The following excerpt from the book OKLAHOMA CITY: DAY ONE by Michele Marie Moore, published by The Harvest Trust in 1996, exposes the connection between the Oklahoma City Bombing and the subsequent draconian Anti-Terrorism legislation:

[beginning on page 130]: On February 10, 1995, the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill was introduced as S.390 in the United States Senate and as H.R.896 in the House of Representatives. It was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a charter to investigate political groups.

The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Joseph R. Biden, Jr (D-Del) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn): and in the House by Representatives Charles E Schumer (D-NY) and Norman D Dicks (D-Wash). The two bills were introduced simultaneously and were essentially identical. The bills were passed on by the Justice Department and the White House and prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, had bi-partisan support.

The original provisions of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill are summarized below:

*A general charter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies, including the military to investigate political groups and causes at will.

*It is a wide-ranging federalization of different kinds of actions applying to both citizens and non-citizens. The range includes acts of violence, attempts, threats, and conspiracies, as well as giving funds for a humanitarian, legal activity.

*Would allow up to a ten-year sentence for citizens and deportaiton for permanent resident non-citizens for the crime of supporting the lawful activities of an organization the President declares to be terrorist.

*the President's determination of who is a terrorist is unappealable and specifically can include groups regardless of any legitimate activity they might pursue.

The bill authorized:

*Secret trials for immigrants who are not charged with a crime, but rather who are accused of supporting lawful activity by organizations which have also been accused of committing illegal acts but have not been tried or found guilty, following secret proceedings with one-sided appeals, using illegally obtained evidence.

*The suspension of posse comitatus (power of county), allowing the use of the military to engage in law-enforcement activities regardless of any other laws.

*The reversal of the presumption of innocence. The accused is presumed ineligible for bail and can be detained until trial with no appeal.

*It loosens the rules for wiretaps.

*It would prohibit probation as a punishment under the Act even for minor, non-violent offenses.

There is one primary key to the intent of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill: the determination of who is a terrorist rested solely in the discretion of the President. The bill contained no guidelines to define "terrorist" with any specificity, and because there were no guidelines whatsoever, the President could even name members of an opposing political party as terrorists if he felt so inclinded. To do so, even without evidence or due process, would be an unappealable legal act.

A whim, a disagreement, a perceived threat to a political ambition, a personality conflict, the failure of a charitable group to support the reelection of the President, a Sunday sermon concerning a political issue -- an infinite number of things could without warning, lead to the criminal investigation of innocent persons by federal law-enforcement agencies or by the military.

The suspension of posse comitatus would instantly and retroactively legalize the Waco Massacre and any similar murderous activities that might occur in the future. Under these conditions it would be perfectly legal for soldiers to invade homes, confiscate possessions, arrest innocent persons without cause, or even commit murder if they were acting under the President's "terrorist" directive.

Under the provisions of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill, any person who might donate money or volunteer his time in service to a worthy charitable organization could find himself unexpectedly at risk. If the President decided -- for whatever reason -- that the organization was terrorist in nature, the honest and law-abiding donor would then become the object of a federal criminal investigation even though no illegal nor felonious activities had been perpetrated by the organization or the donor.

The Senate and House bills both repeatedly said that "lawful" and "legal" activities could instantly become "illegal" if the President so desired.

Once arrested, without evidence or probable cause, the accused could be detained indefinitely without bail or a timely judicial hearing, would be considered quilty until proven innocent, could be subjected to secret trials, secret proceedings, and one-sided appeals, and could be convicted by the use of illegally obtained evidence.

Without evidence of guilt established by due process, the President could at will make random determinations that could affect the life of any American who might do nothing more than disagere with White House policy or who might support a legal organization that held or opposed a particular political view.

Under these conditions it might become extremely dangerous for any American to do such politically incorrect things as write to his Congressman, attend political rallies, home-school his children, pray in his home, believe in the Bible or other holy book, own a firearm, hold a hunting license, subscribe to "underground" publications, possess "dangerous" books, befriend political activists, resist psychological profiling, refuse to respond to census takers, collect precious metals or numismatic coins, store food supplies, have military surplus or camping equipment in his home, or obtain voter registration with an independent political party.

