PJ#090, TAKING OFF THE BLINDFOLD

[wave]

PJ 90

CHAPTER 13

REC #2 HATONN

TUE., MAR. 29, 1994 11:25 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 225

TUE., MAR. 29, 1994

DEFRAUDING AMERICA
by Rodney Stich.

Part 8

QUOTING:

OCTOBER SURPRISE

During our early conversations, starting about February 1991, I questioned Russbacher concerning his knowledge of the hostage scandal known as October Surprise. Russbacher replied that he was well familiar with the details, that he was a part of the operation but that he would not talk about it except in gener­alities. But this attitude suddenly changed.

During an early morning telephone conversation on April 30, 1991, Russbacher said that three ONI officers were coming to Terminal Island that afternoon and he would be flying with them to Monterey, California for a special assignment. The flight from Long Beach to Monterey would be in a Learjet, after which a Navy helicopter from the Naval Air Station at Alameda, California, would take them to Fort Ord and then on to Santa Cruz, landing at the college. While it sounds bizarre and contradictory, Russbacher's CIA faction occasionally extracted him from prison for short periods of time. But something happened.

Shortly before midnight my telephone rang and it was Russbacher's wife, Rayelan, on the phone. She sought my help to determine if her husband was on a helicopter that reportedly crashed several hours earlier at Fort Ord. She had been expecting her husband to arrive at Santa Cruz by Navy helicopter, and when she saw on television that a helicopter had crashed at nearby Fort Ord that evening, she grew worried.

Rayelan had contacted a friend who was CIA Chief of Station at St. Louis, nicknamed the "Rabbit," who in turn phoned a FBI contact in California. The CIA station agent then called Rayelan, advising her that a Navy helicopter at Fort Ord had blown apart while in the air, and that there were no survivors. But he didn't know who had been on board when it crashed. Russbacher's wife asked me to call my FAA contacts to find out if her husband was one of the fatalities.


"I've been drugged"!

While Russbacher's wife and I were talking, Russbacher came on the line, calling from Terminal Island prison. He ex­claimed, "I've been drugged". Russbacher explained that he had coffee at approximately 2:30 with the Admiral who he had been expecting. Russbacher stated that the Admiral advised that he would return in about an hour and a half to take him to Santa Cruz.

After drinking coffee with the Admiral, Russbacher suddenly felt drowsy, and went back to his cell and fell sound asleep. Shortly after ten p.m. Russbacher awoke to the shouts of other prisoners that he had an emergency phone call from his wife. He called his wife and the call came through as she and I were talking.

Russbacher described what happened, stating that he felt the Navy Admiral deliberately drugged him to prevent him flying back, and may have done so thinking there was a plot to kill Russbacher and in that way protect him.

"Your life may depend on you going public"!

I warned Russbacher that because of the information he possessed that threatened to expose White House officials and covert, criminal activities by the CIA, his life was in constant danger, and that the sooner he disclosed this information to others, the less would be the danger to him. "Your life may de­pend on you going public," I added.

It was now about midnight, and Russbacher was still groggy. I suggested that he call me the following morning, when his mind was clear, and give me a sworn declaration of events sur­rounding October Surprise. I stated that I would record his statements and have the recording transcribed, after which I would send portions of the transcript to members of Congress.

The first series of declarations were limited to the October Surprise matter. Many months later, Russbacher gave me sworn declarations concerning other scandals of even more seri­ous magnitude than October Surprise. I constantly played devil's advocate with the information that Russbacher (and other CIA informants and police and investigative personnel) gave me, seeking confirmation from other sources or through cross­check of my informants.

REVEALING MAJOR CRIMES
AGAINST AMERICA

When Russbacher called the next morning at 8 a.m., I said: "I need to know the specifics on the flight to Europe, including who was on board the aircraft, who stayed at what hotel; where did the flight start from and where did it land enroute"? What he stated on that first deposition-like questioning was repeated many times over during the next few years as other segments of that and other operations were described.
A brief extract of that first declaration reads as follows:
"My name is Gunther Russbacher, I am a captain in the United States Navy; my service number is 448401117. My cur­rent location is Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Is­land; I am a federal prisoner, awaiting appeal on a charge of misuse and misappropriation of government properties, misuse of government jets, and misuse of government purchase orders, for purchase of fuel. That is my current situation. The date to­day is May 1, 1991. The time of this interview is 0824. Now that we have the formalities under way, Rodney Stich, we can talk".

