the night. One of the aliens injects something into the girl's spine-which is, unequivocally, a physical assault and battery. Then they all get back into the "car" and Strieber is magically transported home.
I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I read this part. Strieber drones on for pages about how "transformative" this experience later proves to be for Ms. Ruffner and the daughter. In Chapter 5 he conducts a long interview with her where they talk in glowing spiritual terms about how smart and wonderful the daughter turns out to be, supposedly as a result of this attack. But what he claims to have taken part in is a home invasion and a physical assault! On one of his best friends and her young daughter. Does anyone else find this as horribly wrong and twisted as I do?
Incidentally, for her part, Ms. Ruffner claims not to remember the experience at all, though she did call Strieber the next day. (Oh yeah, that's proof). She claims in Chapter 5 "it was a time when I was waking up a lot at night." But she doesn't remember waking up and seeing aliens or Strieber, fortunately.
Strieber himself seems to realize his claims are reaching the breaking point. In one of the few moments of rationality he has in the entire book, he says (emphasis added):
"I may have described my trip to Dora's house not because it actually happened...but because I have no other way to express the meaning of the experience except as a physical journey. Then again, it is also true that I don't relish becoming identified with trips in flying saucers. Obviously, this is going to make me yet another kind of fool when it is published. Maybe the best thing is to just face the truth: I don't know what happened, but something certainly did."
Oh, OK. So the assault and battery of his best friend and a six-year-old girl is perfectly okay because didn't really happen. Wait, what does that mean? He just made it up? He just dreamed going with aliens and breaking into an innocent woman's house? Which means-what, he's not telling the truth after all?
From this point on Breakthrough develops like a train crash in slow motion: you're horrified and don't know why you're still looking at it, but you're so stunned you can't look away either.




The Striebers Take In a Boarder




Most of the rest of the book is filler until we come to the ultimate clanger: in chapter 15, after many more "miraculous" experiences with these felonious beings, Strieber describes one of the "visitors" coming to live with him at his house.
Again, as the assault n' battery ride-along, this comes about as a result of a request that Strieber thinks about real hard. The aliens again read his mind, realize he wants to know more about them, so they send one of their own to go live with him at his cabin for a few months. Of course he never actually sees this alien. Apparently it doesn't eat much, because it never comes down to breakfast with the family. Strieber just finds the bed in the guest room often unmade and says that he tries to get a look at him but "he would not allow that." An alien lives with him for something like three months, and is even in the house when Strieber claims to have (human) houseguests, but there's no sighting, no photographs, and no physical evidence.
Oh, wait, there is physical evidence-at least until Strieber destroys it. Strieber claims the purpose of his alien roommate is to do some sort of "spiritual work," the exact nature of which I'm unclear on. Since the alien is often in the library, and isn't very talkative, Strieber decides they should "communicate" by trading books. He says (emphasis added):
"I asked him [the alien] to indicate a book that was really important to the work we were doing together. Soon he placed three small, white candies-just ordinary little candies, half-sucked-in front of Life Between Life by Dr. Joel Whitton and Joe Fisher. I sucked the remains of the candies and read the book, which was about what existence might be like for souls destined to reincarnate..."
Let's break this down. Strieber has an extraterrestrial being living in his house with him. The being can't be seen directly. It won't talk. It won't allow itself to be photographed. Strieber won't bundle it in the car and take it to a science lab to have it examined. But the alien partially sucks a couple of hard candies and puts them on a bookshelf.
If this scenario actually happened, those three hard candies could be the most important artifacts in the history of science. They are actual, physical, empirical proof of extraterrestrial life! Assuming an alien couldn't partially digest a piece of candy (wait, I thought he didn't eat human food?) without some sort of saliva, here are three artifacts that have biological material from an intelligent extraterrestrial being on them-alien DNA. Why didn't Strieber take these three candies to a science lab immediately? Especially if he's frustrated that people don't believe that nine knocks on some houses in Glenrock, WY prove that aliens exist, here is a God-given chance to prove his claims 100% in an absolutely undeniable scientific manner. Even if nobody believed his story about how the candies got that way in the first place, if an analysis was done on them and it proved there was DNA on the candies that matched no human configuration, as you'd expect, would it not prove that Strieber was in contact with some form of being totally different than anything discovered before-which would be a long step toward verifying the veracity of his claims?
What's astonishing is that this doesn't even seem to occur to Whitley Strieber. Does he take the candies to a science lab? No-he eats them himself, and sits there reading some New Age woo book on reincarnation! He just destroyed the best evidence that we could have of extraterrestrial visitation! Does this make any sense?
Incidentally, I looked up Life Between Life on Amazon, just curious about what Strieber and his alien roommate thought was "really important" to their mysterious "work." Here it is. It's written by a Toronto psychiatrist who delves into peoples' supposed past lives by drawing out their stories under hypnosis. Hmm, does that sound eerily familiar?



Why Don't We All Have Alien Roommates? Because of a Government Conspiracy, Of Course!




