One World Religion


written in 2003

"World Church of Noahidism"

of the One world Order, Olam Ha Ba of the One World Despot

of the "Chosen" Master Race, who say in "Their Laws" they are gods.

Tractate Sanhedrin 

of the Books of satan's Talmud Bavli, the Oral tradtition of Mishnah Torah of the Illuminated whited sepulchres of dead men's bones, Chabad Lubavitch


Read them your selves, then condemn me all you desire.


The Social Laws Of Talmud Bavli, of the Sofiet Bolshevik's of Chabad Lubavitch Pharasites, the Illuminated elders of the synagogues of Satan, i.e, Universal Noahidism

The One World Religion of the One World Order of the False Messiah, Moshaich ben Satan

Penned by the scribes and the Pharisees after the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. Judaism IS NOT THE ROOT of Christianity

The set up for this One World Religion of their One World Order is accomplished. The Coup D' Etat 2000 appointment of their man, the Shull and bonesman, who admits that Jesus is his greatest Philosopher, Yet will never publicly tell the Public, that Jesus Christ is the Only Savior over all mankind, the man who compromised, and said, "Billy Ghraham and his mommy, told him that Jesus is not the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the jews do not need Jesus Christ the Only Everlasting and Holy Covenant, they have "Their Own Convenant".

This is Judeo-Churchizionazism at it's apostate best.

We are in the seventy weeks of Daniel's vision OF THE LAST DAYS.

The wall and the Street were begun in the week of June 13-19th

The troublous times are building a catastrophic tempo

there are wars and Homelandt Sekurity rumors of wars on invisible Terrorist, these wars designed to instill fear on the masses to forfeit their Sovereign God given rights, which the Peoples Government by the people for the people were founded, a Republic Democracy.

The Chabad Lubavitch of Talmudic Sofiet Bolshevik Ilk are pushing for their Universal Religion of Noahide to make all Gentile the slaves of the Pharastical Chabad Lubavitch and their "Lesser Brethren" the jews, which is a religion unto Baal and is not nationality. Many are in fear of the jews and are become twice the children of hell by the Leaven of these Pharasites.

The Pontifex Maximus in the Order of Nimrod, the High Priest at Rome is about to be moved for One who will seem as a Lamb of God, Goivanni Batista Ra.

This will happen before the seventy weeks are finished. He will ecumenically connect all apostate's to the vision to seat that king of Israel upon the Highest throne, showing that he is A messiah, that son of Perdition, the Moshaich ben Satan, of Talmud Bavli, the perversion of God's WORD.

Around November 2004, this beast will unleash a terror which will put the Theosophist half jew Hitler to shame, this time to Target true Christianity, "Perpetual Purim saints of Jesus Christ the Lord.

There is nowhere to hide, nowhere to run for us who know that we must "STAND FIRM".

Like soldiers, who have a good King, the King of Kings we have no fear and pledge our allegience only to him.

The Lord, will protect us. The Lord will avenge our blood.

They can only take the flesh, But we fear HIM who can destroy both flesh and soul, this is the second death, and we fear greatly the Living God the King, the Prince to the Throne of God in Heaven.

The son's of the synagogues of Satan who deny that Jesus is Lord over all, tremble at the Power the Lord of Host has given us to overcome the enemy.

Hold your ground, stand firm, for O'Death where art thou sting, Our Lord Christ Jesus is He, the Only who holds the keys to death and hell and Hell and death are defeated.

In Christ Jesus, Holy Name, Stand firm in your testimony of Jesus the Lord Almighty. 



Beware of the scribes and the Pharisees

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin


Folio 56a


GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.2  Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.3  How do you know that the word nokeb4  [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]5  whom God hath not cursed;6  whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.7  But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'8  as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]9  a hole in the lid of it,10  the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?11  — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.12  But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]13  by their names;14  the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?15  — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.16  An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob17  [and cursed],18  proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?19  You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,20  and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to.

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.21  It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?22  The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.23

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.24  — R. Isaac the smith25  replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,26  and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.27  Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?28  Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].29  This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. (Goyim Gentile) For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?30  — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?31  — The Torah employed normal human speech.32

Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;33  to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.34


  1. The witnesses, in giving testimony, do not state that they heard the accused say, 'May He slay himself', uttering the actual divine name, but use the word 'Jose' as a substitute for the divine name. 'Jose' is chosen as a substitute, because it contains four letters, like the actual Tetragrammaton, which must have been used by the blasphemer for him to be punished. Moreover, the numerical value of 'Jose' is the same as of Elohim [81]. According to Levy, s.v. [H], the first Jose [H] stands for Jesus ([H], son), and the second is an abbreviation of [H], Joseph, the Father, by which, however, God was to be understood. The witnesses were accordingly asked whether the accused in his blasphemy had set Jesus above God. (R. Joshua b. Karha, the author of this saying, lived at a time when Judeo-Christians ascribed more power to Jesus than to God.)
  2. As in the Mishnah, 'Jose strike Jose'. 'Bless' is here a euphemism for curse, and is so in the whole of the ensuing discussion.
  3. Lev. XXIV, 16. The repetition shows that the Divine Name must be cursed by the Divine Name.
  4. [H]
  5. [H]
  6. Num. XXIII, 8.
  7. Ex. XXII, 27.
  8. I.e., it is a capital offence to pierce the Divine Name, written on a slip of parchment, and thus destroy it.
  9. [H]
  10. II Kings XII, 10.
  11. Deut. XII, 3f. The interpretation is based on the juxtaposition of the two verses; v. Mak. 22a.
  12. The knife passes successively from one slip to the other, but one Name does not pierce the other.
  13. uceb
  14. Num. 1, 17.
  15. Deut. VI, 13, which is interpreted as a prohibition against the unnecessary utterance of His Name.
  16. The statement, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, though implying abstention from something, is nevertheless given as a positive command, but punishment is imposed for the violation only of a direct negative precept.
  17. [H]
  18. Lev. XXIV, 11.
  19. I.e., only he who both blasphemes, that is, utters the ineffable Name, and curses it, is executed.
  20. Ibid. XXIV, 14.
  21. Ibid. XXIV, 15.
  22. Lit., 'A man, a man', Heb. ish ish, [H].
  23. The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.
  24. V. infra 56b. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. Gen. II, 16. Every word or phrase in this verse is separately interpreted, the Lord teaching the prohibition of blasphemy to a Noachide.
  25. In the Talmudic period the Rabbi was an honorary official; consequently, he had to have a private occupation e.g., R. Joshua, who came into conflict with R. Gamaliel, was a blacksmith, (Ber. 28a.) others translate, charcoal-burner.
  26. I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred.
  27. Lev. XXIV, 15
  28. Ibid. 16.
  29. Ibid.
  30. That a heathen too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment.
  31. This is a difficulty For R. Isaac and R. Miyasha, as they explain the opinions of the Sages. They both maintain that the culpability of a heathen is deduced from And the Lord (God commanded etc.) When employing substitutes, his culpability, in the view of R. Miyasha is deduced from as well the stranger etc.; Whilst R. Isaac denies that it is punishable at all. Hence the difficulty, why the repetition ish ish, a man, a man?
  32. I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom.
  33. I.e., to establish courts of justice, or, perhaps, to observe social justice (Nahmanides on Gen. XXXIV, 13): Hast. Dict. (s.v. Noachian precepts) translates 'obedience to authority'.
  34. These commandments may be regarded as the foundations of all human and moral progress. Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law. But in the latter, it recognises that moral progress and its concomitant Divine love and approval are the privilege and obligation of all mankind. And hence the Talmud lays down the seven Noachian precepts, by the observance of which all mankind may attain spiritual perfection, and without which moral death must inevitably ensue. That perhaps is the idea underlying the assertion (passim) that a heathen is liable to death for the neglect of any of these. The last mentioned is particularly instructive as showing the great importance attached to the humane treatment of animals; so much so, that it is declared to be fundamental to human righteousness.


Sanhedrin 56b

R. Hanania b. Gamaliel said: Also not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal. R. Hidka added emasculation. R. Simeon added sorcery. R. Jose said: The heathens were prohibited everything that is mentioned in the section on sorcery. viz., There shall not be found among you any one, that maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them [sc. the heathens in Canaan] out from before thee.1  Now, [the Almighty] does not punish without first prohibiting.2  R. Eleazar added the forbidden mixture [in plants and animals]: now, they are permitted to wear garments of mixed fabrics [of wool and linen] and sow diverse seeds together; they are forbidden only to hybridize heterogeneous animals and graft trees of different kinds.

Whence do we know this? — R. Johanan answered: The Writ saith: And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.3  And [He] commanded, refers to [the observance of] social laws, and thus it is written, For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.4  The Lord — is [a prohibition against] blasphemy, and thus it is written, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.5  God — is [an injunction against] idolatry, and thus it is written, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.6  The man — refers to bloodshed [murder], and thus it is written, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.7  Saying — refers to adultery, and thus it is written, They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and became another man's.8  Of every tree of the garden — but not of robbery.9  Thou mayest freely eat — but not flesh cut from a living animal.10

When R. Isaac came,11  he taught a reversed interpretation. And He commanded — refers to idolatry; God [Heb. elohim] to social law. Now 'God' may rightly refer to social laws, as it is written, And the master of the house shall be brought unto elohim [i.e., the judges] (The Seventy Elders who sit on the seat of Moses) .12  But how can 'and He commanded' connote a prohibition of idolatry? — R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi-one cited the verse, They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, etc.13  And the other cited, Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.14  Wherein do they differ? — In respect of a heathen who made an idol but did not worship it: On the view [that the prohibition of idolatry is derived from] they have made them a molten calf, guilt is incurred as soon as the idol is made [even before it is worshipped]; but according to the opinion that it is from, because he willingly walked after the commandment, there is no liability until the heathen actually follows and worships it. Raba objected: Does any scholar maintain that a heathen is liable to punishment for making an idol even if he did not worship it? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.15  Now what does this exclude? Presumably the case of a heathen who made an idol without worshipping it?16  R. Papa answered: No. It excludes the embracing and kissing of idols.17  Of which idols do you say this? Is it of those whose normal worship is in this manner; but in that case he is surely liable to death? — Hence it excludes the embracing and kissing of idols which are not usually worshipped thus.

'Social laws.' Were then the children of Noah bidden to observe these? Surely it has been taught: The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honouring one's parents; 'Social laws,' for it is written, There [sc. at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance;18  'the Sabbath and honouring one's parents'. for it is written, As the Lord thy God commanded thee!19  — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The addition at Marah was only in respect of an assembly, witnesses, and formal admonition.20  If so, why say 'to which were added social laws'?21  — But Raba replied thus: The addition was only in respect of the laws of fines.22  But even so, should it not have been said, 'additions were made in the social laws'? — But R. Aha b. Jacob answered thus: The Baraitha informs us that they were commanded to set up law courts in every district and town. But were not the sons of Noah likewise commanded to do this? Surely it has been taught: Just as the Israelites were ordered to set up law courts in every district and town, so were the sons of Noah likewise enjoined to set up law courts in every district and town! — But Raba answered thus: The author of this Baraitha [which states that social laws were added at Marah] is a Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who omitted social laws and blasphemy23  [from the list of Noachian precepts] and substituted emasculation and the forbidden mixture [in plants, ploughing. etc.].23  For a Tanna of the School of Manasseh taught: The sons of Noah were given seven precepts. viz., [prohibition of] idolatry, adultery, murder, robbery, flesh cut from a living animal, emasculation and forbidden mixtures. R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam.24  R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you?25  — This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list].

Now, what is the standpoint of the Tanna of the School of Manasseh? If he interprets the verse, And the Lord God commanded etc. [as interpreted above], he should include these two [social laws and blasphemy] also, and if he does not, whence does he derive the prohibition of the rest? — In truth, he does not accept the interpretation of the verse, 'And the Lord God commanded etc., but maintains that each of these [which he includes] is separately stated: Idolatry and adultery.


  1. Deut. XVIII, 10ff.
  2. Therefore, since it is stated that they are being expelled as a punishment for these sins, they must first have been warned (i.e., prohibited) against them.
  3. Gen. II, 16.
  4. Gen. XVIII, 19. Thus 'command' relates to justice and judgment.
  5. Lev. XXIV, 16 — 'The Lord' being used in connection with blasphemy.
  6. Ex. XX, 3.
  7. Gen. IX, 6.
  8. Jer. III, 1. Thus 'saying' is used in connection with adultery.
  9. Since it was necessary to authorize Adam to eat of the trees of the garden, it follows that without such authorisation — i.e., when something belongs to another — it is forbidden.
  10. By interpreting thus: Thou mayest eat that which is now ready for eating, but not whilst the animal is alive. It is perhaps remarkable that a verse, the literal meaning of which is obviously permission to enjoy, should be interpreted as a series of prohibitions. Yet it is quite in keeping with the character of the Talmud: freedom to enjoy must be limited by moral and social considerations, and indeed only attains its highest value when so limited. Cf. Ab. VI, 2: No man is free but he who labours in the Torah.
  11. V. p. 361, n. 5.
  12. Ex. XXII, 7. The root idea of 'elohim' is power, majesty.
  13. Ex. XXXII, 8.
  14. Hos. V, 11, referring to idolatry; thus in both cases 'command' is used in connection with idolatry.
  15. V. Mishnah 60b.
  16. For which a Jew is not punished by death.
  17. Teaching that these are not punishable.
  18. Ex. XV, 25. Ordinance (Heb. mishpat) refers to social law.
  19. Deut. V, 16. This occurs in the fifth commandment of the second Decalogue. Similar words are used in the fourth commandment: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. In both cases then there is a reference to some previous event, shewn by the use of the past tense: commanded thee. Now the second Decalogue, though spoken by Moses towards the end of his life in the plains of Moab many years after the first at Sinai, was nevertheless a repetition thereof. Therefore this reference back must have been made in the first promulgation also, and can only relate to Marah, where, as stated above, 'he made for them a statute and an ordinance', i.e., gave certain laws to the the Israelites.
  20. I.e., that Justice should be meted out by an 'assembly'. viz., a Sanhedrin; that an accusation was to be attested by at least two witnesses, and that a formal warning or admonition was to be given to the accused before he committed his offence, as otherwise he was not liable to the prescribed penalty. But the sons of Noah, though bidden to observe civil laws, were not bound by these regulations.
  21. Since the addition was only in the method of procedure, but not in actual content.
  22. E.g., Deut. XXII, 19, 29, where a slanderer of a woman's honour is ordered to pay 100 silver shekels to her father, and a seducer of a virgin 50 silver shekels. These payments are not regarded as equitable indemnifications against loss sustained, but as fines for reprehensible acts. These laws were wanting in the civil code of the sons of Noah, and only these commands added at Marah.
  23. The text employs abbreviations for these commands.
  24. Which means that He commanded him to remember His Godhead, and not to reject it for a different deity.
  25. 'Let my fear be upon you' is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man.