"Who were the pilots," I asked.
"On the flight deck were pilots Richard Brenneke, an Air Force pilot, and I was the command pilot".
"Who was in the cabin"?
"In the cabin were George Bush, William Casey, Robert Gates, Donald Gregg, current ambassador to South Ko­rea, and others".

In later sessions I probed more deeply into who the passen­gers were, and Russbacher presented a more complete list. He stated that other passengers included several Secret Service agents assigned to Vice-Presidential candidate George Bush; Robert Allen; Senators John Tower and John Heinz; Congress­man Dan Rostenkowski; Jennifer Fitzgerald of the State De­partment (and reportedly a close lady friend of Bush for many years).

"What type of plane were you flying? I asked.
"The plane was a BAC 111, and we departed from An­drews Air Force Base, to New York, to Gander, and then on to Paris, landing at Le Bourget".
"At what stage of the flight did you see the passengers"? "I went back into the cabin after taking off from Gander".
"Where did the crew stay while in Paris"?
"We stayed at the Florida Hotel in Paris".
"How long did Bush stay in Paris"?
"Bush only remained a few hours".
"Did you fly the same plane back"? I asked Russbacher.
"No I didn't. I flew the man [George Bush] back in the SR-71".
"Are you qualified in the 71"?
"Rodney, I flew the 71 for eighteen months".
"Where did the 71 refuel"? recognizing that the SR-71 could not fly from Paris to the United States without re­fueling.
"The refueling occurred approximately, I would have to say, 1800 to 1900 nautical miles into the Atlantic. We were met by a KC 135".
"Where did you land on the return flight"?
"McGuire", Russbacher replied. [McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey]
"How long did the flight take"?
"The flight took one hour and forty four minutes".
"What time did you arrive back at McGuire Air Force Base"?
"We arrived at McGuire Air Force Base approximately ten-fifty a.m. the following morning".
"That's local time"?
"Yes".
"Who were some of the people you saw in Paris"?
"Adnan Khashoggi, Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani was the Ayatollah's henchman and the second in command. Please look who is in command now: Rafsanjani".

In response to my probing questions he provided additional data, including rudimentary piloting activities, conversations, airports, and other data, that would be hard to fabricate. Russ­bacher described the route of flight from Washington to New York, to Gander, and then to Paris. He described specifics that might be meaningless to anyone but a pilot who had been to the airports he described, which provided further confirmation that he was telling me the truth.

After arrival in Paris Russbacher went to the Hotel Florida, and had been asleep only a short time when he received a call from the CIA station chief in Frankfurt, advising him that an SR-71 was being flown to Paris for him to fly back to the United States. The SR-71, with Vice Presidential candidate George Bush and Russbacher at the controls, departed from a military airbase near Paris at 2:50 p.m. European Time (13:50 GMT, or 8:50 a.m. EST).

The SR-71 was refueled about 1,800 miles from Paris, over the North Atlantic, by a U.S. Air Force tanker, landing at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey at 10:50 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (6:50 p.m. GMT). After Bush left the aircraft Russbacher flew the SR-71 to Andrews Air Force Base.

Going back to the October Surprise operation, I asked Russbacher, "What do you know about the first meeting in Madrid between Casey and the Iranians, that reportedly occurred in July
of 1980"?