Since he can't possibly top the claim of living with an alien and deliberately destroying evidence of aliens' existence on Earth, Strieber spends the last quarter of Breakthrough (thank God it's almost over!) trolling through typical UFO/alien conspiracy theories. He flirted with them in both Communion and Transformation, but in Breakthrough he finally doubles down. According to Strieber, the U.S. government has known about the existence of the "visitors" since at least the 1940s. How do they know? Yup, you guessed it: Roswell. Breakthrough hashes over the Roswell conspiracy for the ten zillionth time, adding nothing of substance to the story you know by heart: a flying saucer crashed in the New Mexico desert in 1947, an alien was recovered, possibly alive, and the gubbermint has been using alien technology they got from the saucer ever since to build secret weapons that never seem to get out of the research and development phase and actually, you know, get used.
Strangely for a writer who spends a lot of time making the case that alien abduction has been going on since ancient times-he even hints in Transformation that ancient Gaelic may have been developed by aliens-it may seem surprising that Strieber accepts unquestioningly the usual postwar UFO mythology, that large-scale visitation began with the famous 1947 sighting of flying saucers over Mt. Rainier, (1) and which was part of a "wave" of attempted "contact" in the summer of 1947. According to Strieber, this was the "visitors" trying to use official channels to make contact, but the gubbermint ruined it by saying things like, you know, there's no evidence these things actually exist. So the "visitors" got sick of dealing with government bureaucrats and instead started invading people's houses in the middle of the night. And anally raping them. What the gubbermint has done since 1947, according to Strieber, is to employ disinformation techniques ("disinformation" is another conspiracy theorist buzzword) to reinforce official denial on the one hand, and on the other hand to spin interpretation of abduction reports so that they resemble a "good versus evil" dynamic that deliberately mimicked the U.S.-vs-USSR Cold War mentality.
What's the evidence for this bizarre conspiracy theory? A document he was emailed in 1993 and later found on an Internet newsgroup in 1994, which he reproduces in an appendix at the end of the book. Strieber claims it's a list of "coded file locations of super-secret UFO information in the Defense Department computer system." Oh, and the gubbermint is now trailing him and opening his mail. Of course.
The icing on this ancient re-hashed cake of UFO conspiracy theories is a passionate rant (Chapter 18) on, get ready for this, the "face on Mars." (2) He got into this in 1984, before he claimed to have been abducted by UFOs. (That was when he was pretending to be an "ordinary guy," remember?) For an entire chapter Strieber raves about how NASA and the gubbermint is covering up the "face," which is nothing more than a rock that appeared, (3) in one poor low-resolution photograph taken of the Martian surface in 1976, to be a humanoid face that must have been put there by an intelligent civilization. The face was debunked long ago, but Breakthrough was published before the 2006 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter photo proved that it was a trick of light and that in real life it's obviously a natural formation. I don't know whether Strieber has retracted his conspiracy claims about the face being covered up, but many conspiracy theorists do believe in it-predictably they think the 2001 and 2006 photos of the face have been Photoshopped by NASA.
So that's where we wind up. Roswell and conspiracy theories so old they make 9/11 Twoofer tropes look fresh by comparison. This is all Breakthrough has to offer.




The Mythos of the "Good" Alien



What's not that surprising about Breakthrough is Strieber's unshakable certainty, and his relentless repetition, of his conclusion that the aliens who abducted and raped him are actually good. The cover clues you in on this with the tag line "With A Message of Hope." The message, of course, is this: trust the aliens, open your life to them, don't object when they break into your home in the middle of the night, rape you and physically assault your children. They're here for our own good. They want to open our consciousness. After all, they seem to believe in reincarnation and other New Age theories, so they must be benevolent.
Interestingly, Strieber approaches the subject of "good" aliens by trotting out the myth that humanity and popular culture reacts to the idea of aliens in a knee-jerk way by assuming automatically that they must be evil invaders. He cites the movies The Day The Earth Stood Still and E.T. as counter-examples of "a productive view," but it's clear that he thinks most people assume aliens are evil. This is a common trope in UFO literature, meant to make those who want to greet visiting aliens with friendship into wise far-seeing peacemakers, in contrast to the evil gubbermint who just wants to shoot them down.

In fact, having observed the UFO and conspiracy underground for several years, the opposite is true. People are usually desperate to believe that aliens are benevolent. There's a whole mythology out there about aliens who want to expand our consciousness and in some cases literally rescue humanity from the forces of evil-which are often another faction of aliens. The "Planetary Activation Organization" championed by veteran weirdo Sheldan Nidle is a paradigm example. There are conspiracy nuts out there who believe in bad aliens, David Icke being the most prominent, but there's a lot more people out there who want to commune with the space brothers than those who want to eradicate them. If you write a book or make a DVD purporting to "prove" that aliens are real, and that they are here to help us, I guarantee you'll sell some books and DVDs. There are lots of eager buyers out there salivating for this sort of material.
So is that why Whitley Strieber made these claims? Money? I'm not sure, but I don't think it's that simple. I think he believes on some level that these things happened to him, but I also think his veiled references along the lines of "maybe it didn't literally happen" show that he might be a little uncomfortable at asserting the literal truth of every word he's written since 1987. There are better ways to make a living than writing UFO books. With that said, I do think that Strieber has parlayed his association with aliens and UFOs into a fairly comfortable lifestyle and a good amount of notoriety. His alien abduction claims got him involved with UFO/conspiracy radio host Art Bell, which eventually led to a gig writing the global warming disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

Now Strieber's starting to get into the whole 2012 thing,(5) which should keep him relevant for a while longer, at least in woo circles. (He doesn't predict the world will end, which is at least a fresh approach in New Age circles). He'll crop up again every couple of years with another claim or opinion, most likely, and he might do some more books. On some level society needs such people. I don't literally believe he was abducted by aliens, but I do enjoy checking out his website once in a while, just to see what the woo crowd is flapping their gums about these days.