The provisions of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill were completely totalitarian in nature, designed for use by a dictatorial government in a system where Creator-endowed rights did not exist, and where so-called human rights were arbitrarily declared, altered, denied, or discarded at will and in opposition to established legal precedent.

To disguise the real intent of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill, certain well-known organizations were named as terrorist agencies, such as the African National Congress, FMLN in El Salvador, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Irish Republican Army in Norther Ireland.

Yet while the government was using fear to motivate the public and pointing a finger at the above-named organizations, the Irish Republican Army was busy establishing offices in the United States with the blessing of President Clinton and the government of the United States. No one in authority was objecting to this; it was, in fact, encouraged. This bill was obviously NOT about any of the orgnizations or activities named by the framers of the bill.

The bill was specifically designed to give the President of the United States the ability to name whomever he wished as a political enemy for the purpose of that person's removal, and the appropriate media label would be "terrorist". One could also foresee, as a result of this bill, great strides in the effort to completely disarm the American people.

The Center for National Security Studies, noting the true purpose of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill, stated: "Since the new offense" -- international terrorism -- "does not cover anyting that is not already a crime, the main purpose of the proposal seems to be to avoid certain Constitutional and statutory protections that would otherwise apply".

This very bold move in Congress would require either the most extreme propaganda or the most extreme secrecy if the bill was ever to become law. As we would observe over the months following the Oklahoma City bombing, both propaganda and secrecy were evident in the attempts to pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill.

The breadth of the coverage of the S.390 and H.B.896 -- and their later incarnations, S.735 and H.R.2703 -- would make it impossible for the government to prosecute all assistance from around the world to groups that have committed violent acts or threatened to do so. And it would be clearly impossible for the government to painstakingly monitor every person or organization that might hold an opinion contrary to that of the President. Its condemnation necessarily would target organizations that the President -- or whoever influenced him -- found offensive at any given moment. People to be imprisoned or deported would be chosen specifically because of political associations and beliefs -- or whatever else might be considered dangerous, which could eventually include religious affiliations and activities.

These two bills, S.390(S.735) and H.R.896(H.R.2703) -- eventually lumped together by the media under the vernacular title, "the Anti-Terrorism Bill" -- were referred to the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House.

The introduction of the bills was almost completely ignored by the mainstream press. Only the New York Times made mention of it in a February 24, 1995 column written by Anthony Lewis that had been imported from another newspaper.

Because of unexpected intervening revelations from the political underground that publicly exposed many of the more dangerous provisions in the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill, the bill could not be rushed through the Congress on a fast track, as its supporters had desired. Once the truth was known, opponents of the bill mobilized quickly to try to stop the insanity.

For awhile it seemed that the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill was going to be mercifully stalled in the Congress indefinitely. But the Oklahoma City bombing struck a chord of fear and anger in the hearts of many unsuspecting Americans. Few Oklahomans experienced a day in the aftermath of the bombing in which they did not silently wonder if sudden death waited around the corner, and if it did, who might be the perpetrator.

Without considering that it would be absolutely impossible to legislate or guarantee freedom from death by terrorism -- regardless of the breadth and scope of any proposed leglisation, regardless of increased powers of federal agencies, and regardless of the number of police on the streets of our cities -- many Americans began to feel that their only hope of a real security rested in the "protection" offered by the federal government.

Governor Frank Keating's comments about "prudent and careful protective efforts" were just the beginning of the massive political manipulations that would be skillfully used following the Murrah Building bombing in an attempt to rush passage of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill.

One June 4, 1995, a group of survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, organized by Glenn Seidl, traveled to Washington, D.C. to lobby for passage of the bill. They knew little about what they were doing and were totally in the the dark concerning the actual language, provisions, and intent of the bill in its totality. These local "lobyists" - none of whom were completely inexperiened and had never been politically active in any situation previously - suffered from tunnel vision and focused on only one particular concern addressed in the bill: habeas corpus reform.