"The Madrid meeting was more of a diversionary tactic. The actual meeting occurred in Barcelona".
"I was in Barcelona at the time of the meetings. I was there at the Pepsico International headquarters building. I gave you the guy's name that was our interface there. V-a-n-T-y-n-e [Peter VanTyne]".
"That was approximately what month"? I asked, to make sure we were talking about the same meetings.
"That was in late July of 1980".
"This is the meeting or meetings in which William Casey met with some Iranians?
"That is correct. That was with Hushang Lavi and Rogovin". (Mitchell Rogovin, lawyer for Lavi.)
"Referring to all of the reports of Casey having been in Madrid, I believe you stated that Casey was never in Madrid"?
"I said that the meetings, the top-level high-speed meetings did not take place in Madrid. The suites and conference rooms and everything were rented and cared for. However, the meetings took place, and the people stayed, at the Hotel Princess Sofia, S-O-F-I-A, in Barcelona".
I responded, "And was this at the same time that he was supposedly in Madrid"?
"Right. It was a little subterfuge upon the part of the gov­ernment [CIA]. But the actual meetings took place in Barcelona. It took place at the Pepsi Cola International headquarters.
"And you were there in town with Peggy [Gunther's wife
at the time]"?
"That's right. I was there at the meetings".
"So you know what was stated at the meetings"?
"This is where the first discussions were coming up as to what type of arms and munitions that the Iranians wanted".
"And who was there besides William Casey; was that Robert McFarlane"?
"Yes, it was".
"You previously stated that in Barcelona the meetings were held at the hotel, but then you also mentioned in one place about them being held at the Pepsico plant. Can you explain that"?
"Right. The day's meetings were held over at the Pepsico International Headquarters buildings".
"That was the main meetings then? Did you have any at the hotel that you mentioned"?
"Yes".
"What part did Van Tyne play in the meetings? Did he more or less coordinate the meetings"?
"Facilitator. Yes".
Realizing that Pepsico surfaces in numerous CIA activi­ties, including drug processing in the Far East, I asked Russbacher: "Was Pepsico a CIA proprietary corpora­tion"?
"No, but they have close connections to each other; they work together".
"A few more questions on the Barcelona meeting, just to get clarified in my mind. (The secret late-July 1980 Barcelona meetings, involving private citizen William Casey, preceded the secret October 19, 1980, weekend meetings held in Paris). Why did they have to use Madrid as a diversionary point when they were trying to cover up for the whole operation? (Investigative re­porters and writers charge that William Casey met se­cretly in Madrid with Iranian factions to prevent the release of the 52 American hostages (last week of July 1980. But this is incorrect. The first meeting in Spain was not at Madrid, but at Barcelona).
"There were also high-level meetings going on in the Spanish cabinet at the same time. It would be easier to hide under the cloak of secrecy as to what transpired in Madrid at that time, without going in and having to create a brand new cover for the meeting in Barcelona".
"Can you give me the details on the hour of the day and how long the meetings lasted"?
"I would estimate, according to my recollection, that the meeting began about ten o'clock in the morning, and lasted probably until one o'clock, at which time they broke for lunch, and the meeting reconvened from about three to six p.m.".
"Was it a one-day meeting"?
"No, two days. The first day was full of meetings, and the second day was only about three hours long".
"What was your role at that meeting"?
"The only part that I took part in was to set up a central­ized command in Vienna, which would involve being able to draw large containers and to allow freighting weapon containers, and so on".
"From the reforger stores"? (Reforger stores contain American military weapons and were located in various European locations. To fulfill the Barcelona agreement US weapons and munitions were fraudulently removed from military warehouses in Austria, Germany, and Italy, commencing in September 1980).
"From the reforger stores, through Austria and down by rail".
"I would presume, referring to some comments you made about Austria being unhappy, were they to be notified when military shipments went through their country"?
"It was total 'no-no'". (Secretly moving the military shipments through Austria violated the laws and sovereignty of Austria).
"The United States cannot order anything. Austria is a sovereign republic. We made weapons shipments from the early contracts with the Iranians through Switzer­land. We railed from Zurich to Vienna, and from Vi­enna on down".
"You said the people at the meeting were Casey, McFar­lane; were there any other Americans there"?
"I think Allen was there for a couple of hours".
"And on the other side there was Hushang Lavi, and I think you mentioned Rogovin"?
"Yes."
"Rogovin was the attorney for Lavi, wasn't he"?
"Yes".
"Was there anyone else there"?
"There were several other people. But the individual I dealt with primarily was
Mr. Peter Van Tyne".
"What was his position"?
"Peter Van Tyne was executive vice-president for Pepsico International".
"I might add that part of the reason that I was there was that I was to set up a large production warehouse and production corporation in Vienna. We are talking about an extremely large warehouse where we could hold container shipments until transshipment took place. We were withdrawing military weapons and munitions from Switzerland, including Swiss military manufacturer Orlikon. We were drawing stores from Germany. (Military equipment and supplies.) We were also drawing stores up from Italy. The shipments from Italy came up through Brenner Pass in overland containers, at which point they ended up in Innsbruck, Austria. In Innsbruck they were replaced by other containers, that were supposedly at that point moving mineral waters from Innsbruck to Third World areas".
"Mineral water"?
"That is what the code name was. The code name for it was Seltzer Water".