Conclusion



When Whitley Strieber truly entered public consciousness with Communion, he was supposedly an "ordinary guy" who was willing to come forward to tell an extraordinary story about encounters with nonhuman beings. Supposedly, at least according to his publicists, this made his story more trustworthy. As I showed, in fact Whitley Strieber is and always has been firmly rooted in New Age sensibilities, from tarot cards to Ouspensky, which at least in my view makes his claims about involvement with aliens much less surprising. Over the course of three books he went from this "ordinary guy with an extraordinary story" to churning crap about OBEs, higher consciousness, government conspiracies, faces on Mars and reincarnation. If you happen to believe that alien abduction is a literally real phenomenon, it's probably likely that you could find a slightly more credible witness than Whitley Strieber.
This ends my examination of Strieber's alien books. I may in future do another blog about him, as I've been very curious about a book he wrote in 2001 called The Key which is very difficult to find; in it he supposedly made a lot of predictions about future world events and I'm curious how wrong, er, I mean accurate they turned out to be. But until then, watch the skies and don't let the aliens take you in the middle of the night. If an alien doesappear in your bedroom, just ask him to provide you with incontrovertible physical proof of his existence. He should disappear pretty quickly and probably won't bother you again.

**********************
Sources
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_Unidentified_Flying_Object_Sighting
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_mars#.22Face_on_Mars.22_and_.22pyramids.22
(3) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg
(4) http://www.paoweb.com/?
(5) http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/2012-what-happening
**********************

****ATTENTION*****
I am not Muertos and I do not know him. I am simply reposting these articles because I had found them on the Internet Wayback Machine. Do not contact me when it comes to this blog, I am not its author and my views are not necessarily his. REPEAT: I AM NOT MUERTOS.

Enjoy.
-Clock
******************

By Muertos (2013 corrections by Clock)
In a previous blog post,
I wrote about the book Communion by Whitley Strieber, which so far as I know remains to date the best-selling book ever written on UFOs or related subjects. Strieber's central claim was that he was abducted and sexually assaulted by nonhuman beings, which he calls "visitors," on December 26, 1985 (a quarter century ago this week) and that after this experience he realized he'd been interacting with the "visitors" for most of his life. In this blog I continue the discussion of Strieber and his claims, focusing on his sequels, Transformation (1988) and Breakthrough (1995), as well as the film of Communion made in 1989.

Transformation: Strieber Jumps the Shark

As I explained in the last blog, I read Communion for the first time when I was 14 and, as a lad very interested in science fiction, aliens and UFOs, I was utterly convinced by it-at first. The more I learned about Whitley Strieber, however, and especially his weird New Age tendencies, the more skeptical I became of his claims that he had been abducted by aliens.
Transformation was the sequel. The book originally came out in the summer of 1988, but I didn't read it until the paperback version came out a year later, shortly before the Communion film was released. I was still, at this time, a genuine believer. I thought Strieber made a convincing case that he'd been interacting with aliens. When I read Transformation, though, I found it pretty hard to swallow.
Before getting into the guts of this book I want to say a few things about the edition that I have. Even though I bought it more than 20 years ago (the cover price is $4.95!), I still have the paperback. It has a wonderfully ominous image of half of an alien's face, staring up at you with a huge silver eye. Underneath the title, Transformation, is a subtitle, The Breakthrough. This becomes interesting later on, because Strieber ended up titling his third abduction book simply Breakthrough. So which book is really the "breakthrough," then-Transformation or Breakthrough? Under the words "The Breakthrough" is a movie-style tag line: "Know This: They Are Watching." In space, no one can hear you scream!
You may remember that in Communion Strieber was carefully circumspect about the nature of the "visitors." He refused to state specifically that he thought they were aliens from another planet, although this conclusion was certainly implicit from the book as a whole. He even refused to go so far as to claim they were physically real, instead posing the somewhat half-hearted notion that they might be figments of the unconscious mind (in other words, that he made them up).
In the opening words of the introduction of Transformation, Strieber abandons even this tepid neutrality. He says, "My experience has come to include too many witnesses for me to consider that it is internal to my mind." Just so we're clear, he's now on record, as of mid-1988, saying that the visitors who abducted him are physically real.
He goes on to state: "Short of actual, physical evidence, I think that I have gone as far as possible to demonstrate the reality of the visitors."

Got that? Short of actual, physical evidence. So, aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Most of the first half of Transformation is a laundry list of increasingly bizarre visitations, easily ramping up the weirdness factor. Strieber describes the aliens faking him out by abducting his son (who is later returned to his bedroom, naturally, with no memory of being gone), appearing to him dressed like 19th century British rajahs and demanding a historical lecture on the reasons for the collapse of the British Empire, and then, most strangely, warning him that the metabolism of his body has changed and he will die if he eats chocolate. I know that sounds incredibly random, but there it is on page 67. The struggle over sweets becomes one of the main plot threads of the book. At one point Strieber describes his entire net worth vanishing from his bank account. It turns out this was merely a computer error that was duly corrected, but he's adamant that this was caused by the aliens, in retaliation for him eating a candy bar.
Much of the middle section of the book is a retread of Communion, as well as some more illuminating ideas about Strieber's past. Interestingly, he reverses himself on the claim made in Communion that he wasn't present at the Charles Whitman University of Texas bell tower massacre in Austin on August 1, 1966, and now claims he was there, although no one can remember seeing him there. He also relates more instances of the kind I pointed out in the previous blog, where his childhood friends confirmed that Strieber talked about aliens, and even being abducted by them, quite often in his youth. Again he claims not to have remembered saying things like this.
Two incidents detailed in Transformation are noteworthy, in my opinion. The first is a claim, at last, of "proof" of the visitors' existence. The second is where Strieber finally, to use a colloquial term, jumps the shark.