The Goal, Destroy Christianity, Christ Jesus whom they reject for the "Robber"

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin


Folio 57a

for it is written, The earth also was corrupt before God;  and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, it must refer to immorality and idolatry.  'Immorality.' as it is written, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.  'Idolatry,' for it is written, Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image, etc.  And the other teacher [who deduces this from the verse, and the Lord God commanded etc.]?  He maintains that this verse [sc. the earth also etc.] merely describes their way of living.  'Bloodshed', as it is written, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, etc.  And the other?  — This verse [he will maintain] merely teaches the manner of execution.  Robbery, for it is written, As the wild herbs have I given you all things;10  upon which R. Levi commented: as the wild herbs, but not as the cultivated herbs.11  And the other?12  — He will hold that this verse is written to permit animal flesh,13  [but not to prohibit robbery]. Flesh cut from the living animal, as it is written, But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.14  And the other?15  — He may hold that this verse teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.16  Emasculation, for it is written, Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.17  And the other?18  — He may regard this merely as a blessing.19  Forbidden mixture, as it is said, Of fowls after their kind.20  And the other?21  — He will maintain that this was merely for the sake of mating.22

R. Joseph said, The scholars23  stated: A heathen is executed for the violation of three precepts — Mnemonic G Sh R—24 viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth objected: Now bloodshed is rightly included, since it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;25  but whence do we know the others? If they are derived from bloodshed,26  the other four should also be included; whilst if their inclusion is taught by the extending phrase any man,27  should not idolatry too be included?28  But R. Shesheth said thus: The scholars stated, A heathen is executed for the violation of four precepts [including idolatry]. But is a heathen executed for idolatry? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen. This implies that they are merely forbidden, but their violation is not punished by death! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Their prohibition is their death sentence.29

R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed30  or [seized] a beautiful woman,31  or [committed] similar offences,32  if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean33  against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'?34  But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, 'but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,' therefore the former clause reads, '[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.'35  But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'?36  — How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, 'forbidden' … 'permitted'? Surely it has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.]37  need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]!38 'And similar acts.' To what can this apply in the case of robbery? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered: To a worker in a vineyard [who eats of the grapes]. When so? If his is the finishing work, it is permitted?39  If it is not the finishing work, is it not actual robbery?40 — But R. Papa said: This applies to [the theft of] an article worth less than a perutah.41  But if so, why say that such robbery of a Jew by a Cuthean must not be kept: does he not forgive him?42  — Though he later forgives him, he is grieved when it occurs [therefore it is prohibited] — But how can you say that such robbery by one Cuthean from another is but a 'similar act' [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a Cuthean does not forgive,43  is it not actual theft? — But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.44  One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.45  To what can 'a similar act' apply in the case of a beautiful woman? — When R. Dimi came,46  he said in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hanina: To a heathen who allotted a bondwoman to his slave [for concubinage] and then took her for himself, for this he is executed.47

'A similar act', however, is not taught with reference to murder.48  Abaye said: If it should be, however, that it is so taught, it would be in accordance with R. Jonathan b. Saul. For it has been taught; If one was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, and the latter could have saved himself by maiming a limb [of the pursuer, e.g., his foot], and did not thus save himself [but killed him instead],


  1. Gen. VI, II
  2. And once they were punished for these offences, they must first have been admonished against them.

Part 2: Address by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson,

He, has put in the heart of the President of this country ("The king's heart is in the hand of the L-rd," cf. Proverbs 21:1) the desire to proclaim and publicize to all the citizens of this country - 

with the approval of the representatives of the people of the land



  1. Ibid. 'Corrupted his way' connotes immorality; cf. the way of a man with a maid. Prov. XXX, 19.
  2. Deut. IV, 16.
  3. How does he utilize this latter verse?
  4. But is not intended to imply a prohibition.
  5. Gen. IX, 6.
  6. I.e., who deduces it from the verse, all the Lord commanded.
  7. I.e., by the sword, v. p. 380 n. 5; but the fact of execution is taught elsewhere.
  8. Ibid. 3.
  9. I.e., only as that which grows wild, without any owners; but not as that which is cultivated, hence owned by someone. This proves that robbery was forbidden them.
  10. V. n. 8.
  11. Which was prohibited to Adam, v. infra 59b.
  12. Ibid. 4. 'Flesh with the blood thereof' means flesh cut from the living animal.
  13. V. n. 8.
  14. V. infra 59a, b.
  15. Ibid. This, of course, is a direct negation of emasculation.
  16. V. p. 386, n. 8,
  17. But it is not intended to convey any prohibition.
  18. Ibid. VI, 20; hence different species are not to be crossed.
  19. V. p. 386, n. 8.
  20. It being easier to mate with the same species than with another; but no prohibition is implied thereby.
  21. The term be Rab does not necessarily mean the school presided over by Rab, though it may have that meaning occasionally. In one sense, it connotes the school founded by him, but lasting many generations after his lifetime. In another, it denotes schools in general. In this very instance, the views attributed to be Rab conflict with the teaching of Rab, Rab Judah, and all his disciples (Weiss. Dor II, p. 206.)
  22. [H]: a mnemonic is given to facilitate the remembering of the subjects of a discussion. Here it stands for Gilluy 'Arayoth — adultery; Shefikuth damin — murder; and birkath ha-shem — blasphemy.
  23. Gen. IX, 6.
  24. That as bloodshed was forbidden on pain of death, so were the others too.
  25. Heb. [H]. Lev. XXIV, 15: Any man ([H]) that curseth his God shall bear his sin. Ibid. XVIII, 6: No man ([H]) shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. In both cases one referring to blasphemy, and the other to incest, the repetition of ish extends the law to embrace heathens too.
  26. Lev. XX, 2: Whosoever he be (ish ish ) of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Moloch (i.e., engages in idol worship); he shall surely be put to death. The repetition then, here too, should extend the death penalty for idolatry to heathens.
  27. I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death; for only in speaking of Jews is it necessary to distinguish between prohibition and punishment.
  28. Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.
  29. In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]
  30. Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.
  31. 'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).
  32. [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]
  33. But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
  34. Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.
  35. Both are regarded as robbers the latter because they permit their charges to graze in other people's fields.
  36. One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible, therefore he is forced to speak of punishment.
  37. E.g., the gathering in of the grapes. Deut. XXIII, 25 is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to work in connection with the finishing touch given to the produce.
  38. Not merely bordering thereon.
  39. A small coin, one-eighth of the Roman as.
  40. One does not mind such a trifle, and readily forgives it.
  41. Even such a trifle, v. infra 59a.
  42. This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses
  43. I.e., non-actionable.
  44. R. Dimi was a Palestinian Amora of the fourth century, who travelled to and fro between, Babylon and Palestine, and was very zealous in transmitting the teachings of Palestine Scholars to his colleagues in Babylon (v. J. E. IV, 603; cf. p. 361, n. 5, supra.
  45. This, though not actual robbery, is similar to it.
  46. A deed is either actual murder or not. Even unwitting murder is murder, though the Almighty shewed mercy by sparing the murderer.


Sanhedrin 57b

he is executed for his death.

R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars'  Book of Aggada:  A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;  this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].  At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;  And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;  at the hand of man:  but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed.  What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother's womb.10  But the first Tanna [who excludes the murder of an embryo from capital punishment] is a Tanna of the school of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation. He connects the [second] 'man' with the latter half of the sentence, and interprets thus: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, within man [i.e., within him], shall his blood be shed. Now, how can man's blood be shed, and yet be retained within him? By strangulation.

R. Hamnuna objected: Now, is not a [heathen] woman commanded [to keep the social laws]? Surely it is written, For I know him, that he will command his sons and his household [which includes the womenfolk] after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to exercise charity, and judgment?11  — He raised the objection, and he answered it himself: he would command 'his sons' to exercise judgment; 'his daughters' to perform charity.

R. Awia the elder said to R. Papa: Let us say that a heathen woman who committed murder must not be executed, since it is written, at the hand of every man [who committed murder] etc. implying,12  'but not at the hand of woman'? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: Whoso sheddeth man's blood implies whosoever it be [even a woman]. Let us say that a heathen woman who committed adultery is not executed, since it is written, therefore shall a man forsake [his father and mother, and cleave to his wife], implying12  that a man [must cleave], but not a woman? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: The verse, And they shall be as one flesh, reassimilated them to each other [making the law of fidelity applicable to both].

Our Rabbis taught: [A man, a man shall not approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.13  It would have been sufficient to state,] A man shall not approach etc. What is taught by the repetition, A man, a man? — The extension of the law to heathens, that they too are forbidden incest [including adultery]. Now is this deduced from this verse; is it rather not deduced from a different text, viz., [And the lord God commanded…] saying, which refers to adultery?14  — The latter text refers to adultery with a woman of their own [i.e., with a heathen married woman]; the former to adultery with one of ours [i.e., a Jewish married woman], for the second clause teaches: If he committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law. With regard to what is this?15  — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: With regard to an assembly, witnesses and formal admonition.16  Is a Jewess then of less account?17  But R. Johanan answered thus: It is with regard to a betrothed Jewish maiden,18  whose violation by heathen law is not a capital offence;19  hence they are judged by Jewish law.

But if their offence was against a fully married woman, are they judged according to their law? Surely it has been taught: 'If a heathen committed adultery with a [Jewish] betrothed maiden, he is stoned; with a fully married woman, he is strangled.' Now if we judged them according to the law pertaining to them, should he not be decapitated? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: By a 'married woman' this Baraitha means one whose huppah ceremony20  has been performed, but without the marriage being consummated. Since by their law her violation is not a capital offence, they are judged by ours. For R. Hanina taught: They recognise the inviolability of a woman whose union has been consummated, but not if she merely entered the huppah without the union having been consummated. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: All prohibited [sexual] relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens, but those for which a Jewish Beth din (Temple)  does not impose death are permitted to heathens; this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: There are many relationships21  for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death, which are nevertheless forbidden to a Gentile. If a heathen committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law; if with a heathen woman, he is judged according to heathen law. The only difference that this makes is with respect to a betrothed maiden.22  But should not the Tanna include a woman whose huppah ceremony has been performed without the marriage being consummated? — The teacher of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the college of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation, and by both codes [Jewish and heathen] this last-mentioned offence is punished by strangulation.

Now, is R. Meir of the opinion that all relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens? Surely it has been taught: A proselyte,


  1. Yet this cannot be regarded as real murder, and hence may be called 'a similar act'. But the sages dispute this, and maintain that he is not executed at all.
  2. V. p. 387, n, 7. It may also mean the School of Rab (Bacher. Agad. Bab. Amor. p. 2).
  3. Aggadah (or Haggadah, from nagad, to declare), means the whole non-legal portion of Jewish learning. Here however, an actual law is cited from the Book of Aggadah. In the T. J. and Midrashim, many statements cited in the T. B. as being from the Book of Aggadah of the schools, are those cited under the name of Noachian precepts. Hence it is possible that the reference is to a collection of laws relating to Gentiles, and in order to distinguish it from specifically Jewish laws, it was called the Book of Aggadah (Weiss, Dor, III, p. 158).
  4. Gen. IX, 5.
  5. The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, 'I' will require.
  6. This is based on the extending word 'every'.
  7. This is based on the singular.
  8. Not the same phrase in Heb. as the preceding one.
  9. Lit. rendering of Gen. IX, 6.
  10. This law was directed against the Roman practice of prenatal murder. Weiss, Dor, II, 22.
  11. Ibid. XVIII, 19. Why then should a woman's testimony be inadmissible?
  12. According to Rab Judah's exegesis.
  13. Lit. rendering of Lev. XVIII, 6.
  14. V. p. 383.
  15. Since by the Noachian Law also he is liable to death.
  16. He must be tried by a full Sanhedrin; he cannot be convicted on the testimony of less than two witnesses, and he must have been formally admonished before committing the offence.
  17. I.e., is he dealt with more leniently because his offence was against a Jewess? For when his offence is against a heathen, these are unnecessary.
  18. V. p. 333, n. 3; p. 337, n. 5.
  19. As they do not regard her as married until the actual consumation of the nuptials.
  20. V. p. 333, n. 3.
  21. The Gaon of Wilna deletes 'many': Maimonides likewise does not include it in his text. Actually, the dispute of the Sages and R. Meir is only in reference to a half sister by one's mother.
  22. Tosef. 'A.Z. IX. Since heathen law does not recognise this as a capital offence, he is judged by our law. This statement supports R. Johanan's contention




If they, the Goyim do not establish "Our" us, the "Chosen" Talmudic Babylonian Satanic Universal Noahide Laws, then they must die, as according to our g-d the "Robber"

Human Personality
By Avi Polak

In this week’s Torah portion we read about the rape and abduction of Dina and the consequences suffered by the people of Shekhem. Rabbi Y. Nachshoni’s commen-tary (Studies in the Weekly Portions), can illuminate for us some events at home and around the world and the psychological reasons behind them. “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore (from the circumci-sion), that the two sons of Ya’acov, Shimon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, took each man his sword, and came upon the city (Shekhem) with confidence, and slew all the males”. (1) Why should all of society be punished for one man’s wrongdoing? Wasn’t the House of Ya’acov brought up as a house of mercy and compassion? What did the people of Shekhem do to deserve the death penalty?Let us analyze this story to understand what happened to cause such an abrupt and fatal ending.Malbim on our passage gives three reasons justifying Shimon and Levi’s action.a) The community was jealous of Ya’acov’s wealth and planned to kill him and his family in order to acquire their wealth. (The action was defensive.)
b) Shekhem (the leader) committed a publicized abduction and rape of Dina. The people of Shekhem completely disregarded what he did and did not punish him. (The action was offensive.)
c) The community actually defended the perpetrators when Yaacov’s sons de-manded Dina’s Return. (The action was both defensive and offensive.)Rambam gives a halakhik explanation for what happened to the people of Shekhem. The world is divided in to two separate populaces, the
Jews and B’nei Noach, the rest of the world. The B’nei Noach have only seven obligatory commandments, the Noahide Laws, compared to 613 commandments that the Jews have to observe. Al-though the Noahide Laws consist of only seven commandments, they are of such 
significance that any violation of them is punishable by death. (2)After Shekhem kidnapped Dina, according to the Noahide Laws, he was liable for the death penalty.
The rest of his community deserved the same punishment due to the fact that they had no judicial system. These offenses are two separate command-ments of the Noahide Laws.
Ramban disagrees with Rambam. The judiciary systems were meant for settling business disputes. Furthermore, the community of Shekhem could not have been liable for death for this reason. Punishment is only meted out for a prohibitory com-mandment (lo ta’aseh) and not for a positive commandment (‘aseh). Ramban states that
they deserved death for a different reason. Their sin was idol worship. (3)Chatam Sofer points out that a Ben Noach who transgresses a positive command-ment, he deserves the death penalty even though he is not executed for it. (4) His interpretation of Rambam is, that since the people of Shekhem deserved to die, Shimon and Levi were not held accountable for the murders.Chemdat Yisrael returns us to the original explanation. Rambam clearly states that the community of Shekhem were not just killed. Shimon and Levi had a legal obliga-tion to administer the death penalty: It is very good to have a society with laws, but if there is no one to enforce them, the laws themselves are worthless. Even though, theoretically, they accepted upon themselves the Noahide Laws, because of their failure to appoint anyone to enforce them, they all, as a community, deserved the death penalty. As we see in the Talmud, establishing a judicial system and ways to enforce it are part of the same commandment. (5) Already Rambam observed: “A person is created such that he is drawn—in his per-sonality traits and his actions—after is fellows and associates.” (6) In the words of 
modern psychologists:“The individual lives in a social setting. From his first breath he is in contact with other individuals. For a while he is dependent on them for the preservation of 
his life. Later he is dependent upon them for the molding of his personality and character - for their ways become his ways and their life his. As we see the individual taking on the ways of his fellows and his eventual conforming to their preferences, we might be able to account for what we see in terms of laws and principles of individual psychology.
The group does affect the behavior of the individual. The society functions as an organized entity. As it does so, it has its 
way with the individual. It teaches him, sets standards for him, defines the limits within which his behavior must be contained. But at a more general level of analysis it does this also through the definition and enforcement of social roles. The group, in order to survive and function, defines and enforces standards of proper and improper behavior.” (7)
Last year’s riots in Los Angeles is one such example. The riots began as a result of corruption in the judicial system and continued because of the lack of law enforce-ment. Another example is the recent lynch in Ramallah. As a rule, murder in any so-ciety is not tolerated and looked down upon with disgust. We see today, in various instances around the world, what are the psychological effects when no judiciary system is enforced. A corrupt enforcement agency reinforces an even more corrupt society. It leads to a total disregard for the establishment and whatever is identified with it. 
In memory of all the soldiers who were killed for Clal Yisrael.

Thus we should behead all the disobedient goyim chattel?