Describing the route of the arms shipments, Russbacher stated that he established "transshipment points from Europe, especially Germany, Italy, and Switzerland.
In Italy, up through Brenner Pass; from Germany into Austria. We were buying arms from Orlikon, a corporation, a weapons manufac­turer in Switzerland. We had a big warehouse, a huge one. Some went through Yugoslavia. It went through Yugoslavia for transshipment through Macedonia, down through Greece, and then Cyprus, and then across Hungary was a transship point also. At times it went through Hungary. However, most of the times it went through Yugoslavia.

"Because Austria was a neutral country and Hungary was a communist country, we had a choice of transshipment points. Either first from Vienna to Budapest, where they were then transferred onto trains to Yugoslavia, or directly from Austria to Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia down into Greece, and then to Cyprus. Most of the time it went through Yugoslavia".

LOOTING UNITED STATES MILITARY
WAREHOUSES

Further probing during a December 17, 1991, session re­vealed when the arms and munitions started to flow. The an­swer was critical, and helped explain how the officially elected government of the United States was rendered helpless by the coup d'etat aspects of the October Surprise conspirators.

"After the [July 1980] Barcelona meeting, how soon did these arms start flowing"?
Russbacher hesitated in answering that question. He replied: "My friend, the arms began flowing, I would say, probably in September". (The gravity of this is that private citizen William Casey (and others) were able to remove military weapons and munitions from United States stockpiles, that were intended for the de­fense of Europe, and with the obvious cooperation of CIA factions, ship the arms to Iran via Israel, as part of the treasonous and subversive acts to continue the im­prisonment of the 52 American hostages. A coup against the United States had occurred).
"Were you there at that time"?
"Yes I was".

Since Casey, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, the principal parties in the October Surprise conspiracy, had not held any government office at that time, and the November 1980 presi­dential elections had not occurred, the question arose in my mind as to who authorized the shipment of arms, especially since there were laws preventing the shipments, and since the shipments undermined the negotiations by President Jimmy Carter seeking to obtain the release of the 52 American hostages.

[I asked:] "Where did the authority come from to move that military equipment, since Casey and the gang held no govern­ment positions"?

Russbacher again hesitated, and then answered:
"We [CIA] were already in there. The Agency [CIA] was already out on the limb". (The CIA arranged for Bush and oth­ers to fly to the Paris meetings on the weekend of October 19, 1980, at which the secret agreement was finalized [Paying $40 million bribe money and promising billions of dollars in military equipment and munitions, in exchange for continuing the im­prisonment of the 52 American hostages). "And bear in mind that Bush was the ex-DCI (Director of Central Intelligence)". Casey had gone back to the days of "Wild Bill Donovan". So you are talking about an agency coup that was already in the making at that time.

"What about the military, didn't they have control of those weapons; I mean the US military"?

"Rodney, if I tell you the shenanigans that are pulled, and the shopping that can be done at these reforger stores, you would pull your hair out". (Reforger: Term applied to US military warehouses in Europe).

I asked Russbacher who worked with him in procuring the arms and arranging the shipments. "The procurement of them was handled by an associate of mine. The fellow's name was John George Fisher. He is dead".

I asked Russbacher, "What type of paperwork was done to get the U.S. military organizations to release the equipment"?

"It is very simple," Russbacher replied. "All you have to have is a request for transfer; which is commonly referred to as an AF series, duly signed by authorized personnel, or by an au­thorized officer. And, of course you need a transfer form approved for a transport form. And then you need end-user cer­tificates".

When I asked Russbacher how those in control of the weapon depots allowed the arms to be removed, he referred to the CIA practice of placing CIA people in other government de­partments: "We [CIA] had already put them in position". (It is a standard practice of the CIA to install CIA personnel through the federal government, into state governments, and throughout industry, including the media).