First, the "proof." Strieber claims that on August 27, 1986, he was sitting in his upstate New York cabin reading a book when the aliens banged on his house ten times. There were nine knocks, in three groups of three, followed by a tenth "double-knock" that sounded to him like a sort of "end of transmission" statement. He claims these knocks scared the bejeezus out of his cats, and this was how he suddenly "knew" the aliens were real. He drones on for pages about the philosophical implications of these nine knocks, and barely glosses over the fact that there were no human witnesses to this event, and aside from the fact that he couldn't duplicate the sound by banging on the outside of the house with a hammer while perched on the roof, offers no evidence that they were caused by alien visitors.
This is what passes for "proof" of alien visitation in Strieber's reality. Some funky sounds in his rural cabin and two scared cats. That's it.

The second incident crops up toward the end of the book, and apropos of nothing: Strieber describes going to bed one fall evening and then having an out-of-body experience. He floats up out of his body, goes outside, looks around a bit, touches some pine needles, and swoops back into being Whitley Strieber. (I admit, rereading this experience recently I thought of Scientology doctrine of "body thetans" and "meat bodies"). As odd as this is, and even starting to be skeptical of the Communion phenomenon by 1989, I was almost ready to accept this.
There does seem to be something happening at least in the minds of people who report out of body experiences (OBE's), and some aberration of brain chemistry is suspected to be at the root of it. (1) Strieber's treatment of the phenomenon, however, just veers too far into the realm of New Age mysticism to be believed. By the end of Transformation he's zooming around the world, outside of his body, trying to help his friends uncover hidden truths about their spiritual selves. Does this sound suspiciously like the crap Carlos Castaneda was pushing starting in the '70s? (2)

At this point I could no longer take Whitley Strieber seriously. Perhaps predictably, by the end of Transformation he's off chanting in the woods with his Wiccan friends, including one of whom he tried to contact through an OBE. Actually he spends a lot of time in the woods in this book, supposedly getting over his fear of the aliens. This is mixed with a lot of New Age platitudes, veiled references to the theories of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, lofty talk about the soul, oh and-what UFO book would be complete without this?-conspiracy theories. I'll get to the conspiracy theories in my explication of Breakthrough and Strieber's later activity, which will be in Part III of this blog.
There you have Transformation. Is it a "breakthrough?" I guess that depends on who you ask.

What's The Point?

Maybe I'm being unfair by focusing on the bizarre details of this book and not devoting enough attention to Strieber's main point, which is, as I suppose it should be, the question of why aliens are abducting him and other people and putting oozy stuff up their butts. Where is all this leading?
Strieber is not subtle about this point. In fact he beats you over the head with it, long before you even get to the OBE stuff: Strieber believes these aliens are here to "transform" human consciousness and to get us to pay attention to the spiritual realm, and the existence of the soul, instead of the material things in life. He is absolutely convinced that this is the main project of the "visitors," that they know exactly what they're doing, and that we as a human species must open ourselves up to this "transformation," or our planet goes boom. (I haven't touched on it, but there's a lot of planet-goes-boom stuff in both Communion and Transformation, much of it centering around the hole in the ozone layer, which was a hot topic back in 1989).

As a very good writer-I'll give him that much-Strieber does argue eloquently for a greater awareness of spiritual matters. Ultimately, however, his argument is unconvincing, because he never explains why these aliens have to do what he says they're doing in order to get us, the human race, to pay attention to this. He argues over and over again that our society has totally rejected the existence of the soul or the value of any sort of spiritual consciousness, but all he cites in support of this argument are generalizations about the hostility of the mainstream media and government to UFOs and aliens (and his own claims in particular). Never once does he attempt to explain why what he claims to have experienced on December 26, 1985-which he has unequivocally referred to as rape (3) -is necessary to undergo this "transformation." Trust the visitors, he says. They're such an awesomely advanced intelligence, they have to know what they're doing, so the anal probe stuff is all for a good cause.


This attitude illustrates the unresolvable dichotomy in Strieber's approach to his own claims. At first he wants you to think he's a victim. Alien abduction stories, at their root, are fundamentally victim narratives-in some sense the ultimate victim narrative, because who on Earth could have any effective defense against an alien intelligence powerful enough to get here in starships? But later, you're supposed to forget all the victim stuff, go sit chanting in the woods and let the pure good and unimpeachable spiritual motives of these alien rapists fill you with joy and understanding.
His argument about society's rejection of anything spiritual also seems not to add up. Strieber describes, especially in Communion, the very vivid and spiritual experience of growing up in a deeply devout Catholic family. It seems strange, therefore, that with that background Strieber can claim that spirituality is rejected. Catholicism has a very long and rich tradition of embracing the spiritual in the human experience; Orthodoxy, especially Greek Orthodoxy (which some argue is the most "pure" form of Christianity), does so even more, and also integrates the mysticism that's not unlike whatever Strieber seems to be seeking when he's running around in the woods with the Wiccans. What about Buddhism? The deep spiritual tenets of Islam? The mysticism of Judaism, which has emphasized a personal connection with God going back to the dawn of civilization? Most people on this planet are spiritual, and the vast majority of them do strongly believe in the existence of the soul. I do, and while I am religious now I believed in the soul even when I was a staunch atheist.
In short, to put it crudely, why do we need a bunch of rapey aliens to come down to Earth and tell us to be spiritual? Don't our priests, rabbis, imams, our Deepak Chopras, and yes, even our Gurdjieffs and Ouspenskys tell us this all the time? What does alien abduction and sexual assault possibly have to do with the inner truths of the soul? Strieber never addresses this. He merely posits an argument, that despite their awful and immoral behavior, we should somehow excuse what they did to him (and what they're doing to the rest of us), because, they're like spiritual and stuff.
Um, yeah. A "breakthrough" this isn't.

Communion, The Movie: The Aliens Kidnap Christopher Walken!

