On Wednesday 6th April 2011, in closed session, read to Select Committee on the 8th floor Parliament ‘Beehive’ buildings Wellington, the following statement concerning the relationship between New Zealand’s Security Intelligence requirements, the Bill, and use of the 911 War on Terror as mandate for expansion of powers.
It is offered for the record here, because the papers and reference work submitted were tabled, therefore are now on NZ Parliamentary record.
Hon Rodney Hide, Hon Phil Goff, Rt Hon John Key, Dr Russel Norman, Hon Tariana Turia
Submission on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill
My name is Roger Morris. I am an artist , and I wish to speak toward power becoming more secretive, and its practitioners less accountable in a very dangerous world.
I note the advice of the Privacy Commissioner that review of security laws should take up to three years.
As far as I can judge, in according these POWERS to our State Security Service, we are relying on a trust that operational and Director behavior will prove honorable to the task, an honor historically proven susceptible to centralized power and external influence.[War Terror, Ahmed ZAOUI],
I recognize a violent world within which Intelligence allegiances, militarism and secrecy play an ever wider, ever more personally invasive role. Not necessarily protective of individual citizens rights involved in genuine advocacy.
A world dominated by the central narrative WAR on TERROR.
From which, in essence, the needs of this Bill derive.
A narrative now widely understood to be deceptive.[Weapons of Mass Destruction.]
Within this, New Zealand’s part becomes less its own and more one in alliance with a dominating world view. That world view encompasses reduction of Habeas Corpus rights on a global citizenship. Has mandated authority for itself to conduct illegal Wars, pre-emptive strikes, Occupation, Torture, Extraordinary Rendition and targeted assassination of suspects without trial.
This SIS Bill appears to streamline interoperability and compliance with outside agencies involved in the war on terror.
It appears to narrow power to the singular [Director], with no, or lesser, independent or Judicial review.
5AA The Director may delegate powers to a specified class of employees of the service.
Where is that class specified?
It is conceivable other intelligence services could be delegated power under this specified class to act within NZ Jurisdiction, who could also, in turn, purport or have purport, another person entirely unknown to act within NZ Jurisdiction.
5AA A person purporting to act under any delegation under this section is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, presumed to be acting in accordance with the terms of the delegation.
What if they are not?
Why would a person ‘purporting’ to act under delegation be presumed to be acting under delegation?
Of lesser concern, 5AAB allows for a director to initiate delegation, but not necessarily notify the next director.
However, these are material questions probably easily answered.
My primary concern is, that by enacting the BILL – even though I can see it as proper with regard combatting genuine high crime – notwithstanding that, but with regard the War on TERROR, by signing, we as a nation show further acceptance of and compliance with another BEHAVIOR altogether.
It is THAT connection that disturbs me.
If we accept and participate in WAR based on false premise – actually known deceptions [WMD’s. No fore-knowledge of 911];
a WAR declared illegal by the United Nations; a WAR that has killed and maimed and displaced millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan; now rapidly SPREADING; if we use that impetus – the WAR on TERROR – to empower our own state security apparatus to strengthen ITs power to surveil its own population,
what does that say to the purpose of surveillance?
In the world of technology and high crime, as said, I have nothing against enabling Law agencies tools to fight criminality at these levels – legitimate concerns balanced –
But the WAR on TERROR is something ELSE. It is a Fear based Narrative constructed to facilitate Wars of Aggression and used to justify greater State Secrecy and powers of Surveillance/information gathering worldwide, and now here through this Bill.
It is also a fast Devolving Fabrication. One built upon the Greater Deception of 911 itself. Something our Parliament has not confronted in any perceivable manner, but,
as the growing Forensic and other evidence gathered in the past ten years clearly show,
one which HAS to be contended with by the Representatives of the people of New Zealand, if we are going to continue to use it as justification for expansion of security LAW .
For your reference,
I wish to place on record the following items to back my statements that the ‘War on Terror’ is known Fabrication , and the 911 Commission Report an unproven THEORY needing immediate International re- Investigation ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
copy of a two year Forensic study of Dust samples from the 911 disaster.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
This document, a peer reviewed science study, categorically shows EVIDENCE of explosive residue – complex Military Grade, Super-nanothermite Incendiary/explosive in the DUST of WTC Catastrophe.