1. Genesis 34:25
2. Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14
3. Genesis 35:2
4. Chatam Sofer, Responsa VI 14
5. Tractate Sanhedrin 56 
6. Hilkhot De’ot 6,1
6. Psychology, A Scientific Study of Man, Fillmore H. Sanford, 531-536 

Avi Polak
Jr. Editor - Dvar Torah U’Mada, Jerusalem College of Technology, Machon-Lev


It is a very real and a very present danger. The Scholars of the world are arguing and strategising for the enforcement of the One World religion unto Satan, their Universal Noahide Laws of the scribes and the Pharisees. They seek to murder the followers of Christ Jesus, Just as they sought to kill Jesus. Thus...


After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him

On the subject of Shechem. I would raise the following question. According to the opinion of (I think) the Rambam that the extermination of Shechem was justified because the inhabitants of Shechem were culpable for not enforcing the law against the rape of minor child still under the custody of her father (apparently the rape of an unmarried adult is not necessarily a per se violation of the seven Noahide laws for which they would have been culpable) are all the citizens of the United States culpable for not preventing abortions which are a violation of the seven Noahide laws? Would one be allowed, under this reasoning, to kill American citizens, either individually or collectively? Just to avoid any misunderstanding, let me say explicitly that we know that that can't be right. The question is does that question disprove, as I think it does, the opinion that the extermination of Shechem was justififed, or is there some way to distinguish between the two cases? David Glasner

The societal obligation of establishing a judicial system is one of the seven Noahide laws. It is a responsibility incumbent upon every nation and every society. The opening Mitzvah in this week's Parsha states, "Establish for yourselves judges and enforcers in all your cities." Is this different than the general Noahide obligation for creating a judicial system or is it the same? If it is different, how is it different? If it is the same, why did G-d command the Jews separately from the other nations?

There are three components to a judicial system. 1. Establish laws for the proper functioning of society. 2. Appoint judges who will judge with wisdom and integrity. 3. Empower a police force with the ability to enforce the laws of that society.

Whether Jewish or non-Jewish, the three components of a judicial system are necessary. There is however one significant difference between the Jewish and the non-Jewish judicial systems. The non-Jewish nations are responsible for making laws and enforcing them. Their laws must support the basic tenets of the Seven Noahide laws but the rest of the system is up to them


You had better damn well see why the jews always bring upon themselves opposition. It is a threat that NO True AMERICAN Christian can tolerate.

So the Bushka Regime of Satan and his Order of Skull and Bones must enfore the laws of their g-d unto all the WORLD

While these laws make sense, and could be the basis of a peacefully world, they cannot be actualized without a system of courts to uphold, interpret, investigate and prosecute cases. This is why the last of the seven commandments is to establish a court system to bring these laws into reality.
In March of 1991, President George Bush signed into law a Congressional resolution (H.J. Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14) stating that "...ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws; ...without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos..." It goes on to state that Americans must not "lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future...."
While we are currently unable to establish such courts to enforce the Seven Laws, we can meanwhile accomplish this mitzvah by teaching others. Only when people have this knowledge can they act to fulfill their role in G-d's plan for creation.
The American justice system is quite close to what an ideal Noahite court would look like: judges, witnesses, a trial based on evidence, logic, and testimony. There are some differences. There is not such a lengthy appeal process in a Noahite Court. Here a decision is made, and it is final. In America, there are people that spend years and years in jail, while they are appealing their case.
There are also certain requirements for a judge. He may not receive or give any sort of benefit from the litigants, this is considered bribery. It is forbidden to have mercy on a poor person, rationalizing that a rich plaintiff has an obligation to support the poor, therefore deciding so that the poor will be supported with a livelihood. Also, it is forbidden to pay prejudicial respect to a great person. If two litigants appear in court, the judge may not ask about the welfare of the great one nor express pleasure at his presence, nor give him honor in any way. The judge must not favor either party until judgment is finished. A judge must not think that since the litigant is so great a person, it is unseemly to embarrass him.
Once a judge was entering a boat to cross a river. A man who had a case was on the boat and stretched out his hand to help the judge aboard. The judge told him, "Now, I am disqualified to judge your case."
G-d intends for us to live in harmony with each other and with the rest of His creation. In order to ensure that all our efforts are channeled in a positive, constructive direction, He established a set of laws by which we are to live our lives. Unfortunately, there are those that selfishly choose to rebel against G-d and work toward destructive ends. Without having a means to enforce the Laws, we would be unable to maintain social order and provide for the good of humanity. Therefore, the existence of courts of justice is necessary to enforce G-d's commandments.

Moses was commanded to enforce the Noachide laws and severely punish those who did not keep it.


Duke University

ELON, Menachem: "The Legal System of Jewish Law," 17 New York Univ. J. of International Law and Politics (1985), 221 - 243. [also in Golding] ELON, Menachem: "The Ethiopian Jews: a Case Study in the Functioning of the Jewish Legal System," 19 New York Univ. J. of International Law and Politics (1987), 535 - 563. ENKER, Arnold: "Aspects of Interaction between the Torah Law, the King's Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law," 12 Cardozo L. R. (1991), 1137-1156. ENKER, Arnold: "Lex Talionis: The 'Plain Meaning' of the Text," 2 S'vara (1991), 52-55.

SHILO, Shmuel: "On One Aspect of Law and Morals in Jewish Law: Lifnim Mishurat HaDin," 13 Israel Law Review (1978), 359 - 390. [also in Golding] SHILO, Shmuel: "Kofin Al Midat S'dom: Jewish Law's Concept of the Abuse of Rights," 15 Israel Law Rev. (1980), 49 - 78. STONE, Suzanne Last: "Siniatic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law," 12 Cardozo Law Rev. (1991), 1157 - 1214. WEINRIB, Ernest: "Rescue and Restitution," 1 S'vara (1990), 59 - 65. [also in Golding]


By law, made by the People's representatives, enforced by the Jewdicial, backed by Congress, signed by the Executive





[PDF]Symposium on the Norms and Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention, ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... against the view that every state has a right to enforce natural law ... of prohibitory
precepts, approximated in codes like the seven “Noahide laws” identified ... - Similar pages


Rabbinical Court Document
... must appear to be the guardians of the covenant of Noah?' Under the Noahide covenant
if ... all the parties and that this Court has no temporal power to enforce it ... - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Matthew 12:

25: And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27: And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28: But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29: Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.


Military Policy Research
1993:02258 Boycott, crime, and sin: ethical and Talmudic responses to injustice abroad Noam J Zohar Ethics & International Affairs

Examines the ethical issues surrounding use of the boycott as a weapon of economic warfare, in terms of the 'halakha' (system of moral and religious precepts) laid down by the Noahide Code. Details some defects exposed by application of the precepts to the cases of Iraq and Yugoslavia, for example in relation to the supply of oil: "the point is not that soldiers, like other people, need to keep warm, but rather that the same substance that keeps people warm is also used for driving tanks... it seems wrong to let the Serbian military use their own people as hostages to the point of compelling us to supply them with the means of continuing their crimes against the Bosnians".
Director, Center for Halakha, ethics and medicine, Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem. A useful analysis of the problem of complicity that arises in cases of 'trading with the enemy' (or with middlemen known or suspected of so trading). It also canvasses the question whether the sovereignty of wrong-doing states affects the legitimacy of intervention differently, according to whether military intervention or economic warfare (by means of sanction or boycott) is in issue.

Category Codes: N1, A4.10

Jewish Law - What's New


George Bush, appointed by Schneerson

to trigger

WTC, Homelandt Sekurity, Patriot Akt II & 

 "Purim Saddam" "Purim Palestine""Purim Saints" or obey Universal Noahidism, in the master "Race" Olam Ha Ba. The almost Perfect deception. 

With careful study and understanding, of the coup d' etat which occured in America when the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as per direction of the Chabad Lubavitch rebbe, Schneerson the seventh Tzadik of the generation, who his followers say, is the eighth, the "Revealed" messiah of the Jews, it will be easily discerned what is indeed happening after the WTC, and the "War on Terror" that the pimp of the whore, the United States of Greater Israel is waging on all nations and on all peoples who are opposed the the "One World Order" and the Universal Relgion of Noahidism of the Olam Ha Ba.

I pray that prudent Christians of the "Truth" type, the saints who will stand firm in spite of the fear mongering and the false accusations, understand and tell many, and lead many into Righteousness of the Only Righteous, Christ Jesus, the Lord over All. Creation of Terror on American shores, benefited Israel more that all the nations on earth, in their "Palestinian Problem" and ethnic cleansing. It also established a precedent to control the World, and to enforce the New World Religion of Talmud Bavli's Universal obedient Noahide Religion unto satan, the "Robber" they have made their god. The two opposing tribes, Judah and Dan are fighting spuriously for the seat of the Throne of total despotism for all the globe. By peace, and sekurity, they shall soon begin to murder opposer's to this Occultic rule, wonderfully. If you attempt to save your lives in fear of the jews, and reject Christ Jesus and deny that he is Lord over all mankind, you will only prolong your flesh for four to five years at the most, for Jesus Christ is coming with great wrath, and terrible jealousy, and all who worship after this beast, the son of perdition, the false Messiah, will be cast into the Pit of fire and will gnash and gnaw their teeth forever.

Keep in mind as you read, that Trotsky and Lenin were jews sent out from New York City, to Russia in 1917, to begin the long planned precess of experimentation of this Despotic Talmudic Rule over the masses. Millions of Christian and non Christian Gentiles were slain at the hands of these Chassidim of Talmud Bavli. Talmudism is Judaism is communism is socialism is Unversal Noahidism of the occultism of satan. Mystery Babylon in the order of Nimrod and One World Order. To be enforced by the useful idionts of the Freemason Noachite's in their global temples and courts of "Justice". Solomon the apostate, fell for their system of worship, these are the lackey's of Lucifer. 

Does Ariel Sharon (Arik Sheinerman) consult his Illuminated rabbi?

* Critiquing in Blue Font


Page 1

Does Ariel Sharon Consult His Rabbi? How Israeli Responses To Terrorism Are Justified Under Jewish Law. David Rosen Emory University School of Law Jewish Law March 5, 2003


Page 2

Does Ariel Sharon Consult His Rabbi? How Israeli Responses to Terrorism are Justifiable under Jewish Law TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel ................................ ............... 2B. Defining Terrorism................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5II. Responding to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 6A. Is Terrorism An Act of War................................ ................................ ........................... 61. Type of War................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 72. Required Procedures of War ................................ ................................ ....................... 83. Authority to Engage in War................................ ................................ ...................... 104. Limitations on Going to War................................ ................................ .................... 12B. Governmental Responses to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 131. Obligations of Israel to Respond to Terrorism................................ ........................... 142. Wartime Justifications for Engaging in Assassination of Terrorists........................... 143. Justifications for Taking and Destruction of Property Under the Laws of War .......... 184. Limitations on Infliction of Collateral Damage During Wartime............................... 20III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act ................................ ......... 24A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act? ................................ ................................ ....................... 24B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law................................ ................................ .... 251. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists ................................ ................................ .. 252. Obligations of Palestinians Under the Noahide Code................................ ................ 273. Ability and Obligation of Israel to Enforce the Noahide Obligations........................ 29C. Authority of the Court to Impose and Enact Criminal Law................................ ........... 30D. Government Responses to Terrorism as a Criminal Act................................ ................ 331. Justification to Assassinate Terrorists Under Criminal Law ................................ ...... 342. Criminal Law Justification of Destruction of Property................................ .............. 43IV. Responding to Terrorism Under the "King’s Justice" .......................... 46A. What is the Royal Prerogative?................................ ................................ .................... 46B. How the King’s Authority Translates to Israeli Governmental Authority...................... 47C. Authority for the Government to Apply King’s Justice................................ ................. 47D. Application of the King’s Justice to Israeli Responses to Terrorism ............................. 491. Permissibility of Assassinations under the King’s Judicial Authority........................ 492. Destruction of Property under the Royal Prerogative................................ ................ 503. Justification of Deportations using the "King’s Justice"................................ ............ 51V. Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ 52


Page 3

- 1 I. Introduction The ultimate difficulty in considering the legality (or illegality) of governmental responses to terrorism under Jewish law is the inherent nature of Jewish Law as a system of duties. Unlike a system of rights, such as those that dominate the secular democracies of our world, a system of duties seems fraught with danger. We can imagine the difficulty. How would our world change if the United States Constitution prescribed a duty to speak freely, a duty to bear arms, or a duty to protect our privacy? How would an individual deal with a situation where on one hand they had a duty to speak freely and on the other hand they had a duty not to defame another? The individual, as well as the state, would have much greater difficulty in deciding the correct course of an action when it was placed on a continuum of conflicting duties instead of listed in the simple matter as being legal or illegal. By ascribing to all individuals a system of duties, ( Universal Noahide Laws, HJR 104, Public Law 102-14- 1991)  rather than rights, the concept of choice is itself almost alien. What is a right in a secular law system? The term itself connotes a capability, a permissible means one has at their disposal to achieve a chosen end. A duty, however, seems to remove individuals from the realm of choice and lead them down a path toward requirements, obligations, and responsibilities. Thus, for every action, and inaction, there must be by definition some penalty for not fulfilling that duty. While rights tend to be divided in two distinct categories, those rights of individuals and rights of the State, duties are more varied. One’s own obligations could vary depending on status, class, ability, intelligence, age, and authority. So too, in changing circumstances, the duties may arise one instant and disappear the next. The other difficulty is the conflict between positive and negative duties mandated by Jewish Law. Some duties state affirmatively that one must act in a specified manner. Other duties state that certain actions may not be taken. Of course, these positive and negative obligations sometimes conflict. In response, one must understand which obligation controls, and whether the controlling duty is one that must be taken, or is merely permissible. Only by understanding the interrelation of these conflicting duties can it be understood whether Jewish Law will permit, or require, a desired course of action. The question thus becomes one of understanding how, in the context of a government responding to terrorism, the Israeli government has a duty to act or not to act, and that the actions they take are obligations under Jewish Law. So how can this difficulty be reconciled? In response to suicide bombings, sniper shootings, and car bombs, a secular government has a right to react. By analyzing these same responses under Jewish Law, though, the Israeli government has a duty to act. The choices they make will either fulfill their legal duty or violate their duty. In response to these acts of terror thrust upon the citizenry by Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli government has acted. They have undertaken a complex system of penalizing terrorists and attempting to preclude the commission of future terrorist acts. By assassinating terrorist leaders, deporting terrorists and their families, and destroying


Page 4

- 2 homes of suicide bombers, the Israeli government is engaged in an extensive array of legally questionable activity. The Israeli Supreme Court has decreed that all of these actions are legally permissible under Israeli law. Clearly, the Torah

 (Oral Torah Mishnah and the commentaries of the rabbi's, Gemara, which make of none effect the Written Word of God)  

does not speak directly on the subject of terrorism. For that matter, few if any commentators have discussed the legality of these actions under Jewish Law. However, in the Talmud, (Talmud Babylon)commentators including Maimonides, Nahmanides, Ritva, and Ran et. al. have laid the groundwork to analyze these problems. 