This series of blogs is mainly about the Communion books, but I have to give a few words to the movie, which is actually quite good, if obscure. I actually like the film very much, and own a copy of it on DVD. It's a great movie to watch around Halloween time because it's very scary and disturbing in an off-kilter and unusual way, so in that sense it's an excellent film. That's very different than believing its claims, though.
The success of Communion led probably inevitably to a movie. Strieber's work has gone on the silver screen before; his horror novels The Wolfen and The Howling were both turned into movies. He is credited as producer and screenwriter for the film, which was directed by his longtime friend, French-Australian director Philippe Mora.(4) It was filmed in 1988 and released the fall of the next year. It got terrible reviews (5) and was a box-office bomb, earning a paltry $1.9 million on a budget that must have been several times that.


The film version deviates significantly from the book, and also incorporates some material from Transformation as well as the first book. The first thing that's surprising about the movie is the casting. Christopher Walken, Academy Award-winner for The Deer Hunter and well known for his other roles (Annie Hall, Catch Me If You Can) plays Strieber! You can't fault Strieber for wanting an A-list actor to play him, but this is a prime example of bizarre casting. I'll get to Walken's portrayal in a moment. Lindsay Crouse, always an excellent actress, brings considerable charm, grace and stability to the role of Anne, Whitley Strieber's wife. I can say nothing of how accurate her performance is. For all the considerable mention of Anne Strieber in the books, she isn't very well fleshed out as a personality in Strieber's writing, probably to protect her privacy.
Anyway, the movie doesn't begin, as the book does, with the December 26, 1985 visitation, but instead the weird events of the previous October. It devotes a strange amount of attention to Halloween 1985, where Strieber is supposedly frightened by a child in a Halloween mask shaped like the head of a praying mantis, which he says he thinks he's seen "alive." This incident is not mentioned anywhere in the books, nor as far as I can remember does Strieber ever describe insect-like aliens.
The abduction and rape scene, told mostly in flashback, is predictably bizarre and disturbing.
If you've read the books, the differences are very subtle, but, I think, extremely telling. As I mentioned in the last blog, after the December 1985 event, Strieber didn't seek professional help until after he already began to think he'd been abducted by aliens-the movie changes this. Here, he sees an ordinary doctor, thena psychologist (played by Frances Sternhagen) who "specializes in rape cases." This is totally different than what happened in real life, where Strieber first saw an alien abduction expert, Budd Hopkins, who brought the story out under hypnosis. Important difference, yes?
The movie also only barely touches on the "it's-been-happening-my-whole-life" theme. There's one scene depicting Strieber as a child, looking up at a UFO with a bunch of other children around him, and one of them asks him, "What is it, Whit?" (This is a very creepy scene too, very well done). But there's nothing about the "chase" through Europe, the was-I-there-or-wasn't-I confusion about the Whitman massacre, or anything else of that nature. The focus of the movie is how Strieber, his wife and child deal with these bizarre experiences.
Walken's portrayal is also very interesting. From reading the books you get the impression that Strieber is a somewhat flighty intellectual. Walken, of course, plays Strieber the way he plays every other character in his movie career: an extremely intense, possibly tormented individual, very assertive, headstrong and blunt. You don't see Christopher Walken playing with a deck of tarot cards, for instance, or chanting in the woods, or dancing around Wiccan bonfires. Could you really see Christopher Walken doing any of that? Yet we know Whitley Strieber does those things. What we do see on the screen is someone who's a little...well, creepy. He walks around his apartment in a dress shirt with no pants, talks to himself in a German accent, and watches himself on videotape while he writes-while wearing a wolf mask. I've been a writer for many years. I've never watched myself on videotape while writing. I can't imagine why anyone would.
So the movie shows us, basically, the sanitized version of Communion: a Whitley Strieber who's a little weird, a little out there, but no depiction of the New Age stuff, no out-of-body experiences, nothing more than a passing mention of the your-planet-is-going-to-blow-up stuff, certainly no recognition that he was into aliens and UFOs for all of his life, and a real soft-pedal of the spiritual-transformation message. And notably we see Strieber reacting to his experience the way we expect someone would react-going to a psychiatrist and getting checked out-rather than the way he really did react, which was to get involved with a UFO abduction expert. The movie shows us one "rational" explanation after another going unavailing, until a troubled and reluctant Strieber is forced to admit the painful truth, that he was abducted by aliens and given an anal probe. Then he and his wife yell at each other a little bit and eventually decide the aliens are "the faces of God," and that we must embrace them.
This is not how it happened! This could be, however, how Whitley Strieber wants us to think it might have happened.

Coming Up...

In Part III of this blog I'll get to Strieber's 1995 book Breakthrough (wait...I thought Transformation was the "breakthrough?") where he doubles down and goes for broke. In this book, easily the weirdest of the three, he buys a one-way ticket to the land of woo by vigorously embracing most of the classic UFO conspiracy theories, charges that the evil gubbermint is harassing him, and...I can't believe I'm going to write this...claims not only that he did a ride-along with his alien buddies while they abducted, assaulted and terrorized somebody else, but that an alien came to live with him at his house for three months. Does that mean he finally got pictures, material evidence, actual proof? Well, not exactly...





************************
Sources

(1) http://www.skepdic.com/obe.html
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda
(3) http://web.archive.org/web/20110123044703/http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/anguish-and-pain-my-rape
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Mora
(5) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/communion/

****ATTENTION*****
I am not Muertos and I do not know him. I am simply reposting these articles because I had found them on the Internet Wayback Machine. Do not contact me when it comes to this blog, I am not its author and my views are not necessarily his. REPEAT: I AM NOT MUERTOS.