"What about the end-user certificate requirements; you had to show an end user, and who was that"?

"We [CIA] had end-user certificates available. That's why all shipments went through Cyprus. By the time the weapons came to Cyprus, new end-user certificates, or the real ones, that were going to be used, then showed up. But the end-user certificates that we always provided would have been countries that were friendly to the United States. Some of them were bogus. A lot of them went down to an entity in Spain. We had some sympathetic people".

Continuing, Russbacher states, "We had embassies in Madrid that provided us end-user certificates. A lot of them were em­bassies from North African countries, West African countries, including Liberia".

Russbacher referred to the key role played by Israel in the operation, stating,
"We worked hand in hand with the Mossad". (Israel played a key role in carrying out the secret activities, in­cluding participation/attendance at the Barcelona and Paris meetings, the stealing of the arms from US warehouses, and the secret shipment of arms to Iran. Israel obviously knew that the scheme and activities were treasonous, subversive, and harmful to the United States; and also recognized that they could there­after blackmail the United States while Reagan and Bush were in the White House).

ISRAELI PARTICIPATION

"Were there any Israelis at the Barcelona meeting"?

"I knew there was a discussion that there were some pre­sent".

"Was Karrubi there [Mehdi Karrubi, presently Iranian Par­liamentary Speaker]"? Russbacher replied, "Yes".

In Ari Ben-Menashe's book, Profits of War, and in conversa­tions with him,
Ben-Menashe stated that he was present at the Barcelona meeting.

Referring to the $40 million bribe money that was reportedly given to the Iranian factions at the subsequent Paris meetings on the October 19, 1980, weekend, I asked: "Do you know any­thing about the routing of the reported forty million dollar bank draft that was given to the... (Given to the Iranians at Paris dur­ing the October 19, 1980 weekend meeting in Paris, as bribe money).

"....Michael Riconosciuto would be the best one to answer that".

END OF PART EIGHT

* * *

Please let us take another break for with the computer "acting up" we will begin to lose portions of the documents. I will clear the circuits. Thank you and don't be concerned about it.

APPENDIX

THE REMAINDER OF THIS JOURNAL IS A
COLLECTION OF TIMELY NEWS AND/OR
EDUCATIONAL ITEMS

PJ 90

CHAPTER 14

BILL INTRODUCED TO SUSPEND
PARENTAL RIGHTS

This article was reprinted from The Christian Educator, January/February 1994 issue who in turn reprinted it from the Home School Court Report, July/Aug. 1993; Box 125, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129. Reprinted from American Information Newsletter, Box 44534, Boise, ID 83711; (208) 322-7781--The only admitted Socialist in the U.S. Congress. B. Sanders of Vermont, has introduced a resolution which, if passed, will sus­pend such rights of parents as spanking and the right to guide the spiritual and moral directions of their children. Christian parents could conceivably be jailed for trying to stop their chil­dren from viewing pornography or to insist that they attend church. At issue is the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the rights of the Child. Under the Constitution, a ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, superseding all state laws. The ratification of the convention, as demanded in the Sanders resolution, would make American parents subject to the following: 1) Social workers and courts become the ultimate authority in determining "the best interest of the child". 2) All children must be immediately registered at birth. 3) Parents would be prosecuted for trying to interfere with material deemed unacceptable by them or trying to interfere with the child's ver­bal expression. 4) A state "thought police" is mandated to iden­tify and regulate parents who violate these "rights." The socio­fascist power grab over our children is obvious. In simple fact, responsible parents would be "outlawed" and will have to accept the fact that they are operating outside the law if the totalitarian measure is established.

A CLARIFICATION OF TORAH DOCTRINE

Issued By
THE CENTRAL RABBINICAL CONGRESS OF
THE U.S.A. & CANADA
85 Division Avenue
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211
Telephone: (718)384-6765-6

The following article comes to us from the February 6, 1994 edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES--As the Middle East "peace process" enters its final states, internecine disputes among organized Jewry concerning its desirability have reached a fever pitch. It has reached a point that not only is it a political dilemma, but also has taken on the nature of an infringement of religious principles. Many Orthodox leaders, Rabbinical groups, as well as Israel's religious political parties have entered the fray, issuing fiery statements condemning the current negoti­ations. Mass protests, geared to elicit maximum media cover­age, continue to be staged to create the impression that Torah Jews stand united in their desire to thwart the ceding of land to the Palestinians.