who they call, master or rabbi of the Illuminated Elders of zion

By discussing Jewish Law responses and obligations in regard to homicide, capital punishment, destruction of property, banishment, and the role of State governments, (not Israel alone....but  Nations)  the responses to terrorism under Jewish law may be studied. The goal of this paper is not to pass judgment on the morality of these actions but to identify how, under Jewish law, these actions may be justified. Rather than identifying whether the actions of the Israeli government would necessarily be the correct course of action under Jewish Law, the aim of this paper is to show how one can justify the actions of the Israeli government based on existing law. A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel A brief history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is necessary to understand the context of the terrorist attacks and responses thereto. Beginning in 1948, Israel has been at odds with the Arab world. The newly formed United Nations passed resolution 194, commonly known as the UN partition plan, which divided Israel into two halves, one reserved for the Arabs living in Israel (later identifying themselves as Palestinians) and the other for the Jewish people. However, immediately upon the resolution passing, the Arab countries decreed that they will "drive Israel into the Sea." The Arab countries asked that all Arabs living in Israel leave the area or join their brethren and fight off the "Zionist Scourge." The Arabs did leave, either heading for Jordan or Egypt or joining five Arab nations, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in their quest to destroy the Jewish people. In a miraculous victory, the Jewish people won the war of Independence and held the land not only reserved for the Jewish nation, but also much of the land originally reserved for the Arabs. Following this defeat, the Arab nations vowed to strike again and continued throughout the next eight years to engage in various small attacks on the Jewish people. These 3,000 cross border attacks resulted in the deaths of 922 people. Thereafter, Egypt led a coalition organized by Nasser to once again destroy the Jewish people. This came to be known as the Suez War. Once again, Israel defeated their attackers. The next 11 years continued to be deadly. Hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist attacks including murders, bombings, illegal landmines, and sabotage led to hundreds more dead and thousands more wounded. It was during this time that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formed (the precursor to the Palestinian Authority). The PLO’s first terrorist attack was an attempt to bomb the National Water Carrier on January 1, 1965. It should be noted that almost all of the terrorist attacks were those against


Page 5

- 3 civilians. Rarely were Israeli troops targeted by Arab attackers. These attacks led to furthering of animosity and eventually led to the Six Day War.In May-June 1967, Israeli-Arab relations began to worsen. Egypt led the charge once again. They blocked the straits of Tiran, preventing any Israeli commerce from entering or leaving the country. They removed the UN peacekeeping forces from the Sinai desert, and mounted troops along Israel’s border. The tension began to mount and Israel was in dire straits, their economy stifled and random attacks occurring daily. Finally, Israel could take the blows to their economy and military no more and launched a strike to destroy those that prevented the functioning of the country. In a single day, Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces. Six days later, Israel had not only defeated their attackers but had also captured Judea (the West Bank) from Jordan, Samaria (Gaza) from Egypt, as well as the whole of the Sinai desert. In response, the United Nations passed Resolution 242, decreeing that Israel will negotiate some agreement with the Arab peoples that would give back some of the land taken in return for peace. Various drafters agree that the resolution called for removal of Israeli troops from territories captured but nowhere states that Israel must withdrawal from all the territories. The Arab nations, however, disagree. Since that resolution, the Arab nations attacked once again on Yom Kippur 1973. Israel once again repelled their attackers. However, since that time, the Palestinians began to receive more public recognition as an entity separate from the Arab world. They engaged in numerous terrorist attacks to make themselves known to the world including hijacking planes in Europe, murdering members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 in Munich, and hijacking the Achilles Lauro cruise ship killing an American Jew on board.

(U.S Liberty attacked by Israel murdering  34 US Military personell, blamed on Arabs, 1967)

Yet, the more deadly the attacks became, the more support the Palestinians received for their cause. This support led to the United States led 1979 Camp David Peace Accords which traded the Sinai desert and $3 billion dollars a year from the United States to Egypt in exchange for an agreement not to attack Israel and a relinquishment of the rights to the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians, however, grew in power. Yasir Arafat led the organization to national prominence and even caused them to receive recognition first in the UN, then by the United States, and finally by Israel. 

(Arafat appointed by Israeli zionist and American zionist, CIA)

Various peace agreements have been reached to stop the thousands of yearly terrorist attacks planned by Arafat and the Palestinians yet all of them have failed and the terrorist attacks still continue. Even after Jordan relinquished all rights to the West Bank in 1996, the Palestinians remain diligent in their quest to have Israel return all of the territories captured from Jordan and Egypt to the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. In 1998, Ehud Barak offered 95% of the land in Judea and Samaria to Arafat in exchange for peace. 

A talmudic zionist Chabad Lubavitch no no

From this page to page 27 is a one sided justification to build the plot and a case for Global despotism of the Master Race, "Chosen"

I am going to skip to page 24.



Page 24

- 22 This introduction to the Jewish ideas on the sanctity of life identifies the context in which a discussion on collateral damage must be discussed. 

Excellent example of the Terminology to be used by the testing of the water of "Terrorism" in the US, used by Timoty McVeigh, "Collateral Damage"

The idea that we should inflict the minimum necessary harm led to Maimonides’ comment that "it was permitted to only surround a city on three sides so that they might flee from the beleaguered city."133Even in wartime, the Jewish people did not want innocent people to be accidentally killed, therefore, a means of escape must be provided. Ranban too agrees that life is of overriding importance requiring that one have mercy on one’s enemies as they would have mercy on one’s own.134In response to these sages, more recent commentators have extended these thoughts to the issue of collateral damage. 

Rabbi Michael Broyde noted that "Jewish law would allow the unintentional killing of civilians as a necessary (but undesired byproduct) of the moral license of war."135Rabbi Bleich agrees with this sentiment. He asserts that "no . . . Rabbinic source takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian problems in the course of hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a Halachic or moral problem."136In the context of war, it would seem that inadvertent civilian deaths would be permissible when the goals themselves of war are legitimate. Israel then has Halachic sanction for collateral damage sustained during the course of normal wartime responses. In the realm of hand to hand combat and responses to actual attacks, Israel’s inadvertent civilian deaths caused are morally, and legally, permissible.

Yet, they do not allow the Palestinian's in the time of war the luxury of "Collateral Damage"?

 When situations such as the recent fighting in Jenin are considered, this is viewed as legitimate: 

The war criminal Arik Sheinerman (Ariel Sharon mass murdered tens of innocent women and children

On April 2, 2002, in response to multiple suicide bomb attacks and knowledge of terrorist planning and preparation, The IDF entered Jenin in order to round up militant terrorists. Jenin, the home of top Islamic Jihad officers, was a haven of terrorist activity. The IDF had specific targets in mind, top Islamic Jihad terrorists known to have planned and committed numerous atrocities, killing many Israelis. Seeking merely to take captive the terrorists, Israel knew at least some violence was likely. It turned out that even the mild hopes of minimal violence would turn out to be wishful thinking. Violent fighting broke out between the Palestinian militants and the IDF troops. Many of the residents of Jenin fled, while others opted to stay. The IDF stopped no civilian from leaving the territory, in fact they encouraged them to do so. However, in the nine days of fighting, 22 civilians who stayed were killed when used as human shields by Palestinian terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the gunfire between terrorists and IDF troops.137In the case of Jenin, and similar instances, Israel followed the law as laid down by Maimonides, permitting and encouraging civilians to flee the field of battle. Yet, for those who stayed, knowing the circumstances, and that fighting is ongoing, they are no longer considered innocents under Jewish Law, but have changed their status to that of combatants.138Warning of impending attacks, using even bullhorns and public displays


Page 25

- 23 to encourage civilians to leave dangerous areas are just part of the responsibility that Israel has undertaken in their quest to eliminate civilian casualties.

Just as they did with Rachel Corrie? Was she considered to be "Collateral Damage"?

Again, the US tested the preverbial Terrorist water and mass murdered "Collateral Damage" David Koresh (Cyrus) to see what the reaction of Noahide enforcement would be from the American People. Hardly even buzz of anger from the US Sheeple. So then they will go a forward step in their experiment to the masses.

 However, would we distinguish between these civilians, killed in the hand to hand combat, from those who are killed because of their proximity to a terrorist assassinated by guided missiles, targeted bombs, and other similar means? On its face, these deaths would seem to be distinguishable. The Jewish tradition discusses the field of battle. After all, those who remain in the field of battle are "classified as combatants because the opportunity to leave is continuously present."

Those who stand firm for their Sovereign rights given by the Creator...."Collateral Damage" of the Olam ha Ba

139It would seem then that one who is killed by the mere circumstance of being nearby to a terrorist target would fall outside of the realm of permissible collateral damage. However, that is not the case when dealt with from the perspective of this war. 

The commentators (rabbi's of Talmud Bavli) discussing the field of battle only dealt with traditional war fought on the battlefield. It is not so clear when we are dealing with a war that cannot be fought in an organized manner. We have defined the field of battle in this war as being unconfined, unbounded, and unknown to the public. 

see Busk's address to the Nation "Purim Saddam" the US war on Terror, when in fact Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC attack. This attack was well cordinated by the "Experiment" to enforce global Noahidism.

The streets and homes themselves are military targets because of their occupants. After all, it is from there they do all of their planning, and some of their attacking. By judging the terrorist actions to be an act of war, the terrorists, wherever they are, are deemed on the extended battlefield.

140The occupants with them, with few exceptions, have been associates of these terrorists who knew full well the dangers and the possibility that an attack could come at any moment. Even in the case of Saleh Shehada141, the civilians killed, including children, were members of his own family.

The three year old had a chance to flee, using his very own discretion, by his on mobility


142Yet it was known that he traveled with his family in order to make himself less of a target. In fact, he was known to never sleep in the same place for more than a single night. So were those members of Shehada’s family in the line of fire? Not only would we consider them to be in the field of battle but it was Shehada himself who had put them there. He attempted to use his own family as a human shield.

Yeah, right

 Just as the Jewish people would have sanction to kill a commander fighting in the plains of Jericho even if his family was standing alongside him, Israel had moral sanction, when other methods proved futile, to kill him despite the inevitable civilian casualties that would, and did result. 

in the name of peace, destroy wonderfully


Because the civilians killed are in the field of battle, has Israel abided by the Halachic limitations on permissible collateral damage? While Israel has an obligation to limit collateral damage, the deaths that due result in lawful fighting are permissible under the Halacha. While some specific instances could prove questionable or even show liability, we must judge Israel’s actions on the whole to determine if any breach of Halacha sanction has occurred. We do know that Israel has encouraged civilians to leave the field of battle, encouraged the Palestinian people to stay away from known and wanted terrorists, and have used many safeguards to prevent civilian casualties. While the Palestinian people have some cause to complain over the approximately 400 civilians killed, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is below the number of Jewish civilians killed, many of the civilians were killed during traditional fighting, many Palestinian civilians killed have been later found to be terrorists themselves (or children and

this is an absolute distortion of casualty fact. Palestinian civilian's are slain three to one.



Page 26

- 24 teenagers attacking Israeli troops), (Throwing rocks at Tanks) and the remainder are justified in order to save further lives. (Precog Justice)  Judging actions against terrorism to be an act of war proves to be a difficult task. The Intifada has many components, some which mimic traditional battlefield encounters while others seem far removed from any classic definition of war.143For that reason it is difficult at best to understand responding to terrorism solely as an act of war

Perpetual unlimited war against opposition


While that Talmud (Book of Satan, of the Pharisees)  provides invaluable advice on how to approach these problems, the sages can in no way have foreseen how warfare, and terrorism, would be waged in the 20th century. It is my contention that many of the facets of this conflict may be correctly viewed, and justified, under the laws of war. These would include the legitimacy of acting at all, engaging in assassinations of military leaders, and having Halakhic sanction to permit a minimal amount of collateral damage. In comparison, other actions taken by the government, including deportations, certain killing of terrorists, and destruction of property in many circumstances are not correctly viewed as acts of war, nor can they be justified as such. Therefore, only by further analyzing this conflict using other aspects of the Halacha can Israel’s actions against terrorism be fully justified. 

III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act By responding to terrorism under criminal law, Israel would be forced to treat terrorists in a similar manner that they do other criminals. Some of the components of terrorism including the political purpose, the organization, and the intent to put fear in the populace must be functionally disregarded and the State must instead apply the rule of law to these terrorists.144However, justifying government actions in response to these activities requires an analysis of analogous acts that the sages have discussed throughout the centuries. To discuss responses to terrorism under criminal law, this paper will analyze the following: 

(1) Is terrorism a criminal act; 

(2) How should Palestinian terrorists be punished under the criminal law and what law should apply to them; 

(3) What is the court’s jurisdiction to impose criminal law; and 

(4) Can the government responses to terrorism, assuming they are criminal acts, be justified. 

A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act? Are acts of terrorism, and responses thereto, correctly treated under the criminal laws defined in the Talmud? 

The making of obedient Goy Noahides

The specific actions taken by terrorists have been traditionally treated under the criminal law. From random murders and bombings to stone throwing, the acts of terrorism undertaken by the Palestinians facially appear to be criminal acts. Because the acts themselves are taken not under the authority (at least not publicly stated authority) of a state, and the members are not a member of any recognized military force, criminal law would seem to be the correct measure with which to judge these acts.


Page 27

- 25 The key difference between criminal and military actions is the distinction between public and private acts. Because the terrorist actions do not have explicit public sanction, they would be viewed as criminal acts.

 This seems even more true when the terrorists are actually citizens of the country they are attacking. 


In the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, this distinction is less clear because the Palestinians are not citizens of the state of Israel. 

Because you can only be a citizen of Israel if you are a "Chosen" Master Race of superior beings, jews.

The terrorist actions taken may be viewed as private acts, although this is not as clear as it would seem. If we placed terrorist acts on a continuum between acts of war and criminal acts, it would seem that acts of terrorism would fall in the middle. The question is then whether terrorist acts would be more akin to the criminal acts than to acts of war; it would not be difficult to see them as such.

 In the same vein that terrorist acts have been viewed to be quasi-military acts,145we could also see them as quasi-criminal acts and thus viewed under the criminal laws of the Halacha.

The key questions in analyzing terrorist acts under criminal law involve the rules that govern criminal acts as opposed to the rules that govern the State’s response to criminality. So when is something a crime? In the Halacha, crimes are identified explicitly. These crimes have been extended through Talmudic interpretations and the application of common law in the Jewish Law system. From laws governing murder to commercial transactions, the Halacha delineates what constitutes a crime in Jewish Law. Most of the crimes in American law parallel their counterpart in Jewish law.

Setting up the Supreme Talmudic Courts in America

 There is, however, a larger emphasis on civil law and restitution that would entail many of the crimes that are described in American law to be punishable by restitution and civil penalties rather than penal sanction. Furthermore, unlike a secular system, the laws of obligation in Jewish law specifically prohibit certain acts and prescribe a duty to engage in others. The affirmative act/omission dichotomy dominates how Jewish law treats criminal acts. For the purposes of this discussion, describing terrorist acts, the acts for which terrorists are complicit are crimes under the Halacha. Murder, stone throwing, planting bombs, abetting murder, etc. would all be individual crimes under the Halacha. Therefore, the individual acts that terrorists engage in are criminal acts and Israeli government responses may be treated as responses to those acts. B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law One of the difficulties in analyzing terrorist actions under the Halacha is that Halachic law does not apply to non-Jews. 

But soon will

While we must gauge Israel’s actions under Jewish law, how do we handle Palestinian actions? Throughout history, Jews have treated gentiles (non-Jews) under a different standard of law.

All the way back when they controlled the Roman Empire, and beyond to Babylon, see the setting up of Haman.


146In order to determine how we can correctly assess the culpability as well as appropriate sanctions for terrorism under criminal law, I will discuss (1) What is the correct law that applies to Palestinian Terrorists; (2) What are the Palestinian obligations under that set of laws; and (3) Whether Israel has the ability, and/or the obligation to impose punishment on Palestinians. 1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists


Page 28

- 26 What Law is applicable to Palestinian terrorists? Jews are judged under the Halacha. The Torah states: "Judges and officers shall you make in all your gates . . . and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."147Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven Gerondi (Ran) commented that Israel, unlike other nations, is required to "render just and true judgment" and only then will "divine grace will be visited upon our people."148This comment illustrates that Jews are judged under a different standard than are other peoples. As Rabbi Bleich notes, Judaism posits a parallel legal code that is binding on all humanity, the Noahide Code. 

So here we are, at last.....the reason for 911, the Olam Ha Ba and the "Revealing" of their King Despot of the World 


149The Noahide code describes the seven commandments that were binding on the sons of Noah: the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, sexual offenses, bloodshed, theft, and eating the flesh of a living animal as well as the affirmative obligation of dinim, to establish courts.150Rabbi Bleich notes that these laws are applicable to all mankind.