DVD copy of a public lecture by Mr Richard GAGE AIA to over 700 people at Te Papa, Nov. 2009, in which he presents the findings of 1400 registered Architects and Engineers world wide, who provide science/physics based evidence World Trade Center Towers one two and seven were destroyed by complex Explosive Controlled Demolition. That the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center complex is an unproven THEORY.
copy of “Top Ten Connections between NIST and Nanothermite industry”
http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html refer KEVIN RYAN
A reading list concerning “War on Terror” evidence of Whistleblowers to the fact that a] the 911 strike was actively reported to the Bush administration before 911 by U.S. Intelligence services[among others], and that the information was actively suppressed to facilitate the construct fraud ‘War on Terror’.
a. “Welcome to Terrorland” Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida .2004; ISBN-10: 0970659164; ISBN-13: 978-0970659163 and
b. Behrooz Sarshar Testimony of FBI coverup of pre-911 attack warnings [Agent Frields: “It never Happened.”]
c. Lt.Col Anthony Shaffer/Able Danger:
“We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=867
d. Sibel Edmonds, FBI Translator/Whistleblower. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497#
That “Weapons of Mass Destruction” were known by the Bush administration, through its intelligence and other agencies NOT to exist, but that that information was suppressed and the WMD lie was constructed to advance and conduct the Illegal Wars in Afghanistan and IRAQ. Now Pakistan Yemen and where else will be known in time.
Please reference :
1. Scott Ritter. [Shifting sands.] http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=27178 [WMD: weapons inspection]
2. Downing street memos. http://warisacrime.org/dsm [Manipulation/fabrication of Intelligence to facilitate War on Terror]
3. Susan Lindauer “Extreme Prejudice” ISBN 9781453642757 [CIA asset whistleblower. White-house Pre 911 knowledge]
Chapter 7, pp 89 ” It was not for lack of trying by those of us at mid-level, below the leadership. We raised the alarms. Alas, Republicans at the command level chose not to act.Instead, throughout the summer of 2001, the U.S. threatened Iraq with military retaliation “worse than anything they’d experienced before,” if a 9/11 style of attack occurred. Yes, U.S. intelligence abhorred the concept of a 9/11 attack, including my own handlers[Dr. Richard Fuisz, and Paul HOVEN]. But a handful of puppeteers controlling the stage at the highest levels of Government aggressively prepped some factions of U.S. intelligence to accept War with Iraq as the inevitable outcome of a 9/11 strike. In which case, they made no effort to block 9/11, so that they could fulfill their quest. It’s critical to understand that Intelligence is not a monolithic mega-entity but a community of factions, broken down into small teams. Once advance warnings about the World Trade Center enter into the equation, it becomes entirely conceivable that some different team within a competing faction, called an orphan, might have entered the world Trade Center in the midnight hours, and positioned explosives throughout the buildings, with the intention of maximizing the demolition impact whenever the hijacked airplanes struck the buildings.”
4. ‘Zelikow minders memo’ of active interference with 911 Commission interviews: http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/newly-released-memo-government-%E2%80%98minders%E2%80%99-at-911-commission-interviews-%E2%80%98intimidated%E2%80%99-witnesses-kevin-fenton/
5. The mysterious collapse of building 7. David Ray Griffin.ISBN 978-1-56656-786-2
6. the 911 Commission report. ISBN9780312450991
7. ‘911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.’ David Ray Griffin. ISBN-10: 1566565847; ISBN-13: 978-1566565844
8. NIST reports http://wtc.nist.gov/ FEMA report http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
9. Architects and Engineers pamphlet discussing physics similarities between WTC destruction and Controlled Demolition.
[paper copy attached] http://www.ae911truth.org/ 1,474 Registered Architects and Engineers calling for a new Independent with Supeona power Investigation into the destruction of WTC on 911.
10. David Chandler proof of free fall WTC building 7. Acknowledged by NIST.
11. john cole “the great thermite debate’