These declarations (although somewhat motivated by coalition politics) have created the impression that Torah Jewry and mili­tant Israeli nationalism are inherently linked, with each pursuing identical agenda.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! JUDAISM AND ZIONISM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLU­SIVE!

Torah Jewry sees its exile from the Holy Land as the result of a Divine decree. The land was given to us according to G-D's will, and when our sins accumulated we were exiled from it. This exile is first and foremost a spiritual state that cannot and (as the Talmud teaches) must not be remedied by temporal means. Until G-D chooses to end history as we know it, with redeeming us by miraculous acts, we are commanded by Him to live as co-operative, law abiding and patriotic citizens in our countries of residence. Accordingly, the Jewish people have no "claim" to the Holy Land at present. They have no right to conquer or to rule over it.

Our sense of outrage over the falsification of basic Jewish doc­trine was heightened when a recent newspaper advertisement proclaimed "The Biblical claims to the historic land of Israel are as valid today as they were 3,500 years ago". To Torah Jews this statement is absurd, heretical and dangerously provocative.

(It is especially ironic that Zionism which bases its ideology upon "Biblical claims to the land", ignores all other Biblical commandments. Indeed, the government it spawned is infamous for its anti-religious practices and persecution of its religious citizens.)

Clearly, the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was in no way a fulfillment of the Jewish people's millennial-long yearning for Redemption. It was a bizarre, secularist substitute for that redemption. Zionism from its inception was forcefully denounced by all Jewish Rabbinical leaders.

The doctrine of constantly leading the Jewish people into confrontations with the nations of the world is the dogma of Zion­ism not of the Holy Torah. We are commanded by G-D to live in dignity and piety wherever Providence has so ordained.

Therefore, we declare that the Zionist State of Israel is not the legitimate representative of our people. Our position on the ceding of land is quite simple: Any Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land before the Messianic Epoch is sinful and sure to lead to tragedy. And it is certainly absurd to sacrifice even one hu­man life for this illegitimate state.

May all mankind be worthy of true Redemption when the "Swords Will be Beaten Into Plowshares" and G-D's Glory will fill the world.

[wave]

PJ 90

CHAPTER 15

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS--Two views

CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS FEDERAL
INTERFERENCE
by Peter D. Lepiscopo

A reprint of an article that appeared in the San Diego Mirror Tribune 2/2/94 entitled:

Is its purpose for hunting? For collecting? For sport? Or for self-defense against criminals? No, although these have been offered as justification for its existence. Its sole purpose is to secure an individual's right for self-defense against government. "It" is the Second Amendment.

In order to understand the Second Amendment's constitutional purpose, one first must recognize the distinction between the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers; thus it deals exclusively with power. Conversely, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) was adopted to secure individual rights against government's intrusion; thus it deals exclusively with individual rights.

The importance of this distinction is indispensable when one attempts to discern the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. For example, if the Second Amendment is designed to secure a right against government's intrusion, then the question is raised: How can one argue that the amendment's purpose is for self-defense against criminals?

The answer, of course, is that one cannot because the Bill of Rights does not secure an individual's rights against other individuals but against government. Accordingly, present-day opponents and proponents of gun control are engaged in a debate that does not address the principle of government vs. individual but individual vs. individual. This misinformed and illogical debate would offend the Founding Fathers.

Another misconception about the Second Amendment is the unfounded assertion that the amendment's language is ambiguous. The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

This language is not ambiguous but clear if one properly analyzes the amendment according to Thomas Jefferson's instructions: "On every question of constructions of the Constitution let US carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and recollect the spirit manifested in the debates".

In order to find the purpose behind the Second Amendment, one need only recall the Founders' fear of government's abuse of power.

Specifically, the Founders feared a standing army, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as an army of professional soldiers kept permanently on foot. For example, it was Britain's standing army as assembled in 1770 that caused the Boston Massacre.