151While these laws differ from obligations under Jewish law, Rabbi Kook states that while the Halacha as administered to Jews is based on the Torah,

the Noahide laws are based on "fundamental human honesty.

Not based on anything but the Criteria the Master Race, the Chosen, who were chose for Salvation, but who chose the "Robber" establish for mankind.

"152Some commentators have expanded on the Noahide laws inferring greater requirements than just the facial prohibitions. Nahmanides found that many of the Halachic laws including those as pertaining to extortion, commercial transactions, rape and seduction, overreaching, and personal injuries among others also apply to the "descendents of Noah."153He notes that these obligations are inherent because human society, even prior to the Revelation at Sinai, followed many established legal norms.

Law of Hammurabi

154Despite the expansion of the Noahide code as it pertains to non-Jews, it has been noted that the Noahide code is less restrictive than the Halacha. 

Only Decapitation penalty, for breaking any one of the Talmudic Noahide Laws as set forth by your representatives in Washington the District of Isis, 1991,. HJR 104, Public Law 102-14

In criminal law, punishment may be imposed by a court using testimony from a single witness and the court may be composed of a single judge.

155Rabbi Kook asserts that the laws don’t follow the same stringent standards of the Halacha because they "are rooted in common decency, an affinity for justice . . . in everyday matters, an abhorrence of blatant evil . . . common to all men on earth" 

and not in the holiness of the Torah.

156In sum, the laws of Noah provide that apply to non-Jews are the natural law inherent in mankind.

Note the Judge Roy Moore "Get Rid of the Ten Commandment" Uniform code request to the Supreme Talmudic Court....the "Natural Laws" included on the monument

157The Torah views that all men must be governed by some laws. While less restrictive, the Noahide law still provides a way to ensure that non-Jews may be governed and punished in a Jewish legal system. The common sense approach to creating these laws shows that all people should have the internal desire to affirmatively do certain acts and more importantly, not engage in those acts that are "blatant evil."

See George Bush, the appointed president " Axis of Evil" If you aint with us then you are against us, address to the nation

158All non-Jews, in fact all people on earth (including Jews), must abide by the Noahide laws.

So America Must be prompted to enforce these laws. Must stir the masses to the Task. Sacrifice 3,000 Goyim and wake them to the Terrorist of Israel and to henceforth protect the "Chosen" Master race of the World's most Bigoted Haters, them who "SAY" they are jew, but who ARE NOT the seed of Abraham in faith of Christ Jesus, according to the Promise, but who are Liars of useless geneology and who are of the synagogue of Satan and his Mystery Babylon, that Whore City which all the kings of the Eart partake.


159The Halacha incorporates the Noahide law, so these laws would apply to Jews as well, but in many cases are more stringently defined for the Jewish people. Because the Palestinians are defined in Jewish law as "descendents of Noah" they must abide by the Noahide code. All the restrictions, obligations, and requirements inherent in the Noahide laws would, and should, apply to the Palestinians. Because these


Page 29

- 27 laws are less restrictive than Halachic standards, applying the Halachic standards would be incorrect. Furthermore, while it would seem that Jews are applying a system of laws on the Palestinians, these laws in fact "bind all humanity" and the Palestinians are treated no differently than any other group.

America, understand the Plan of the Schneerson appointed Bush regime. Understand the Ashcroft Patriot Akt which protects the "Chosen" Master Race of the Skull and Bones Babylonian Creed. Understand the reason for the Homelandt Sekurity in the Sofiet Bolshevik creed. The Laws which say "If any worship after Jesus Christ, they are to be decapitated, by the Laws of Universal Noahide of Satan. Wake up all ye People and come out of this Great Whore and her deception. Jesus warned you of the leaven of the Pharisees and the doctrine of Demons of Satan. These are they whom the Lord warned who say they are Jews, but are Liars and are anti-Christ, denying that Jesus came in the flesh, Salvation according to the True Law and the Prophets of God in Heaven. The Redeemer, the Word which Abraham believed.


160The purpose behind enacting the Noahide code is that law governs man, and all men must be governed by some law in order to ensure that there is no lawless society. So too, the Jewish nation, like all nations, must have some standard with which to apply to non-citizens in order to correctly implement their own standards on those with whom they have contact.

 By applying the Noahide code on the Palestinian terrorists, we can correctly ascertain the degree of culpability and the proper punishment for those who violate the law. 

Prepare for the beginning of decapitation, first beginning with the Palestinian's under the little god's rule

Council on Foreign Relations

Where does the word "terrorism" come from?
It was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94. Originally, the leaders of this systematized attempt to weed out "traitors" among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty, but as the French Revolution soured, the word soon took on grim echoes of state violence and guillotines. Today, most terrorists dislike the label, according to Bruce Hoffman of the RAND think tank

Is terrorism a new phenomenon?
No. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. For instance, in first-century Palestine, Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators

Is terrorism aimed at an audience?
Usually, yes. Terrorist acts are often deliberately spectacular, designed to rattle and influence a wide audience, beyond the victims of the violence itself. The point is to use the psychological impact of violence or of the threat of violence to effect political change. As the terrorism expert Brian Jenkins bluntly put it in 1974, "Terrorism is theatre."

Copyright ©2003 Council on Foreign Relations.
All Rights Reserved.


The Theatre of zion the gods


2. Obligations of Palestinians Under the Noahide Code The Palestinians, like all other peoples, have obligations under the Noahide code. 

These obligations are separated in two main components, the prohibitions under the law including the prohibition against murder and theft, and the affirmative obligation of dinim, to create a just legal system.

The seventh Law to establish courts of Noahide law

161I will describe the requirements of Noahide commandments by showing the obligations under the laws of Noah and how these obligations have been upheld or defied by the Palestinians

The Talmud describes the six negative commandments of the Laws of Noah as prohibiting (1) murder; (2) blasphemy; (3) theft; (4) sexual immorality; (5) idolatry; and (6) eating the flesh of a living animal.162For the purposes of this discussion, and acknowledging that the Palestinians are Muslims, the requirements of blasphemy, sexual immorality, idolatry, and eating the flesh of a living animal are upheld by the Palestinian society. 

These too are the requirements that many secular societies do not see as unlawful. 

The Palestinians, Arabs are much, much more obedient Noahides than, US "Christain haters"

The prohibitions of murder and theft, though, are universal in their acceptance by the peoples of the world. The other main requirement of the Noahide code is the requirement of dinim (laws). Dinim refers to the requirement of nations to impose a set of laws to create a "just legal system" in order to create an orderly society.

163Rahum Nakover asserts that "just as the Jewish People are commanded to establish courts, so too are the descendents of Noah required to establish courts."164This requirement is due to the emphasis that the Torah places on establishment of a legal system. As Rabbi Jacob Anotoli notes, the requirement of dinim is imperative because "wholeness cannot be attained until men are possessed of regulations that govern social discourse."165As Maimonides remarked, requiring dinim would ensure that "the world would not be destroyed.

If not global war will ensue soon. By fear, they propagate.

"166The Talmudic sages have also noted that the requirement of dinim was not just to create a legal system but a just legal system. As Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) explained: "Noahides are commanded to keep the local conventions, and to judge justly between man and stranger."167This point is further underscored by the comments of Rabbi A.Y. Karelitz (Hazon Ish) commenting that "the Noahides became obliged to establish laws of honesty and right behavior."168Only by enacting laws that lead to a just society can the Noahide pursuit of justice be maintained.169

Thus the Supreme Court Judges are predominantly Talmudic, and work to destroy the existing Constitution of the Unites States of Christian America, and replace the legal system with the system of Mystery Babylon and Satan, who will destroy wonderfully when implemented.


Page 30

- 28 Maimonides (Mammon-Eyes) noted that the unstated requirements necessary in a legal system are embedded in the requirement of dinim.170Further, the obligations of dinim do not just require the appointing of judges but the laws of dinim include such matters as theft and extortion.

No Elected Judges

171A dissenting voice can be heard by Rashi as he understood the laws of dinim to be not even the enacting of laws but just the appointment of dayanim and shofetim (judges and priests).

Freemason Temples and Talmudic synagogues

172As Rahum Nakover explains, this is because Rashi felt that only by appointing judges can the commandments be promulgated throughout the land.

Revived Sanhedrin of the scribes and the Pharisees of Chassidim of Chabad Lubavitch

Added July 16,2006......I warned.....Then in October 13, 2004 the Sanhedrin was revived....Now Jump forward three years to the War of Desolation Noahide News part 530

173By appointing a system of judges, who adjudicate over the land, and do so to create a just society, with the pursuit of justice, the Palestinians would fulfill the requirement of dinim as handed down to Moses at Sinai. 

Keep in mind that the command to Restore Jerusalem unto the ONLY MESSIAH, the ONLY Prince and the WALL and the Street, see was April 20-24, vocalized on Beltaine Day, May 1, 2003. The Wall construction was begun the week of June 13-19, seven weeks later.

seventy weeks are determined, then they shall "REVEAL" their Moshaich ben Satan, who was and is not and yet will come. The Sanhedrin will be revived sometime between November 2004 to Jan. 2005

Added July 16, 2006....this was written in 2003....indeed the Sanhedrin was revived according to Prophecy October 13, 2004, Now Jump to the war unto desolation which is Begun three years l;ater, Noahide News part 530

The Palestinians must abide by the Noahide prohibitions against murder and theft in order to be free of blame in the ongoing conflict. While there have been relatively few reports of stealing and theft related to the Intifada, the prohibition against murder weighs heavily in the forthcoming discussion when specific acts are analyzed according to Jewish law principles. By committing acts of murder, the Palestinians are liable under Jewish law to be penalized under Halachic criminal law.


Melakhim, ch. 9, 10). One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws

subjects the Noachide to capital punishment by decapitation (Sanh. 57a).




 Despite the acts for which they are liable under the Halacha, have the Palestinians fulfilled the biblical commandment to appoint Dayanim or, similarly, impose a set of just laws? There is no dispute that, at least recently, the Palestinian Authority has created a court system and imposed a system of laws which, at least facially, appears to meet the requirements of dinim. But have these laws led to a just society? Have their laws been in the pursuit of honesty and right behavior? 

The Palestinian Authority basic laws have not been put in final form but an International team of lawyers drafted a set of laws so that they may have a just society.

Were any of them perhaps Shipiro or Dershowitz the torturer?


174To date, though, the Palestinian Authority has not enforced these laws in a manner as required to be judged to have fulfilled their Noahide obligation. A multitude of violations of even their own laws have been decreed by various international organizations. From lack of enforcement in the realm of intellectual property and pirated media,175arbitrary arrests,176political prisoners,177to the imposition of capital punishment178the Palestinian Authority has become a den of lawlessness not enforcing even their own basic laws. 

The Palestinian Authority may have the infamous distinction as the country with fewer capital punishments imposed by the court then have defendants standing trial for capital crimes be murdered during the proceedings.179Even the Human Rights Watch, which regularly decries Israel’s use of "extreme" violence, has found numerous instances of accused collaborators being sentenced to death in court sessions lasting less than 90 minutes with no right to appeal.

180Israel too has rejected the trial of the Palestinian terrorists who killed the Israeli Defense Minister, Rehavem Zeevi, when they were sentenced to one year in prison.181These examples illustrate that it is clearly disputable whether the Palestinian Authority has enacted dinim to the standards required by the Halacha.


Page 31

- 29 In comparison, other countries have enacted just laws that parallel closely not only the Halacha, but international law standards as well. Examples of these countries would include most of the countries in the world, including Israel.

USA new Talmudic System of evil of the supreme master race, the :"Chosen" are ye gods?

It must be noted that very few, if any, countries have legal systems that parallel the Halacha or international law standards exactly and they all have some of their own "spin" on enacting a "just law." 

However the only way to determine whether a system is in fact just and lawful is to gauge the system on the whole. My contention is that the Palestinian Authority legal system does not meet the requirement of dinim. 

When this International system of Universal Noahide is completely set up, according to Talmud Bavli, the only penalty death of a Goyim is death by DECAPITATION


Words such as corrupt, arbitrary, and inconsistent dominate the discourse on the Palestinian Authority legal system. 

As is in the US System

The Palestinian Authority has not effectively prosecuted criminals nor enforced the laws they have enacted. So the question becomes whether Israel has the ability or the obligation to enforce the Noahide laws on the Palestinians. 3. Ability and Obligation of Israel to Enforce the Noahide Obligations There is a dispute in the Halacha over whether there is an obligation or just the mere ability to enforce the Noahide laws. Some commentators even dispute that the Jewish people can enforce laws of dinim at all. Rabbi Gershuni points out that Jews do not have an obligation to bring a non-Jew to justice.182He does not, however, limit the possibility that Jews may bring a non-Jew to justice

183Comparatively, Rabbi Gershuni understands Maimonides to say that in cases of capital crimes, a Jew does have an obligation to impose the death penalty on non-Jewish transgressors.184Other commentators disagree on the obligations of Jews to judge the sons of Noah. Maharam Shik finds that Jewish courts do have an obligation to bring Gentiles to Justice.185He notes that reason for this is that "judging transgressors, even descendents of Noah, is our concern, for others will learn from any evil done in public and follow suit."

see examples being set by Bush regime


186He also finds that any person within the jurisdiction of the Jewish nation is within the jurisdiction of its courts.

See United States of Greater Israel House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14...coup d' Etat appointment by the Talmudic Supreme court of the USGI, of the Man of Dan, George W. Bush to the "Oval" office of the presidency of the United States of America. Congress and the executive willfully delivered this country to Israel, as representation to it's peoples. Treason is not even a good word for the evil which has been inflicted.

And but of we go with the Meggillah Esther, Perpetual Purim of the deception's and lies of the jews

187This dispute may best be analyzed by recounting the biblical story of Shechem: When Dinah, daughter of Jacob, went into the city Shechem to become acquainted with her neighbors, Shechem, the son of Hamor (Like Haman) the Hivite took her and defiled her. He refused to let her leave. When he wished to make her his son’s wife, Jacob upon confronting Hamor "held his peace." 

Note they rarely refer to Jacob as Israel, the name the Lord in faith according to the Promise gave to him

While the people of Shechem, thieves themselves, knew of the incident, they did nothing. They did not try Shechem nor did they permit Dinah to leave. Tricking (Lie's and deceptions as usual) the people of Shechem that they would make peace, Jacob and his sons convinced the people to join with the Jews and abide by the laws.

See Judeo Churchizionazism. Noahidism and their instigated wars of their un-named god hashem pitting Ishmael against Judeo-Chrischizionism


 They convinced them to show that they will become Jews they must circumcise themselves.

Like Judeo Chuchi-zionism they go back to the curse of the law


 Upon doing this, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, went into the city of Shechem and slew all the males and rescued their sister. 

Thus the deceived are destroyed for they rejected knowledge of the Lord of Host

Simeon and Levi attributed their act


Page 32

- 30 to the rampant criminality and lawlessness prevalent in the city evidenced by the lack of culpability attributed to Shechem son of Hamor and that no individual had done anything to prevent the act or rescue Dinah afterward. It seems omniscient that this vein of lawlessness flows through Shechem to this day where the ancient city of Shechem, now known as Nablus, is considered a den of terrorist activity. Perhaps this is why Shechem, and now Nablus has been cited as Makom muchan l’furanut: A place predestined for misfortune.


188Some Commentators often cite the story of Shechem to understand how the Noachide laws may be applied.

rabbi's of Talmud Bavli. If they all, by representation of Congress and the president we have appointed do not accept, then they must be DECAPITATED. If'n you are against Bush....ooooops!

189They understand that even Dinah’s name comes from the same root as dinim, meaning justice. 

Dinah, dontcha blow, Dinah Don'cha blow your horn

It has been asked though "how the righteous sons of Jacob could spill innocent blood?"190According to Nahmanides, he understands Maimonides to find that Simeon and Levi were obliged to punish the people of Shechem.191It does appear, however, that Nahmanides expresses reservations that all the people should be murdered.