Enjoy.
-Clock
******************
By Muertos

Today in 2010, the concept of "alien abduction" is now a cultural meme. Virtually everyone in the Western world, and probably a good chunk of the non-Western world, is familiar with the paradigm: the belief that extraterrestrials visit the Earth, occasionally kidnap unsuspecting persons, subject them to weird experiments (usually involving an anal probe or some other humiliating procedure) and set them loose again. Alien abduction is now mainstream enough to be mentioned on comedy shows like South Park and Mad TV and gag lines in blockbuster movies like Independence Day. It's one of those fringe topics that arouses intense, but usually temporary, curiosity.
It wasn't always so. The first documented claim of alien abduction, which set the blueprint for the genre, was the case of Barney and Betty Hill, a New Hampshire couple who claimed they were taken aboard a UFO and molested in September 1961. This incident became the basis for a bestselling 1966 book, The Interrupted Journey. However, the person who really propelled the idea of alien abduction into popular consciousness was former horror author Whitley Strieber, who wrote a book published in early 1987, Communion. Strieber's book was a bestseller and followed by various sequels, most notably Transformation and Breakthrough. Strieber is still active in the UFO community, and is associated with the website Unknown Country.
Strieber's basic claim was this: that on the night of December 26, 1985, exactly 25 years ago this week, he was abducted from the bedroom of his rural cabin in upstate New York by nonhuman beings, taken aboard some sort of craft, and subjected to bizarre and intrusive prodding. The obvious supposition in the opening pages of Communion is that he was raped,although Strieber did not make that claim explicitly in those words until 2009. In reflecting on this experience, Strieber decided that the creatures who assaulted him must have been trying to help him "break through" to some higher form of consciousness. The title of his book, Communion, refers both to Strieber's highly religious Catholic background and to his idea of some sort of spiritual union with the nonhuman consciousness he believes has intervened in his life.
I remember when Communion came out. I was 14 years old and very interested in UFOs. In the fall of 1986 I remember seeing a segment on a news magazine show about the book, which made the statement that Strieber's claim is credible because he was an "ordinary guy" and very trustworthy. I was excited to read the book, bought it on its first day of publication, and have read it many times in the 23 years since its publication, as well as Transformation, which came out in 1988, and Breakthrough, in 1995.
The purpose of this blog is not to offer an opinion on whether "alien abduction" as a phenomenon is real or not. Rather, I will analyze Strieber's specific claims, now nearing 25 years old, and offer some remarks on the cultural impact of Communion and its ilk.


Basic Claims: Communion

Regardless of what you think of UFOs or alien abduction, Communion is a well-written book, a fascinating story and definitely worth a read, whether you believe it's literal truth or not. Strieber begins with a perfunctory description of himself and his occupation ("From 1977 until 1983 I wrote imaginative thrillers, but in recent years I had been concentrating on much more serious fiction about peace and the environment...") and an idyllic description of his life in rural New York with his wife and son. Then, on the night in question, he describes waking up in the middle of the night and seeing a strange robot-like figure coming toward him in his bedroom. This was followed by the entry of a group of weird, small, dark-skinned creatures, who by some machination bring Strieber to a strange room where he sees various other creatures, including the tall, willow-like being with the big eyes who is depicted on the book cover. After waking up in his bedroom again, Strieber at first thinks he's seen an owl, then begins having bizarre flashbacks. He calls a noted UFO researcher, Budd Hopkins, who hypnotizes him, and under hypnosis (that's an important factor) the whole horrific story comes out.
That's not all. In various hypnosis sessions with Budd Hopkins, Strieber recalls a previous UFO abduction from October 1985, which he had apparently forgotten about, and then, most amazingly, spontaneously recalls an experience from his childhood, where he was evidently taken aboard a UFO along with (inexplicably) a whole troop of U.S. soldiers. After realizing this, Strieber begins thinking back to his past and uncovers experience after experience that he had forgotten, or at least hadn't interpreted in the context of alien abductions.
It's important to note that in the original Communion, although Strieber talks very extensively about UFOs and the UFO phenomenon in general, he deliberately avoids making the claim that he believes the beings who abducted him were in fact aliens from another planet. In fact, Strieber leaves open the possibility that they may not be physically real at all, suggesting in the lengthy philosophical essay in the last third of the book that they might be from some unknown part of the human subconscious. (He later backed off from this supposition).
For my money, the most fascinating part of the book is Chapter 4, which Strieber titles "The Sky Beneath My Feet: A Journey Through My Past." In this section Strieber ruminates about a number of odd experiences in his life. None are explained, but they're offered as tantalizing partial glimpses of what he obviously wants the reader to interpret as past abductions. To-wit:
• At age thirteen, in 1958, he claims to have built an "anti-gravity" machine in his bedroom using counter-rotating magnets. Supposedly he told a friend that "spacemen" had given him the plans, though he says he didn't remember saying this. The machine exploded and caused a fire that burned down the family house.
• A very confusing episode where Strieber says he thought he was present at the infamous 1966 University of Texas bell tower spree shooting by madman Charles Whitman, but he then claims he wasn't there, and was possibly with aliens at the time.
• A period of "missing time" in 1967 preceded by the sight of a UFO in the sky.
• A bizarre account of a "chase" across Europe, which Strieber says happened in 1968. He remembers traveling from country to country with a mysterious companion who he doesn't identify, but then hints that this too is what he calls a "screen memory" for an experience with aliens. The strong supposition-again, never explicitly stated-is that he was taken to another planet, again for reasons unknown.
• An incident, said to have happened in April 1977, where an alien voice talked to Strieber and his wife through their hi-fi stereo set, concluding with the words "I know something else about you."
I remember this chapter absolutely blew my mind when I read it in 1987. I thought, "How could you have been abducted by aliens numerous times throughout your life and not be aware of it until years later?"
Nearly 25 years later this is still a fair question. In the book, Strieber hypothesizes that the "visitors," as he calls them, are seeking some kind of rapport with the human race on a higher level of consciousness, and that they become "involved" with people over a lifetime, and also families. Why do they hide their presence, then? Well, Strieber supposes, that's how they want it.
I remember the last third of Communion bored me silly when I was 14. That's the part where Strieber tries to make sense out of the "visitors," and argues passionately that what they seek is indeed "communion" with the soul of humanity. He offers absolutely no support for this view. Every impression he has of the "visitors" is highly subjective-which, again, is supposedly how they want it. Aside from a weird cut behind his head, Strieber never claims the aliens left any marks or other physical evidence behind. He's quite up-front about this, and in fact uses it in support of the supposition that they may be "from the unconscious" or any other number of ephemeral explanations.