The writ of habeas corpus is a vital part of our judicial process that not only ensures that an accused party will be brought before a court or judge in a timely manner, but also gives the accused the right to obtain a write of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment. This writ demands an inquiry into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody.

There was a reason for the victims' concern. Fueling the debate over habeas corpus reform was the recent execution of Roger Dale Stafford, the infamous "Sirloin Stockade murderer" who, for almost two decades, had avoided execution through use of the appeals process. That grisly multiple murder had occurred in Oklahoma, and Stafford had lived on death row in an Oklahoman prison at the taxpayers' expense for seventeen years. His execution, which occurred shortly after the bombing of the Murrah building, served as a primary example of the perceived abuse of the appeals process and was used by the victims as documentation in their lobbying effort.

But of even greater concern to the victims was the fact that Roger Dale Stafford's attorney, who had so successfully kept him from execution for so long, was none other than Stephen Jones, the lawyer who had been appointed to represent one of the bombing defendants. The possibility that Stephen Jones could legally assist a convicted killer in the Murray Building bombing case to avoid retributions was a greater nightmare to the victims than the bombing itself.

The survivors of the bombing were understandably very vulnerable emotionally, and this was manipulated and played upon to achieve a political end. The surviving victims wanted revenge, they wanted blood, and they wanted it now. Their unseasoned political ambitions were driven by deep and overwhelming emotions, not by reason or a desire for justice. No indictments against any accused person had yet been handed down by any grand jury -- nor would they be for another two months. But that didn't matter. The men accused had already been tried and convicted by the media. Everybody "knew who did it" -- or so they thought.

The plans, meetings, actions, and political moves of this group of survivors were directed expertly behind the scenes by the State Attorney General's Office, which was working hand in hand with the federal prosecutors of the Murrah Building bombing case. If anything could mobilize the victims into a group of political activists, this was going to be it.

These "activists" may have meant well, but they were intentionally led astray by their legal counselors and handlers. They had only one point of view, and that perspective was controlled by their emotional fraility as victims.

In their minds habeas corpus reform would ensure that the murderers who killed their loved ones would be put to death in a timely manner. That habeas corpus also protected the innocent was not considered. It never occurred to these people that at some point in the future they themselves might be unjustly accused and imprisoned without trial, having no recourse to demand that cause be shown for their incarceration.

The group of victims and survivors did not realize that the issue of habeas corpus reform was a two-edged sword, especially in the Anti-Terrorism Bill. They could have been told. They could have been shown the implications. But it was the wish of neither the State Attorney General's Office or the federal prosecutors that these people understand anything. All that was required was that they make a moving, emotional appeal to Congressional power brokers and promote a political agenda they could not in all justice comprehend.

On June 7, 1995, after Glenn Seidle and a dozen other victims had met individually with certain senators in Washington, D.C. and then held an emotional news conference on the U.S. Capitol grounds, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an antiterrorism bill that included major changes in the appeals process.

Said then-Senate majority leader Robert Dole: "The families of some of the bombing victims traveled all the way to Washington ... to let us know that we must take action now to put an end to the endless delays and appeals that have done so much to weaken public confidence in our system of criminal justice. It is gratifying to see that their efforts had such a profound impact here in the Senate.

Several months before the victims' Washington meeting, President Clinton had said that he would support some type of habeas corus reform, but he had also written a letter to Robert Dole saying that he did not believe such reform should be a part of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. However, within twelve hours after the victims' press conference, Clinton appeared on the Larry King SHow and reversed his position, saying, "We need to cut the time delay on the appeals dramatically and ... it ought to be done in the context of this terrorism legislation so that it would apply to any prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in in Oklahoma."

This was the key to the big push, the big rush for passage. The grief and tragedy of the Oklahoma City bombing was going to be the cause celebre that would demand immediate response from the Congress.