192Maimonides view would limit no such action as he states "All the residents of the city were guilty, deserving of capital punishment. After all, Shechem seized and raped Dinah; they saw it, they knew it, and yet did not bring him to trial.

Murder by association.

193His reasoning was simple, the Torah commands that the Jewish People have an obligation: "you shall destroy the evil from your midst.

"Axis of Evil" Bush

"194It is thus a difficult question. Do the Jewish people have an obligation to impose laws on others? May they inflict punishment without trial

of course, guilt by association

When could Israel then try the Palestinians under the laws of Noah? As it applies to the Palestinians, the ability of Israel to bring the terrorists to justice seems to be permitted. Limits of judicial authority are less simple to understand. Most commentators require that the Noahide laws are upheld by the courts. This would mean that Simeon and Levi’s actions then would not be permitted under Jewish law. This makes sense when we consider that the extreme Jewish groups would use the story of Shechem to justify the actions of Baruch Goldstein, where he opened fire in a mosque in Hebron, killing many Muslims.195However, the other view would hold that the creation of a just society is so important that even mass murder would be justified when the society is so corrupt that they do nothing to rein in lawlessness. 

Justified Mass Murder of the Master Race, "Perpetual Purim"

Assuming an intermediate position, where Israel may impose punishment, but cannot do so without individual culpability, we can gauge whether Israel’s responses to terrorism are justifiable under criminal law. C. Authority of the Court to Impose and Enact Criminal Law In determining whether terrorist masterminds who send their emissaries to perform their deadly tasks are liable, we must determine what requirements Israel must undertake in order to impose the criminal law. Generally Jewish Law requires that one who is to be put to death must be tried in a court of law. Does Israel comply with these requirements? The issue becomes

 (1) What are the requirements for the court to impose capital punishment; 

(2) When may the court impose capital punishment without following classic torah rules; and (3) are their any limitations on the ability of the court to impose such punishment.


Page 33

- 31 As Maimonides stated, one who is liable for a capital crime "is liable to death . . . upon judgment of the court."196Classic Torah rules require two eyewitnesses in order to impose capital punishment.197The court also prescribed that capital punishment was only to be invoked for one who directly killed another.198The terrorist actions would suffice to meet the direct requirement.199The accused was also entitled to prior warning,

( See warning HJR 104, Public Law 102-14, 1991, 102nd Congress)

 if possible, from witnesses before the accused committed his crime.200Clearly, in the context of assassinations, the accused is not tried in a court of law. 

see...Sharon gives authority for Mossad to come into USA and assassinate American Citizen's.


Often these people are not able to be brought before the court. So then how may the court go outside of Biblical 

(Not Biblical as per Written Word, but the Oral Mishnah Torah of the mystical Talmud Bavli of Satan)

 law in order to impose punishment? Rabbi Judah ben Asher ("Rabbi Judah") declares that Jewish courts do not always follow Talmudic rules in capital cases.

Why we are seeing a rash of Uniform codes in all states of United States of Greater Israel.

201Rabbi Elazar ben Yose agrees and finds that punishment may be imposed as not provided for "even in the case of a zimzum (buzz)."202These extrajudicial punishments are permitted because there is an "emergency clause" in Talmudic Jurisprudence that allowed for flexibility and adaptability in the Jewish Legal system.

Get ready for "National Emergency" clause


203Various reasons for these emergency clauses in criminal jurisdiction have been raised including :

(1) To prevent violation of the Torah; 

The collective

(2) For the benefit of society; and 

(3) In emergency situations due to exigencies of the time. 

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated that "the court may impose punishment not proscribed in the Torah – not to transgress the law but in order to preserve the Torah.

Murder wonderfully, by way of Luciferianism

"204This statement  shows that the intent was to safeguard the law in order to preserve it from future transgressions. 

By example, by fear, Just as was in the Sofiet Bolshevik Talmudic Union.

As he continued, these enactments may be used "to seep out evil from your midst."205By permitting a court to violate the biblical commandments in order to prevent further transgressions, courts are granted a large degree of autonomy in determining when these decisions may be made. 

Thus they admit they make these laws and do not lift a finger to move themselves, as per Jesus Christ


This assessment is agreed upon by Rabbi Judah when he found that measures, even extreme measures, may be taken by the courts in order to curb behavior that that is injurious to the Torah therefore harming the Jewish people.

Hurting their "Master Race" Bigoted Apartheid Pride unto their un-named god hashem, aka Satan

206By permitting the court to deviate from the Halacha and rule contrary to it, courts may lawfully render decisions and impose punishments that depart from the law.

Meaning that there is no defense. You will be solely at the hands of a little god's discretion, outside Law, and outside the sovereignty of Christ Jesus the Creator.


207In addition to imposing punishments to safeguard the Torah, courts may also do so for the benefit and welfare of society. 

 sacrifice, see Jesus Christ the Lamb of God, crucified to protect the godhood of the Pharisees...the eternally damned.

To fulfill the ultimate purpose of Jewish Law, courts may even permit individual rights to suffer for the greater good of the community.

See Police State USA 2003, Patriot Akt,


208The courts, though, would enact laws not to promote suffering but to maintain law and order so that the courts could restore order to the community when in disarray.

By fear see


209Rabbi Judah explains the reason why courts have the power to make laws not in the Halacha for the benefit of the community is because the judge is characterized as the father in the community and, in that role, is charged with maintaining law and order through whatever means possible.

What ever means possible, enforce the Talmudic Universal Noahide Religion to the Illuminated angel of Darkness who transformed himself to Light. Pope John Paul out soon. Giovanni Batista RE, the Prophet of Moshiach in the Order of the babylonian High Priesthood in soon.

210Another purpose correlated to the idea of maintaining law and order is that extrajudicial punishment may have to be imposed in


Page 34

- 32 order to demonstrate the force of the law to the people. 

By Fear an example

As R. Yom Tov b. Abraham Ashbili (Ritba) stated: "The people would hear (of the crime and punishment) and fear (to commit such crimes). 

There comes night when no man will work in the name of the Lord

Also, the (person convicted) would no longer have (means) with which he could continue to perform such an evil deed as this ever again."211By issuing rulings to increase law and order, the judge would do so to better the community as a whole even if the Halacha would have to be violated. 

Once again breaking their Own Law in the Name of God, who they attribute, their Cursed Laws


The sages have also permitted the courts to have extrajudicial authority in emergency situations. Even in biblical times the Sanhedrin was "empowered to deviate from classical criminal procedure as an emergency measure."212What would define an emergency measure under Jewish Law? Rabbi Judah suggested that it was up to the courts do determine what defined an emergency measure.213He further noted that the exigent jurisdiction would apply based on "the needs of the hour" when there was an urgent and pressing need to apply them.214Given then that judges may impose emergency jurisdiction when it is required by the needs of the time, and it is up to the judges to decree such acts, the only remaining question is how long these emergency measures may last.



There are two views of this concept: 1) a temporary measure and 2) a measure taken because the times demand it. A temporary measure is defined by the rule from Deuteronomy 4:2 as "one taken for a limited amount of time because a deviation may never be decreed for limitless time because it would violate Torah law.

see George Bush's Indeffinite period

"215In comparison, Maimonides finds that a measure taken because the times demand it does not limit the amount of time a measure may extend as long as it is still required due to exigent circumstances.216By analyzing how the Talmud has treated situations in this sense we can understand how to apply these rules in modern day Israel. The following exigent jurisdiction circumstance has been discussed at length by the commentators: "Once a man rode his horse on the Sabbath in the time of the Greeks. At the time sinfulness was rife and obedience of the Torah was becoming common. In response the judges decreed that he shall be stoned to death so he was."217In typical times, violation of the Sabbath would entail a just punishment, one befitting such a violation. Yet in this case, the court decided that the man should be stoned to death and the court adjudicated him so that he was. Why would the court permit it? Rashi stated that he was stoned "because sinfulness was rife, for, seeing the oppression and persecution of Israel by the Greeks, people were contemptuous of the commandments."218Rabbi ben Jacob when he made his comment about prescribing punishment not permitted by the Halacha directly referred to this case because the stoning of the man would help provide a deterrence from future violations of the Torah.

219This illustrates that even for relatively minor violations,220when the times demand it, the courts may impose a harsher punishment than decreed by the Talmud.

No standards, Just Whim of the "Appointed" Judges

In the case of Israel and their responses to terror, they have decreed that they are in a "State of Emergency.

Currents - Bush Asks To Extend State Of Emergency For Another Yr
... ..Executive Order Privelege and Does this mean Demonstrators and ... take its leaders
out of the presidential line of ... be, said John Fortier, executive director of ...

"221So may the courts make judgments outside the bounds of


Page 35

- 33 criminal law? 

See Secret Courts Bush Regime


Following the three possible purposes in imposing extrajudicial punishment, Israel would have Halachic authority to impose punishment that is outside Jewish law. 

By Talmudic Law, they have Law which is outside of Talmudic Laws, as decreed By Talmudic Law.....satanic Oxymoron

Would Israel protect the Jewish people from violations of the Torah? 

Saying that Jesus Christ Is Lord?

Since the Intifada began, violence by Jews against Arabs has risen dramatically. Many living in Judea and Samaria have even rioted and lynched Arabs after attacks. These violations of the Torah may be stopped by enacting harsh punishments to stop the violence that leads to these acts. 

Yet Talmud Bavli say's that a jew may strike a Gentile without punishment

The courts may decide that assassinating leaders and stopping future violence will prevent further violations of the Torah. 

see Bush Regime...Card, Wolfowitz, Rove,..etc., etc. assassinating Talibani

In the same sense, the judges may decree that for the benefit of society, punishments disallowed by the Torah may be permitted. 

So they enact and enforce Talmudic Noahide Laws which can be broken, to enact Laws which are not in existence according to their laws, sounds familiarly like the twisting of the Constitution of the US.

Is there a benefit to society by these kinds of punishments? One can argue that these are used to maintain law and order to better the welfare of society as a whole.

Total Despotism, a society of obedient Slavery

 Besides the obvious deterrent factor of assassinations, deportations, and destruction of homes, these may benefit society in other ways as well. Assassinating a killer may save lives and would in fact impose the capital punishment that would have been an obligation of the court had the terrorist been available for capture or arrest. 

Without Trials, and much cheaper.

The threat of deportation may prevent a suicide bomber and the destruction of a home could be one less base for terrorist attacks. 

Ethnic Bigoted Apartheid Cleansing

Thus, the courts would have authority to impose these punishments for the benefit of society and the maintenance of law and order.

Benefit of jews

The final purpose was in emergency situations. The emergency measure here would be deemed to be of the second type as described by Maimonides that it is a measure taken because the times demand it and is thus for a limitless amount of time. 

Indeffinate "War On Terror" saith appointed Bushka

Israel has undertaken some of these acts since the terrorists began to use unimaginable methods to attack Israeli citizens. 

Mostly rock throwing

Are terrorist attacks as much an emergency as frequent violations of the Sabbath? Besides that terrorist attacks cause constant violations of the Sabbath because of the extra security required, the constant terror and murder would easily be enough to impose extrajudicial punishment. When the people are being attacked on a daily basis, living in constant fear, there are few who would argue that the courts would not have the requisite authority to declare an exigent circumstance permitting Halachic violation. D. Government Responses to Terrorism as a Criminal Act The responses of Israel in reaction to terrorism are not traditional responses in international legal systems. However, there has never been a country that has been consistently racked by terrorism, especially those with such disregard for their own lives let alone others lives.

Not until Orwellian USA Terror, the Theatre

 How can a state that operates under a system of penal laws impose those laws on a people who so openly defy them? Perhaps the well worn cliché "desperate times call for desperate measures" would fit this situation. This, though, does not solve the problem because Israel does operate under a structured penal code. For years, Israel has punished crimes from murder to fraud when committed in the State.


Page 36

- 34 Traditional purposes of punishment though, cannot be applied to the terrorists in question. With a conscious disregard for life, an inability to care about personal penal sanction, and knowledge that the government must operate within a framework of laws, the Palestinian terrorists have maneuvered around the mainstay of the Israeli penal system, possible imprisonment. To find a way to deter terrorist acts, then, the government willingly assassinates terrorist leaders, deports families of terrorists, and destroys their homes. These are now justified under Israeli law.

 But how does Jewish law resolve this dilemma? In order to understand how the Halacha can deal with these problems, Talmudic justification must be found for assassinations and destruction of homes. 1. Justification to Assassinate Terrorists Under Criminal Law Assassination is the preeminent method that Israel uses to combat terrorism at its head. When Israel finds that individual terrorist leader’s whereabouts are known and they are wanted by the authorities for planning murders of citizens, assassination may be used to prevent their commission of further crimes.

without trial

 Jewish law, though, maintains specific offenses for which one may be held capitally liable. How do we determine whether assassinations should be permitted by the government of Israel? 

By "Emergency situations" of course...Talmudic oxymoron....Moron

The analysis begs the following questions:

(1) When is one held liable for a capital crime; and 

(2) What are the justifications for Israel to kill a terrorist. 

Talmudic law not only permits but requires the state to impose capital punishment on transgressors of specific laws. While various crimes are capital crimes under Jewish law, the only crime that is dealt with in this section is the biblical proclamation: "Thou shalt not murder."222Of course murder is a broad proposition. Direct, premeditated murder of an individual is an easy case in Jewish law.

223The more difficult cases involve indirect killings. Such crimes as accessory to murder, abetting a murder, third party murders such as hiring a killer, criminal negligence, and unpremeditated homicide present difficulties in prescribing capital punishment. In order to make one liable for capital punishment though, they must come "presumptuously upon [their] neighbor, to slay him with guile."224The question is whether the actions of terrorists fit within the accepted categories of culpable crimes for which capital punishment may be administered. The starting point of any discussion on murder emerges from Maimonides concise definitions of murder that he reveals in his commentary on the Mishnah:2251. "If one person kills another himself, such as by striking him with a sword or with a deadly stone, or by strangling him, or by thrusting him into a fire, he must be put to death by the court, seeing that he himself killed another in some manner" 2. "If, however, one hires an assassin to kill another, or sends his slaves to kill him, or ties up another and leaves him in front of a lion...the rule


Page 37

- 35 in each of these cases is that he is a shedder of blood, has committed the crime of murder, and is liable for death at the hands of Heaven but there is no capital punishment at the hands of the court" 3. "If the king of Israel  (Presumption of a soon  Moshiach to be "Revealed" and anointed)  wishes to put them to death by royal decree or for the benefit of society, he has a right to do so. Similarly, if the court deems it proper to put them to death as an emergency measure, it has the authority to do as it deems fit, provide that circumstances warrant such action

So in short, make Talmudic Law of Noahidism, But use personal discretion, even if their Unholy Satanic Books say otherwise, all, even on the premise that their Master race 'Chosen" Laws have supreme authority over all Goyim. Nothing short of Demonology 


." For the purposes of this section, the third comment by Maimonides, regarding the royal perogative, falls outside the bounds of traditional criminal law and will be considered later.

Thus when Moshaich Ben Satan is "Revealed" by his Royal Perogative...he will  bring war against the saints of Jesus Christ and overcome them and slay their flesh, By Talmudic Universal Noahide Laws, and or his choice or whim.

226We can see, however, that capital punishment is not permitted in cases where causation is indirect and not premeditated. So how can we justify, under criminal law, killing terrorists who have engaged in planning and ordering of others? Dealing with these topics under criminal law and not the laws of war limits the ability of Jewish law to impose such punishment. 

So there is no war, just Goyim Noahide criminal acts

Also with no concept of transferred intent, the idea that the murderer must have killed a specific individual is necessary for a terrorist to be culpable.227To identify when one may be considered liable for a capital crime, the Mishnah and Gemara have dealt with numerous case studies to identify capital culpability. I will analyze these cases and describe their analogous counterparts in Israel’s fight against terrorists. 