An "Ordinary Guy?"

As I mentioned above, one of the key points in the original promotion of the Communion book was fostering the impression that the story is believable because Strieber is an "ordinary guy" and obviously not insane. I remember this theme was repeated in every interview or mention of the book. The "About the Author" section on the original back flap goes to great pains to explain that "Whitley Strieber undertook a battery of psychological tests" and that "all test results indicated that his experiences were not caused by a known psychological or physiological disorder." The appendices of the book contain results of a lie detector test, which verifies he's telling the truth, and a statement from a psychologist saying "he is not suffering from a psychosis." All in all this is intended to be proof positive that what Strieber describes is real.
When I was 14, I thought this was an open-and-shut case. At last, we have an eyewitness account of aliens, from someone who's been examined, certified sane, and even polygraphed as truthful!
More than 20 years later, and after considerable experience in the realm of conspiracy theories, I'm no longer quite so easily persuaded. Rereading Communion with a critical eye, and after two more decades of life experience, I note the following things that shake the "ordinary guy" image that Strieber (or at least his publicists) tried to cloak him with. Some of them are very subtle. For example:
• A circumstantial case can be made that Strieber has had a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena. Remember that he was talking about "spacemen" as early as 1958 (though he claims not to remember such talk). Reporter Ed Conroy, who investigated Strieber and wrote a generally supportive book called Report on Communion, interviewed many of Strieber's friends from the 1950s, and many reported that he talked about spacemen and aliens very often as a child.
• Strieber admits that, at the time he was dealing with the aftermath of the first abduction, he was reading a book called Science and the UFO's by British UFOlogist Jenny Randles, which he says his brother sent to him for Christmas. (I discuss this later).
• Strieber reports a long-time association with the Gurdjieff Foundation beginning in the 1970s. This is an organization promoting the work ofG.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky. These are noted "mystics" (translation: charlatans) who figure large in New Age philosophy circles.
• Strieber states toward the end of Communion that his life and philosophy has been heavily influenced by "the tarot." He says, "Please, set aside any notion of fortune-telling," and then says that he became interested in tarot about 1971 and he "came to realize that the tarot is much more than a deck of fortune-telling cards; it is a sort of philosophical machine that presents its ideas in the form of pictures rather than words."
So, instead of being an "ordinary guy," it turns out Strieber has always been interested in UFOs and aliens, believes in tarot cards, and is a follower of weird New Age mystics. Is the picture changing here?
I remember, not long after Communion came out, being home sick one day and flipping channels on the TV. I happened to come upon the Oprah Winfrey Show, which was just then (1987) being nationally syndicated. Whitley Strieber was a guest on the show. I disliked Oprah and her show every bit as much when I was 15 as I do today, but because Strieber was on and I loved Communion, I watched it. I remember being disappointed because there wasn't a single word in the show about aliens. In fact it was about witchcraft, and while I didn't remember what was being said, I remember Strieber came off looking like a kook. This was the beginning of my doubt that Communion was gospel truth.
By complete chance, while doing research on the Web related to this blog, I happened to come across a transcript of that self-same Oprah show. It was broadcast on June 24, 1987, and in it Oprah introduces Whitley Strieber as someone "who has participated in many Wiccan rituals." Here is the transcript. Incidentally, the search term that brought up this transcript was "Dora Ruffner," a longtime friend of Whitley Strieber's who is mentioned by name in Transformation and Breakthrough (more on her later). I was curious to learn her background to see if Strieber's close friends are also involved in New Age stuff. Turns out they are, or at least were in the case of Ms. Ruffner.
So, we have a guy who's had a lifelong interest in UFOs and aliens, believes in tarot cards, follows Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, takes part in Wiccan rituals, and his best friend went on the Oprah Winfrey show as a self-proclaimed "white witch."
Now, let me be clear. I'm not knocking Strieber's beliefs. I think Wicca and "witchcraft" is a perfectly reasonable religious belief. (Strieber self-identifies as a Catholic, and there's no reason to question that). Wicca is not, as the fundamentalist Christian preacher in the Oprah transcript fulminates, an evil religion of Satan worship. But it is sort of a fringe belief, meaning, it's very firmly located in the alternatives to more mainstream belief systems, and it's not a far jump from Wicca, witchcraft and New Age mysticism to the world of UFOs and aliens.
Also, let's take into account Science and the UFOs. Strieber claims it was given to him for Christmas 1985 by his brother. Think about why people give each other books as gifts. This year for Christmas I got two books, The Secret History of MI6 by Keith Jeffery and First Family by Joseph J. Ellis. These books were given to me because the person who gave them to me (my father, for the record) knows I love history. If Strieber's family members are giving him books about UFOs, before he goes public with a story of being abducted by one, isn't it reasonable to assume that Strieber's family realized he was interested in UFOs and the occult, and thought this book would be an appropriate gift based on that? Doesn't that show that Strieber was probably predisposed to this sort of material even before whatever events occurred on December 26, 1985 to make him think (honestly, it appears) that he was abducted by aliens?
It gets better. Strieber says, on page 40 of Communion, that reading an account of an alien abduction in Science and the UFOs got him thinking about whether what happened to him was an alien abduction. In fact, it was that book that caused him to call alien abduction "expert" Budd Hopkins, who brought out the abduction story under hypnosis.
Here's where I'm going with this. This is not an "ordinary guy," just like you and me. Sure, I know some people who have spiritual beliefs; I do. But do you know a lot of people who believe in tarot cards and consider "the way of the tarot" a central tenet of their life? Do you know a lot of people who are interested enough in New Age mystics to volunteer with the Gurdjieff Foundation for 20 years? Supposing you do, would it surprise you that someone with this sort of background suddenly starts talking about being abducted by aliens-especially after reading an account of such an abduction in a book?
It probably wouldn't, would it?
To illustrate where I'm going with this, let's take two hypothetical "witnesses" who claim they were abducted by aliens.
Witness #1: middle-class American man, a bank manager, reasonably religious (let's say Presbyterian), does not believe in UFOs or aliens, has never had an interest in New Age or the occult, has never known to discuss these subjects more than casual conversation when they might come up in the context of popular culture. After zero exposure to UFO materials, he claims to have been abducted by aliens and subjected to bizarre experiences. The first professional he contacts after having this experience is a psychologist. The witness remembers his experience in ordinary consciousness.
Witness #2: middle-class American man, a horror writer, reasonably religious (Catholic), has talked about UFOs all his life, claims he had contact with "spacemen" at age 13, follows New Age spiritualism, does volunteer activities toward spreading awareness of New Age theories, has taken part in many Wiccan rituals, and believes in tarot cards. After reading about an abduction claim in a UFO book, he claims to have been abducted by aliens and subjected to bizarre experiences. He openly states, however, that what happened to him may not be real but something from "the unconscious mind." The first professional (I use that term loosely) he contacts after having this experience is a UFO researcher known for alien abduction scenarios-who was mentioned in the book he read. The witness remembers his experience only under hypnosis by the UFO researcher.
Witness #1, who does not exist (at least so far as I know), would be a far more credible source of an alien abduction claim, in my view, than Witness #2.
Let me be extra clear here: I'm not saying that Strieber's claims are or must be false because he's a New Age guy with a lifelong attraction to fringe beliefs. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when you claim that his experiences should be regarded as credible because he's an "ordinary guy"-which was the tack used to promote Communion-the credibility decreases to the extent to which he turns out not to be an "ordinary guy." This gets us into the realm of arguing, "Okay, so what's 'ordinary?" I don't want to go there, but I think most people would agree that a follower of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, an advocate for Wicca and a believer in tarot cards is, however sincere he may be, more...unusual than he is "ordinary."