While it is not unusual for crime victims and their families to become advocates for political and judicial changes, this situation was different. The victims had focused on areas in which some limiting reform was believed needed, but they had not been educated about the complete contents of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill. They had been led to believe erroneouslly that their desired habeas corpus reform could come by no other means than the pasage of this bill. In this respect the victims were used by government officials and federal prosecutors to promote a dangerous political agenda.

In a letter dated October 31, 1995, addressed to "All Murrah Bombing Victims, Survivors and Families," Glenn Seidl and thirteen other victims wrote and signed their names to the following: "The [State] Attorney General told us that he has no doubt this [the Anti-Terrorism Bill] was passed ONLY because of the message brought by the survivors and the victims' families ...

"However, we are now very concerned that our victory in the Senate, which we thought at the time to be the pivotal vote, will not necessarily mean that the reforms will become law. It has now been over five months since the pasasge in the Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives has still not acted to adopt any form of the Anti-Terrorism Bill that permits the habeas reform to become law. It appears that some Congressmen are very concerned about passing any form of the Anti-Terrorism Bill because of the controversies over the Waco hearings and Ruby Ridge. Opponents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill and habeas corpus reform are very powerful, and include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attornies, the National Rifle Association, and other powerful groups.

Our position is simply this: Whatever the concerns -- work it out. SOME FORM OF ANIT-TERRORISM MUST BE PASSED IN ORDER TO REFORM HABEAS." [Author's emphasis]

Unfortunately, Seidl and the other victims were mistaken in their conclusions. It was certainly not news that criminals sentenced to death had lingered for many years on death row, filing appeal after appeal to delay execution -- a situation that has caused great bitterness and continued grief for the victims of capital offenses. But it was NOT necesary -- or even remotely desirable -- for the Anti-Terrorism Bill to be passed in order to achieve habeas corpus reform. The victims and their families had been deceived.

Toward the end of Seidl's letter, the motivators behind the scenes were revealed. The letter stated, "If you are interested in participating, please feel free to contact Assistant Attorney General Richard Wintory or his legal assistant, Susan Hanna ... or Administrative Assistant Gerald Adams ... The Attorney General's office has served as a source of information and support for our efforts and has provided other technical assistance for our group."

The well intentioned survivors were being guided and instructed by officers of government who inteneded to propel the dangerous Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill thorugh the U.S. Congress on the backs of the victims, using habeas corpus reform as the driving issue.

Bud Welch, whose daughter Julie had been killed in the blast, was approached by the victims' lobbying group to participate in their political activities. He was at first eager to help, but when he learned more about the legislation and the proposed habeas corpus reform he withdrew his support. Realizing that the victims were being used to promote a political agenda that they did not understand (and to which he was opposed), Bud Welch wrote ... to Senator Orin Hatch when the Senate and House bills were being reconciled in committee.

...Bud Welch was the lone voice crying in the wilderness. The television media interviewed him just long enough to learn that he was strongly opposed to the Anti-Terrorism Bill, then cut him off, and never interviewed him again about this subject. Nothing could be allowed to interfere with the Anti-Terrorism agenda.

District Attorney Robert H. Macy made clear the political agenda in a letter he addressed to the chairman of the Senate-Judiciary Committee and one of the authors of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill, Senator Orin G. Hatch.

...Macy's vigorous letter fooled only those already being led down the primrose path. The truth still remained that habeas corpus reform might have been needed, but not at the expense of personal liberty. The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill was a poor vehicle for such reform, but it contained all of the cards that the federal government wished to play. It had already been a battle to the death, but it was far from over.

On August 19, 1995, four months after the Murrah Building bombing, President Clinton tried again to push for passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which was still stalled in the Congress. At the close of his radio address that day, Clinton stated, "It's hard to imagine what more must happen to convince Congress to pass that bill."

This thinly veiled threat has remained ominously present in the minds of all freedom-loving Americans ever since that date.