Fight against Terrorist....IS NOT WAR....IT is indefinate...."Perpetual Purim"


The first case expounded in the Mishnah describes the following: "A perpetrator hits and kills the victim with a stone or iron implement"228The Mishnah finds the murderer culpable in this instance.229In their article,230Irena Rosenberg, Yale Rosenberg, and Bentzion Turin, discuss this and other cases to determine causation and culpability of individuals under the Halacha. They find that all the elements of the crime are present: they place the victim in a life threatening situation, performed the murderous act with intent, and clearly and directly caused the victim’s demise.231They note that because the act, intent, and result are simultaneous, this case is clear illustrating the perpetrator’s liability. 232An analogous situation in modern Israel would be when an assassin enters the home of an individual and murders them. Here the elements are set out. A murderous implement is used, they place the victim in a life threatening situation, have intent to murder, and individually cause the victim’s death. The assassin has done little different from the situation described in the Mishnah. Culpability for a capital crime is clear in this case. The terrorist in question, by directly causing the death of the victim, is liable for capital punishment. Maimonides would agree (assuming the criminal is convicted in a court of law) because this instance fits directly with his definition of capital murder.233We must also note that Maimonides would find not only is it permissible that capital


Page 38

- 36 punishment be imposed but that it is an obligation of the court that "they must be put to death."234The next case study begins to blur the lines of culpability: "The perpetrator chances upon a victim under water or in a fire, a life-threatening situation that the perpetrator did not create. The perpetrator thereafter prevents the victim from saving himself, causing his death." Here the article describes this as an "opportunistic homicide."235While this case is not actually stated in the Mishnah, the article notes that it would follow "a fortiori" from the result in the first. This would also be analogous to Maimonides’ commentary in the Code of Maimonides.236The authors note that while the perpetrator did not place the victim in the life threatening situation, the perpetrator did not cause the death through direct contact but affirmatively prevented the victim from saving himself.237The Mishnah notes that by taking advantage of a pre-existing situation, and preventing one from saving himself, makes him liable for capital punishment under Jewish law.238The Gemara comments on this case, concurring that "even though the perpetrator did not push the victim into the water or fire, since the victim was not able to escape, and he died, the perpetrator is liable to execution."239In regard to terrorist actions, when would a terrorist be liable under this scenario? One situation that would seem to be comparable is when, after a suicide bomber detonates the bomb on a bus, often accomplice terrorists are nearby, standing outside the bus with guns, aiming to kill anyone who would leave the burning bus. Here these actual terrorists (arguably) do not create the life threatening situation but prevent victims from saving themselves from ultimate death by burning and asphyxiation. Of course, if they do kill anyone coming off the bus they will be culpable for direct homicide, but the threat that keeps an individual on the bus would make them culpable as well for capital punishment. By capitalizing on the dangerous situation, the terrorists would be held capitally liable. The Mishnah also refers to the following circumstance: "A perpetrator incites a dog or a snake to attack the victim."240In this circumstance, some of the elements of the crime are in place, but others are not present as in the second situation mentioned above. Here the property has created the life threatening context. 

Comes in inciting hatred, The demise of the First Amendment, of a fictional Constitution


However, the intervention of a third party, the dog or snake, is required in order for the killing to be complete. Does this make one culpable? The article finds that the Halacha would not hold culpability in this case. The intervention of a superceding cause with an "independent will" would release the defendant from capital crime liability.241The Mishnah considers the animal to have an independent will similar to a victim who would be able to escape but does not do so of their own accord.242Under Maimonides view, this circumstance is similar to one soliciting another and would thus not be held liable.243


Page 39

- 37 Many countries have attempted to hold people liable for inciting violence. Just recently, on February 24, 2003, the United Kingdom arrested a Muslim cleric for inciting people to commit mass murder.244In the same way that the perpetrator incited a wild animal to attack the potential victim, Palestinian clerics often do the same, inciting the populace to engage in terrorist acts such as suicide bombing in order to wage a Jihad against the Jewish people. Under the Mishnah, however, these clerics may be liable for a crime, but capital punishment would not be permissible. Another instance that subscribes to the same tenets is when a terrorist leader may engage another to perform a terrorist act resulting in the death of civilians. The hired party would be a third party intervener with their own free will. Because they have the ability to change their mind or change the eventual result, the terrorist leader in this case, the liability for the crime of murder, would not be guilty of the premeditated murder required to impose capital punishment. The final of the Mishnah cases, before I move on to the Gemara cases, recounts a similar circumstance: "The perpetrator places a snake on the victim’s body, holding it so that his fangs are on the victim’s flesh."245In this case, there is a dispute whether capital liability would be imposed. Rabbi Judah would find liability because he finds that the murderous animal has no exercise of free will in this circumstance.246However, other sages disagree. The Mishnah recounts that if any free will may be exercised on the part of another, even an iota, then liability will not be imposed.247The Gemara view has a less strict definition of culpability. As Rabbi Judah noted "the poison of snake is between his fangs" and by placing the snake in position to kill, then one is capitally liable.248The article also notes the similarity between this circumstance and that as recounted in the bible, where capital punishment is to be imposed when one does not contain a wild oxen and they bore another to death.

See new Noahide Courts regarding Dog owners who attacked others

249The Torah then, like the Gemara, allows a third party to have the ability to exercise free will, but when they are placed by another in position to kill, that person may be held capitally liable. So how would the Gemara deal with a situation in modern day Israel where a terrorist leader provides a suicide bomber with the bomb, instructs them where to carry it, how to carry it, how to detonate it, and when to detonate it.. They also instruct the bomber that they must do this to wage Jihad, they will be rewarded for this act in the afterlife, their family will be provided for, and in effect brainwash that bomber into performing this task. 

Just like Military commanders during "WAR"

An argument can be made that this situation is no different from placing the snake on the victim’s back. The Mishnah may argue that the bomber themselves can exercise free will to change the intended result, so the terrorist leader would not be culpable of a capital crime.

Thus the command of Arik Sheinerman (Ariel Sharon at Jenin) Sheinerman was the culprit

 However, the Gemara may argue the reverse. In this circumstance the suicide bomber himself becomes the weapon rather than a person blessed with free will. Because they have been instructed to do this by an authority they


Page 40

- 38 deem to be issuing the words of G-d, they have become the instrument of the killing. 

Thus Murder all Branch Davidians

By sending them off to a specific area to detonate the bomb in a specific way, just as the owner of the dangerous oxen may be put to death, so may the terrorist be put to death for unleashing a dangerous object into a crowded area of civilians. Some empirical evidence may support this conclusion. It is instructive to note that suicide bombers, even if they end up in an uncrowded area still set off their charge as planned on many occasions. It will be difficult to argue that these people have exercised the free will to even salvage their own life. The functional brainwashing done by the terrorist leaders have eliminated the free will from the bomber and transferred their own will unto them. Thus, just as the Bible would find the owner of the oxen liable, the Gemara too would find these terrorists liable for capital punishment. The most analogous case illuminated in the Gemara illustrates a parallel situation in Gemara Case M: "The perpetrator throws up a stone at a 45 degree angle and kills someone as it descends." 250The Gemarah notes that although the perpetrator only created part of the force that led to the ensuing death, the perpetrator is capitally liable. The discussion hinges on the fact that part of the force that leads to the stone traveling downward, gravity, makes up a large part of the force of the object.251Because the perpetrator remains responsible for propelling the stone, even if other forces may affect the outcome, the perpetrator is liable.

see Palestinian rock throwing boys, who are confronted with heavy artillery

252By using the same situation just described, would the terrorist be liable for sending the suicide bomber in a path towards other’s deaths? This seems to show even more that the terrorist would be liable. The terrorist has in effect propelled the suicide bomber in the direction of the killing, yet other forces are at work. Despite this, the Gemara would find the perpetrator liable. Had the suicide bomber not been instructed where to kill, how to kill, or why to kill, the result may be different.

Writing opposition of murderous zionist...."propelling"?

 But in this situation the terrorist did all these things. Therefore, the terrorist, like the perpetrator in Case M, would be capitally liable and would be subject to the death penalty. Rashi notes that one of the key distinctions between one held to capitally liable and one who is not is whether they are the direct cause of death.253The Gemara distinguishes between whether one’s death is caused by a force that is the direct result of the perpetrator’s actions or if the victim is killed only as a result of the wrongdoer’s secondary force.


254Rashi remarks that the difference between the direct (primary) and secondary force is often a function of time and distance.255So how much time and distance is required in order to affix culpability? Unfortunately, the Talmud does not define the specific requirements of time and distance required. The main distinction that the Talmud notes is the difference between direct and indirect force as opposed to intended manner of killing. For one to have


Page 41

- 39 caused another’s death, they must have used some force to send the fatal object towards the victim. The time and distance may only be inhibited by an intervener.256So how can we conclude whether one is culpable? In the case of terrorists, it is my view that when one sends a suicide bomber directly to a specific site at a specific time then they have caused the force necessary to be guilty of direct causation. The functional equivalent of free will has been erased from the scenario. If a terrorist were to instruct a terrorist to engage in this activity at some time a week later, then an intervening cause may be considered. However, when the bomber is strapped by others with bombs and sent to specified locations to commit their atrocities, those who sent him are the force that propelled that bomber toward their destructive end.

Why it is not a war, but a terrorist act. To the Palestinians who are occupied by zionist, who have all modern technology and Military is war. War for their homes, war for their country and war for their freedom.

 These views are ratified by the biblical pronouncements which address aggravating factors in assessing capital liability. The Torah finds that those who use a deadly instrument to kill another are shown to have the requisite premeditation and intent.257The use of a bomb strapped to a willing bomber killing would clearly satisfy any definition of a deadly weapon. So too the bible (Their bible, unholy book Talmud Bavli) finds that those who harbor hatred toward the victim are also more likely to be liable for capital punishment.258There is no dispute that terrorists who profess as their goal the liquidation of the Jewish people harbor hatred towards the intended victim. 

There is no doubt that the world's greatest revengeful "Haters" have and will continue to be the self "Chosen" Master race of Bigotry, the jews

These terrorists are criminally and capitally liable for their terrorist activities and Israel may impose capital punishment upon them. However, can we justify Israel’s use of assassination? Having decided that terrorists are capitally liable the only question is how they may be put to death. In criminal law, the requirements to impose capital punishment are clearly set forth. Yet how can we justify Israel’s actions in response to the formal procedures that cannot be followed in the case of terrorists who are not easily captured? There is a distinction that criminal law holds in justifying killing a terrorist prior to their act of murder and after they kill another. For the purpose of this section, we will assume that while the court has given legal permission to engage in assassination generally based on the court’s exigent jurisdiction, we must determine whether Israel may justify the killing of an actual terrorist in various situations. To find whether an act of assassination is justifiable, we must analyze these actions as they take place (1) prior to their terrorist actions and (2) after their terrorist actions.

Note: Arik Sheinerman has authorized the assassination of American Citizen's On US Soil with full cooperation of the Bushka Regime

Within this analysis, I will consider, in regard to prior actions, the justifications of self defense and that of the pursuer rationale. For post-crime analysis, I will justify Israel’s action by discussing when capital punishment may be imposed for murder. So using this analysis, how can Israel’s actions be justified under criminal law? The law of rodef as it applies to criminal law holds basically the same premises defined in rodef under the laws of war.

another Moronic oxymoron


259As Maimonides notes, "it is justifiable . . . to take the life of the pursuer only to prevent commission of the crime [murder].

Thus Bushka's Pre-imtive Attacks authorized by the zionist who control the Whitehouse



"260While the laws of rodef apply also to one who intends to rape another, for the purposes of this discussion it is only relevant that it also applies when one pursues another with the intent


Page 42

- 40 to kill them.261However, even if one pursues another with the intent to kill them, if the pursuer may be stopped without killing him, then it is not permissible to kill the pursuer.262It should be noted that the laws of rodef are considered obligations. As the Baraita states "If one pursues another with the intent to take his life, it is the duty of everyone seeing the attempted crime to prevent it even if it necessitates taking the pursuer’s life."263To not rescue would be to transgress the commandment that "Neither shall thou not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor."264The obligation to use force to protect another in danger is an extension of the principle that one must help another in distress.265Knowing that under the Halacha, we have an obligation to rescue the life one being pursued, what is the standard to kill that individual who is pursuing? When is the threat enough to justify their killing? The sages have disputed the correct standard.The strictest standard posited has been that of a contemporary authority, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who would determine that a pursuer may only be killed when the threat was "approaching certainty."266A much looser standard, however, was put forth by Rabbi Elijah of Vilna (Gra) finding that execution may be the proper punishment when the threat is only "feared.

When will the enforcement and authorization to assassinate US Citizen's who dissent be made? Who oppose zion? Who oppose Talmud Bavli of Satan? Who Oppose their One World Order? And their Universal laws of Luciferianism.


"267Gra found that execution of counterfeiters was appropriate when they were sought after and the danger to the community was unknown.268However, a balance between these two poles has been found in the writings of Rabbi Eleazar ben Simeon who, while not invoking it only when the danger is only feared, he maintained that a significantly less degree of certainty was required than that of virtual certainty.269There are two ways we could use the standards outlined by the rabbis as to the degree of threat required. On one hand we could judge the standard to be absolute. A single standard would apply to any and all situations, no matter the extraneous circumstances present. A better method would be to judge the standards set forth as dependent on the times.

either way, their opposition is the serpents Mortal enemy

 In times of tranquility, the stricter standard, that of "approaching certainty" would seem to be correct, because a greater harm would be done possibly killing an innocent person. However in times of danger, and emergency situations, the mere threat is enough to have the obligation to kill the pursuer. 

So we true Christians, the saints of the Lord are their opposition, who make them tremble. Let their knees shake, for we Have a Live King, the King of Souls, who will destroy all who curse the children of the Lord, the seed of Abraham in faith of Christ Jesus, according to the Promise.


So when we apply this to Israel’s actions when it comes to combating terrorism, it is easy to reach the conclusion that a terrorist is pursuing an individual in order to kill them. Terrorist leaders do not have a day job. Their entire livelihood is spent focusing their energies on planning the events that will lead to the death of Jews. When a member of Hamas is seeking out potential crowded spots with poor security, seeking out potential Palestinians who will be willing to strap a large bomb to their chest, and seek out weapons dealers willing to sell them tons of plastic explosive, they are doing so with the intent of killing another. This intent is not a mere hope. They will try to use these weapons. Under the laws of rodef then, they are pursuing the Jewish people in order to kill them and it is the obligation of the government to kill them before they succeed.


See Poindexter...Precog Police state


Page 43

- 41 Of course, this view could change depending on the standard set. Is it approaching certainty that these terrorists will kill another? Empirical evidence would show that a majority of terrorists acts fail to kill anyone due to security forces, inept actions, incorrectly made weapons, etc. So for a particular planning activity, it is not certain that it will lead to civilian deaths. However, when dealing with over 16,000 attacks in barely two years, this translates to almost 40 attacks per day. So if we judge this to be an emergency situation, and knowing that so many attacks are planned, Gra would probably assess this situation to deem that the mere threat of death is enough when we know for certain that the attacks are being planned.

Thus with the World who is in opposition to zionist occupation, who are against the zionist...The "AXIS of EVIL" unless of course they set up the courts of satan's injustice of Noahide de' Universal


 Israel, then, even under Rabbi ben Simeon’s middle standard, would have justification to find that the terrorists are pursuers and may be killed to prevent them from killing their intended target.

Based on suspicion...Precogs


Similar to the pursuer rationale is the law of self defense. The Talmud applies the same maxim for self defense in the area of criminality as it does to war: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."270Every individual has the right to defend his or her person against wrongful aggression and, if necessary, kill the aggressor.

Thus according to their laws, Talmud Bavli, of decapitation decree...........


271While the distinction between the public right of punishment and the private right of self defense must be kept distinct,272these methods may overlap when it comes to the state acting in self defense of itself and its citizens. 