So What About That Hypnosis?

I mentioned the case of Barney and Betty Hill as a paradigm early on and I think it's apposite. If you read The Interrupted Journey you will find that the Hills' claim of alien abduction came out only after the fact, and only under hypnosis. That's also true in Strieber's case. Also, and I emphasize again, the first "professional" he called was not a psychologist, psychiatrist or other mental health professional. It was Budd Hopkins, who, as I said, Strieber admits he called after reading an abduction account and Hopkins's name in Science and the UFOs by Jenny Randles.
The bulk of Communion is devoted to Strieber bringing out his abduction claims under Hopkins's hypnosis, and later, hypnosis conducted by a bona fide scientist-but usually with Hopkins present.
Post-hypnotic suggestion is often asserted as a possible explanation for abduction claims. If nothing else, the fact that Strieber did not remember his abduction clearly until he was hypnotized by Budd Hopkins should set off alarm bells.
Who is Budd Hopkins, anyway? I did a bit of research on him, expecting to find he was a psychologist or other mental health professional. After all, his depiction in Communion certainly leads you to believe he's a doctor of something. Actually he's not. Aside from finding out he's a graduate of Oberlin College, I couldn't find anything about his background. You would think if he was a doctor or a psychologist, he'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops. He's not.
Budd Hopkins, in fact, is an artist by trade. The whole UFO thing is a sideline. He's an amateur, and hypnotizes people without any professional experience in hypnotherapy. This is the guy that Strieber turned to first?
Why not a psychologist? If I woke up in the middle of the night surrounded by weird things that looked like aliens-something I know is radically unusual, and shouldn't happen by all we understand about science-my first thought would be that there's something seriously wrong with me. I'd go to a shrink and try to find out why I was having hallucinations. If, and only if, explanations of a mental nature turned out to be unavailing, I might consider alternative hypotheses...if there was evidence to support them.
Instead, it seems Strieber turned to the alternative hypothesis first. He went to Budd Hopkins first, and then later got checked out by psychiatrists, it seems (given the way the disclaimers in Communion read) in an attempt to head off explanations other than the one he wanted to champion-that nonhuman beings were involved with him on some level. Remember, in 1987 Strieber wasn't even on record as claiming these beings were aliens, or that they even existed-he left it clearly open that the whole thing might have happened only in his head! (He later recanted this in Transformation, as we'll see in the next blog, but in early 1987 that was Strieber's position).
If you're looking for unimpeachable, slam-dunk proof that alien abduction is a literally real phenomenon, you may be disappointed in Whitley Strieber.

Coming Up...

In Part II of this blog I'll take on Strieber's even more bizarre assertions in Transformation, the sequel to Communion that even had me, at the age of sixteen, thinking he'd finally jumped the shark. Such as the part where he starts chanting in the woods, having out-of-body experiences, and the aliens drain his bank account when he defies their warnings not to eat Snickers bars. I'm serious. He really claimed that. To be continued!