The universally understood view of the Founders was articulated by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention: "The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies". In this regard, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 15 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution (adopted 1777) provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms...as standing armies are dangerous to liberty".

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies". In addition, Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from keeping troops, without the consent of Congress.

These two provisions clearly placed the exclusive power to establish a standing army with the federal government, which had the effect of disarming the states and their inhabitants. This situation sounded the alarm that caused the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment.

MILITIAS VS. STANDING ARMIES

Present-day opponents of the Second Amendment argue that the word "militia" means an army designed to provide for the common defense of our nation. These opponents, therefore, argue that because we have the greatest military that ever existed, a militia is not necessary; and, therefore, there is no need for the right to keep and bear arms. This assertion is incorrect and contrary to history surrounding and debates concerning the Second Amendment.

The word "militia" is not synonymous with the term "standing army." A "militia" is a nonprofessional citizen army, which is not assembled on a permanent basis. Conversely, standing armies are permanently assembled and are comprised of professional soldiers.

The Founders were not confusing the standing armies that could be established by Congress with those comprised of common inhabitants of the states. The latter were not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state. Accordingly, present day opponents' argument that the right to keep and bear arms is not necessarily because "militia" is synonymous with "standing armies" is false.

'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'

The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe," as it relates to rights, means "to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually.

Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly. This includes indirect interference, such as oppressive taxation or regulation.

Furthermore, the use of the command "shall not" was used to eliminate any argument that the right was subject to the government's discretion.

The Founders did not use the term "shall not be infringed" by accident but by design. They intended to preclude the government from implementing sophisticated means by which to encroach upon this right. After all, the amendment was designed to be a check against government's abuse of power, and it would be in the government's best interest to encroach upon or eliminate this right.

Virginia delegate George Mason stated it most succinctly: "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them".

Accordingly, the Founders used specific language in order to obtain a specific result: to secure our right to keep and bear arms for our protection against government. Those who actually believe that the Founders were not deliberate in their drafting of the Second Amendment are either naive or misinformed.

AN AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK

In the last several years there has been a torrent of gun-control legislation that calls for severe infringements or all-out repeal of the Second Amendment. The opponents and proponents of gun control focus their debate on the impact, or lack, thereof , it would have on gun-related deaths.

On the one hand, the proponents of gun control insist that removal of all guns from society will stem the rising tide of gun violence. On the other hand, gun-control opponents insist that the Second Amendment guarantees them a right to self-defense against criminals, to collect guns, to hunt and/or to use guns for sport.

I believe both arguments are historically and constitutionally incorrect.

It is quite clear from history and the debates surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment that the present-day debate does not focus on the proper principle underlying that amendment: protection against governmental tyranny.

Accordingly, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment will be betrayed regardless of who wins the debate.

To be sure, the argument can be made that we are entering the 21st century and the fears of men who existed in the late 18th century no longer exist. This argument quickly disappears, however, once one realizes that although time has passed human nature remains unchanged: Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny.

Moreover, it can be observed that governments throughout the world are oppressive to their people. What do these governments have in common? They have the guns and their subjects do not.

More importantly, it can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny. Accordingly, there can never be any constitutional justification for government infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, to those of you who advocate gun control at the expense of the Second Amendment, I leave you with Benjamin Franklin's insight: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

ANTI-TYRANNY ARGUMENT NOT
A REALISTIC POSITION
by David R. Boldt

Now that gun control is being taken seriously as an issue, it may be time to deal with a whole section of that debate that never really has been seriously discussed in public.

Then again, maybe it isn't. Both sides in the debate have been perfectly happy to keep it off the table up to this point, and maybe that's where it belongs. We'll see.

I refer here to the fact that many opponents of gun control are not primarily concerned about preserving the right of Americans to hunt and to shoot at targets. (Most gun-control proposals specifically omit weapons used for hunting and target-shooting anyway.)

Rather, they believe that citizens should have guns for the reason that the founding fathers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution: to enable citizens to overthrow a usurping tyrant by force of arms. The whole assault weapon debate rests on this often unarticulated premise.

To the extent that this argument is ever brought out into the open, it tends to get short shrift, usually along the following lines:

Gun-control advocate: "But this country has been going for more than two centuries, and no tyrant has tried to take over".