On October 19, 1995, six months after the bombing, Clinton complained at a press conference that Congress seemed to have forgotten about HIS terrorism bill. Said Clinton, "It's been six months since the Oklahoma City bombing ... [and] they still haven't passed the bill. They haven't even scheduled it for a final vote" - as if the Oklahoma City bombing was the reason that the bill should have already been signed into law.

But the reasons for the bill's failure to pass had nothing to do with scheduling. There was no partisan plot delaying passage. Between its introduction into the Congress in February and Clinton's complaints in October, many of the provisions of the bill had been made public. For patriotic Americans, the scope of the bill was horrifying and many heard the death knell of personal liberty.

David Kopel of the Independence Institute commented that both the House and the Senate anti-terrorism bills "define almost all violent and property crimes, no matter how trivial, as terrorist offenses. The bills thereby federalize virtually the entire criminal law."

Civil-liberties issues were causing many problems for the bill's Washington supporters, and the telephone lines to Congressional offices had been inundated with calls in opposition to the bill. Under attack were the bill's provisions that expanded the wiretapping powers of government law-enforcement agencies, the establishment of secret courts to deport aliens suspected (but not charged or convicted) of terrorism, and the arbitrary power of life and death given to the President or the Attorney General without guidelines or definitions. By October 1995 there were simply not enough votes to pass it.

Voicing his opposition to the bill, Representataive Don Manzullo (R-IL) remarked in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL): "I do not want to see the House fall into the political trap of reacting to a tragedy simply to be able to say it 'did something', because what I have found in H.R.2703 suggests we may be willing to compromise the integrity of the Constitution for the sake of responding to crime that would be impossible to stop through the standard legislative process."

...Early in 1996 the United States House of Representatives finally passed H.R.2703 and that bill was sent to committee to be reconciled with the Senate version, which had been passed in June 1995. After all was said and done, President Clinton was not particularly happy with the House version, stating that it had been watered down and all of its legislative teeth had been pulled.

In his radio address of April 13, 1996 - six days before the one-year anniversary of the bombing -- Clinton again pressed for a stronger anti-terrorism bill: "It is essential that Congress send me the RIGHT anti-terrorism legislation -- legislation that finally will give law enforcement the upper hand. When I met with leaders of the Congressional majority shortly after the bombing, they assured me that Congress would give the American people strong anti-terrorism legislation. They haven't. While the Senate passed a solid bill, the House absolutely gutted, it. Under pressure from the Washington gun lobby, House Republicans took that bill apart piece by piece. Well, nos it's time they put it back together."

Eventually the House and Senate versons were reconciled, and on April 24, 1996, five days after the one-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton signed S.735 and it became Public Law 104-132.

...As Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating began putting things in order by calling for "prudent and careful protective efforts," it became apparent that it was going to be necessary to paint the Murrah Building bombing with such broad and fearful strokes that terrorism would become the single most feared cause of death in America. Only in the grip of a paralyzing fear would the American people ever beg for dependable enslavement to rescue them from unpredictable liberty and its burden of personal responsibility. [end quoting at page 143 of OKLAHOMA CITY; DAY ONE, by Michele Marie Moore, published by The Harvest Trust, Eagar, Arizona]

MCVEIGH BOOKS & OKC PLAYERS (reader points out that some OKC links have been hijacked & now go to a site about US postage stamps)

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

PHOTOS OF THE MURRAH BUILDING (note white smoke billowing up is evidence of implosion):

MURRAH FEDERAL BUILDING IMPLOSION You Tube (7:00am on May 24, 1995. - a text-book example of a perfect implosion, identical to how the WTC Buidlings imploded 6 years later on September 11, 2001)

http://www.okcbombing.org/photogallery/81.jpg People on NW 6 run away from the Murrah building (after officials discovered what was thought to be a second bomb in the wreckage). OK Bombing Investigations Committee

http://www.okcbombing.org/images/1114.jpg PHOTO OF MURRAH BUILDING (after the Oklahoma bombing). OK Bombing Investigations Committee

http://www.okcbombing.org/photogallery/120.jpg MURRAH BUILDING BEING IMPLODED (evidence destroyed)