Gun-Control Opponent: "See--It Works".

A STRATEGIC DECISION

For the most part, gun-control opponents have chosen to fight this battle from their outer line of defense, arguing that gun control is not an effective way to reduce gun violence. And it's not hard to see why they would make this strategic decision. They have convincing evidence. I don't know of anyone who has ever undertaken a serious study of gun control who has not concluded that even the tightest form of gun control under consideration at present will do little more than affect the violence problem at the margins.

The reasons are pluperfectly obvious: There are just too many guns already out there, and it's too easy to sneak them in from other countries.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try tougher gun control. The violence problem is so severe in our cities that we need to do everything we can. Moreover, it might be very powerful for the American nation to say unequivocally that we disapprove of gun violence.

Such a statement would ring hollow, of course, if at the same time we continued to condone the explicit, romanticized depiction of violence on television, in movies, in video games and so on. I personally am convinced that toning down the violence level in our popular culture would actually accomplish far more than gun control.

(There is no way, it now seems, that America can address the true "root cause" of rising violence in our society. This is the fact that at present we actively encourage bringing up children without significant moral guidance from parents, teachers or anyone else).

BURIED IN THE LAST CHAPTER

The subject of gun possession as a deterrent to tyranny is usually tucked away in the back of books about the issue. It follows the chapters full of charts illustrating the failure of gun-control laws and making the case that there are, basically, kinds of people who shoot other people and kinds of people who don't. (Gun-control opponents contend that this fact--not gun-control laws--explains the variation in national murder rates).

In Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America, sociologists James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi and Kathleen Daly get to the anti-tyranny argument in a final chapter entitled, unarrestingly, "Some Policy Implications". In it they note that the Second Amendment was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, "who was himself a tireless champion of the right of a free people to rise in armed revolution against an unjust government".

Historian B. Bruce Briggs, in the end of his monograph on "The Great American Gun War", notes that "organized gun owners also see the armed citizenry as a last line of defense against insurrection. This idea has roots in the disturbances of the 1960s. While many Americans viewed the urban riots as the inevitable outcome of centuries of repression, many more merely saw police standing aside while looters cleaned out stores and homes, then envisioned the same happening to their stores and homes, and armed themselves".

Neither work attempts a serious rebuttal of the anti-tyranny argument, and, in point of fact, I have never seen one. Gun-control advocates may regard the argument as anachronistic.

However, I can assure them, based on my many conversations with people who have called to complain about our editorial screeds against "gun nuts", that gun-control opponents regard the silence on the anti-tyranny argument as an acknowledgement that it is unassailable.

I believe the argument is eminently assailable, on grounds of simple common sense. The fear of mobs venturing out into the countryside is, to begin with, not a realistic one. Even if it were, hunting rifles would suffice for home defense. If one ventures on into the diaphanous realm of imagining a "Seven Days in May"-type takeover of the U.S. government, there are some things to keep in mind.

It's extraordinarily unlikely, for one thing, that all units of the armed forces would be loyal to the coup-makers, given the pluralistic traditions of our society. Many undoubtedly would go over, with their weapons, to the anti-tyranny side.

The anti-tyrannists might have to knock over an armory or two with their deer rifles. No one, after all, contends that citizens should be allowed to possess the full arsenal necessary to confront a standing army. Not even the National Rifle Association argues that every citizen should own his own howitzer. Or tank.

What's more, military history suggests that weaponry is not necessarily a decisive factor in the kind of conflict that might ensue. The American Indians, for example, had repeating carbines before the U.S. Calvary did, but it didn't help. The Viet Cong, to cite another example, had nothing like the firepower available to the American military machine, and yet the VC prevailed.

Going back to the beginning of our nation's history, the British Army was infinitely better equipped than Washington's forces, and we all know how that turned out.

In the final analysis, the success of American democracy has rested on two principal factors. One is our reverence for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, including the rights to free speech and to bear arms. The second has been the awareness that these rights have to be subject to a test of reasonableness, and that the criteria for that test can change depending on circumstances.

At present, a reasonable assessment of the guarantee to keep and bear arms requires some curtailment of that right. I don't see how anyone can argue with that--though I'm sure some people will.