Cleverly shot that down

It is noted that Talmud posits that use of force in self defense is not a personal obligation but a unitary responsibility.

Only Good for the Government of satan


273The law of self defense retains the same elements of the law of pursuer and are conceptually identical with rodef being merely to protect others while self defense applies the same criteria to defense of oneself. There is dispute over whether the state may actually act in self defense or if all actions by the state in this sense are in fact under the law of pursuer.274We should also note that the same standards that apply and are discussed regarding the law of pursuer are identical in the discussion for self defense. By applying the laws of self defense to Israel’s defense of itself and its citizens, we must view the government as acting as an agent for the individuals who will be attacked. This conclusion is not hard to reach because, as Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) notes that the government itself serves at the consent of the governed.

See Congress HJR 104, Public Law 102-14

275The logical conclusion will be that if the government operates under the consent of the people, they also act on behalf of the people, 

Accepting HJR104, Public law 102-14


and assassinating a terrorist or inflicting any other form of punishment to protect them could be seen as an act of self defense because the people are, in essence, an extension of the state. It is therefore perfectly permissible, if not obligatory, for the government, when they know of a dangerous terrorist planning deadly attacks, that they act in self defense by killing him before he kills the people. Following too the standards of proof necessary under the laws of the rodef, Israel would be justified to assassinate a terrorist under the "threat" or "approaching certainty" standards depending, of course, on the information available as to attacks planned.

Nigerian Forged Plutonium Documents

 Israel is justified in assassinating a terrorist leader before they commit their terrible crime. Under the standards available, only the standard "approaching certainty" may not be enough to punish these terrorists in this manner. If we consider Israel to be in a state of emergency, it is clear then that the standard would be much lower than certain and would only require a mere threat or other similar standard.

Of course at the hands of ONE accuser. TIPS anyone (Daarpa)

 The laws of pursuer and


Page 44

- 42 self defense not only permit, but obligate the government to protect the people and kill the enemy before he himself kills. Therefore, assassination is not only a permissible form of punishment under criminal law, but would be obligatory when the government knows of planned attacks. 

Of course the Bush Regime Knew of the attacks on the WTC, but blamed them on Usama ben Laden, focused him out, then focuses on Saddam Hussein, when in fact the Mossad created the Crisis to get us to this point in their satanic game.

In addition to pre-crime remedies, Israel may also punish terrorists after they commit their acts. In criminal law, this may be accomplished by imposing capital punishment in the courts of law. For the purposes of this section, we must affirm that the terrorists would be culpable of a capital crime, that assassination is equivalent to capital punishment when the terrorist cannot be captured, and the court has permitted the action that is to be taken by the Israeli government. With these assumptions in place, then, are Israel’s assassination of terrorists permissible after the commission of their crime?The roots of capital punishment in Jewish Law stem from the biblical commandment "Whoever sheds the blood of man so shall his blood be shed.

Eye for an eye

"276Prescribing capital punishment though is not absolute and is only permitted for willful murder of another.277Not only is the imposition of capital punishment not absolute but death sentences may only be handed out by the judgment of the court.278Using the death penalty is, however, an obligation to be administered by the court in cases of capital murder.279This obligation is limited to capital punishment, noting that there is no capital murder in Jewish law unless death is caused by the direct physical act of the assailant."280Homicide was justifiable, or in capital punishment permissibly done, when carried out under the lawful mandate of the court by their appointed officer.281In biblical times, the Sanhedrin could only carry out capital punishment in a court composed of not less than 23 members.(Beth din) 282It was said that the Sanhedrin who inflicted capital punishment once every seven years was considered a "bloody Sanhedrin."283However, the Jewish view of capital punishment, however, is not so tame. The famous debate between Rabbi Trafon, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Gamliel illustrate the opposing views. As the discussion is remembered, "Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say ‘were we in the Sanhedrin (during the period when it possessed capital punishment jurisdiction), no man would have been killed.’ Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says ‘They, too, would multiply spillers of blood in Israel.’ "284The meaning of these statements are clear, just as capital punishment is something that the Jewish people abhor, it may be necessary to protect lives. Despite the ambivalence of the sages, capital punishment was used more frequently in various time periods. The justification for capital punishment, even after the end of the Sanhedrin, was found in the biblical commandment that laws shall be decided "by the judges found in those days."285Maimonides agrees that the courts have the power to inflict capital punishment outside the bounds of biblical law finding that courts were empowered to impose capital punishment even if the offender would not be liable to be put to death.286The justifications for this stems from the justifications for the court under emergency measures and to maintain law and order. As Maimonides sums up his argument, he decrees that a regular court may execute such person as a temporary measure "for if the emergency requires it they may do as they see fit."287


Page 45

- 43 Considering the evolution and use of capital punishment, Israel has the Halachic authority to impose capital punishment. Assuming that an assassination order comes from the court and that the assassin is under the authority of the court, they have the lawful ability to impose this punishment on offenders. It is true that the Halacha is not endeared with the concept of capital punishment. However, it does permit and even obligate its use when the times demand it

Troublous times

Because of the obligation to save lives, the times demand that Israel engage in these actions. When it comes to combating terrorism, assassination is obligatory for the Israeli government. All assassination orders come from the government. The procedures are not known in detail whether the orders derive from the courts or from the executive branch. However, the orders from the court would be lawful. But would they be necessary and befitting of the Jewish tradition? I assert that the assassination orders would be necessary. In order to save lives, the government must do whatever they must in order to protect the citizens. It is well known, and well documented that terrorists in groups such as Yasir Arafat’s Fatah movement, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas actively engage in assassinations. So too it is known, often, who has planned these attacks. Judging that these individuals are culpable under Jewish law, they may be put to death. The justifications for capital punishment in this situation differ from the laws of pursuer and self defense which is to prevent those individuals from committing future acts. They instead act as a deterrent. So Israel may follow Rabbi ben Gamliel’s logic in decreeing that not imposing capital punishment "would multiply spillers of blood in Israel."288It is noted that the bible (Talmud Bavli) may also be deemed to permit this under the logic of lex talionis, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life."289There is some thought that the retribution aspect meant to impose a monetary value for these acts, but the idea of deterrence, as well as restraint (not permitting one to commit such crimes again) remains strong in the Jewish tradition. As Rabbi Judah noted "The people would hear (of the crime) and fear (to commit such crimes). Also (the person convicted) would no longer have (means) with which he could continue to perform such an evil deed again."290In order to deter future crimes and ensure that the evildoers in the nation were well aware of the ramifications of their evil deeds, capital punishment was, and is necessary. Israel has the authority to use these measures and because they will save future lives through the ideas set forth in the Halacha, these acts become obligatory for the government. Assassination is justified under Jewish Law. Whether the justifications are found in the laws of rodef, self defense, or proper imposition of capital punishment, the law still provides that these terrorists may be assassinated to prevent the greater evil: their reckless and wanton murder of the Jewish people. 2. Criminal Law Justification of Destruction of Property


Page 46

- 44 Israel has engaged in a systematic method to deter and combat terrorism: destroying the homes of suicide bombers, convicted terrorists, and places used to plan terrorist acts. Are these actions justified in the Halacha? These categories must be delineated into two distinct groups, those that are imposed on living terrorists, and those that are imposed on terrorists after they have been killed either at the hands of bombs they willingly strapped on their person or those that have been killed at the hands of the IDF. It must be noted, however, that any destruction of property discussed under this section refer to penal penalties and not to Military Regulation 119(1)291which is under military law. When it comes to destruction of homes for living terrorists, these actions seem easy to justify under Jewish Law. The bible (Talmud)  mentions confiscation of property as a criminal sanction when one disobeys lawful orders.

See Property confiscation US

292It is not hard to permit one to permit, once they have taken property, to destroy it at their whim. The Talmud too agrees that courts, relying on the biblical commandment, have the power to expropriate property.293Under the authority given to Ezra, the power to expropriate property was necessary to impose punishment. 294The justification given for these actions was decreed by the sages to be that the courts have the power to take property, "in the manner of kings . . . for the promotion of public welfare and the furtherance of peace and tranquility."295Therefore in determining the court’s power to destroy homes of terrorists convicted of crimes, to punish them, is permitted under Halachic authority. The court, under the biblical commandment, may expropriate property in order to promote the public welfare. Sometimes this may be deemed, generally to include civil expropriation, but promotion of public welfare may also be enhanced by deterring criminal acts. Because destruction of property is permitted as a criminal sanction, Israel is well within their rights to destroy homes of terrorists to punish them Also, the justification that courts have to destroy property to further peace and tranquility clearly qualifies the taking of homes from terrorists. 

On the Other hand, Because to the Palestine self defense and lack of means of defense, their is a WAR, and they have NO way to retaliate to the jews who rob them. An almost perfect satanic means of "Robbery" and Property Confiscation of the Poor. 


While I am not one to judge the effectiveness of this technique, it has been allowed by the government that destruction of homes acts as a deterrent. Therefore, destroying the homes of living, convicted terrorists has Halachic authority.

Yet Sharon, the Jenin Terrorist, sits smugly in his mansions

 The destruction of homes of deceased terrorists seems to be a different matter. While the same general rules apply, Jewish Law does not punish the dead. The only ones punished would be the other residents of the home.

The innocent, by the evil reason of association, without Trial

 This would seem impermissible as the Bible commands "fathers shall not be put to death for their children, neither shall children be put to death for fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."296The logic of this argument has been extended to include not only capital punishment but to include all punishment imposed for all transgressions. So if the families of the deceased terrorists are the ones who suffer, how can Israel be justified in these actions? Chief Justice Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court in Ajuri v. IDF Commander297found that the destruction of homes was permissible even under penal law because the petitioner, Amtassar Muhammed Ahmed Ajuri, knew of the terrorist activities her brother was perpetrating. Her brother, a suicide bomber, was by all definitions a terrorist.298The court found that she had even aided and abetted his terrorist acts by among other


Page 47

- 45 activities, sewing on an explosive belt, not informing authorities when she knew terrorist associates had weapons and plans to kill Jews, and aided in other ways as well.299The court cited various cases where the relatives did not know of the terrorist activities and the actions were unlawful under penal law.300It can thus be inferred that when the other residents had in some way been aware of, or abetted the terrorist activities, then destruction would be appropriate.301It is the degree of involvement of the other residents that would determine whether destruction would be permissible.302Because expropriation is permissible upon disobedience of lawful orders, the courts have the authority to order or permit destruction of property when lawful orders, such as not relaying information of terrorist activities, are not obeyed.

Yet the Palestinians are not under their law, Unless of course they are Universal Noahides to the Master Race, Chosen, Supreme gods.


 Even under Jewish law, not disclosing information that one plans to kill another transgresses the biblical command that "one shall not stand idly by the blood of they brother." 303Of course the Palestinians do not have to abide by Jewish law, but the failure to obey simple laws such as aiding in terrorist activities violates the law of dinim. Therefore, the lawful orders are not obeyed and the government has Halachic authority to engage in destruction of property for the families of terrorists, as long as they have violated the lawful orders of the State of Israel. Just as deciding governmental responses to terrorism do not fit neatly under the laws of war nor do they fit neatly under criminal law. This is even more instructive by considering the issues not discussed in this section such as deportations of Palestinians. There is little authority that would support those actions under the criminal law. Yet the criminal law does help solve some of the problems associated with terrorism. Criminal law would permit the terrorists to be deemed culpable in a variety of ways and permit the government to respond. The flexibility of criminal law in the Talmud can be understood when we consider the multiple possible justifications found for engaging in assassinations as well as destroying homes. The justifications are not limitless, but they would permit a Jewish court to look towards the more important criteria which is the prevention of future acts of violence and the saving of human (Jewish lives) lives. We can see the overriding importance of life in Jewish law evidenced by the greatlatitude awarded the court to go outside Talmudic law "if the times demand it." Criminal law then does solve many of the problems in bringing terrorists to justice because of the flexibility of the system. But it is still disputable whether terrorist acts should even fall under criminal law. While some instances seem to fit, others seem so horrific that criminal law could not even begin to apply. 

Of course, we know they neither follow under the little gods laws nor laws of war, because afterall their arsenal consist mostly of rocks. Much as Americans will be when we allow our right to bear arms be take by the same zionist who would make us all slaves.


Still, however, Halachic criminal law does permit the Israeli government to justify assassinations and destruction of property against the Palestinian terrorists. Criminal law on the whole would be a valid source to consider how to punish terrorist acts. There is a set law that applies to Palestinians, the Noahide code. Culpability may be readily determined, set methods are in place to impose capital punishment, and the actions of Israel would be justified. There are also problems because criminal law does not plan for the array of actions perpetrated by terrorists. Halachic law


Page 48

- 46 also has never dealt with some of the horrific circumstances that arise in the way these terrorist actions are performed. However, criminal law would aid in the analysis of these problems and I would be willing to assess many of the terrorist acts as criminal acts and allowing punishment to be imposed under those rules. IV. Responding to Terrorism Under the "King’s Justice" Unlike justifications under criminal law or the laws of war, the King’s Justice, which derives from the monarch’s royal prerogative, is a much broader method that the government may use to permit their actions. Specificity that is required for the most part to analyze the actions under traditional laws gives way to a broad granting of authority in biblical law to the king to do, (Moshiach) in effect, whatever he so chooses. However, does the royal prerogative give Israel the Halachic authority to respond to all forms of terrorism?Using the King’s Justice will permit Israel to do many things they would not be permitted to under traditional Jewish law. In order to see how this operates, I will discuss (1) what the royal prerogative is; (2) whether the King’s Talmudic authority equates to the government’s authority in modern times; (3) the reasons and authority for the King’s Justice to be applied; and (4) how the specific responses to terrorism are justifiable under the royal prerogative. A. What is the Royal Prerogative? In biblical times, the king, or sovereign, was granted very broad powers to govern the nation of Israel. Under Halachic law, the monarchy exists as an independent legal category.304The monarchy had special rights and privileges under Jewish law, sometimes referred to as the royal prerogative. The monarch is vested with the right to promulgate the laws of the kingdom and, in doing so, they are vested with certain legal authority to enforce those laws.305According to Ritva, one of the powers granted to the king under Talmudic law is the ability impose punishment.306While Ritva limits the imposition of punishment by a king to those acts that conform with the "law of the land."307There are two possible explanations of this limitation. First, as Rabbi Bleich seems to suggest, Ritva’s limitation is only in regard to non-Jewish monarchs governing the Jewish people. The second limitation is that the King could not order one to do what even the court could not.308This is shown by his support of the King’s authority to impose capital punishment without following the procedural guidelines set forth in classical Talmudic law.309However, Ritva is not the only commentator to agree that the King may impose punishment outside of the court system. Maimonides too believes that extrajudicial punishment may be handed down by the king "by virtue of the law of monarchy and the perfection of the world."310Even the (Written)  Torah itself, in the book of Samuel, suggests that the monarch may impose "the King’s Justice" as it states "appoint for us a King to judge us like all nations.

Thus again they Reject the Only King, Lord Jesus, and Invocate a king over them, Moshiach ben Satan, the son of Perdition.

"311As Rabbi Nissim explained during this time, the monarch served two purposes: 1) as commander in


Page 49

- 47 chief of the army and 2) as magistrate in chief who could order extrastatutory laws when necessary.

King George, King of the Noahides

Executive Order


312He would agree then that the King had the authority to issue laws or impose punishment in order for the needs of the Jewish people. Thus, the royal prerogative allows the king to impose punishment and enforce laws in order to govern over the people.

Secret Military tribunals, Guantonomo Bay, Cuba Talmudic Noahide State

 There have been times when the King’s authority was necessary to impose punishment on those who were unable to be tried in the courts. However, just because the King was granted the authority to impose punishment, do those same rights have any application today? B. How the King’s Authority Translates to Israeli Governmental Authority After the destruction of the temple, the Jews were exiled to Babylonia, beginning their existence in the diaspora, and were left without a king. How were they to be governed? The Halachic authorities established that "the exilarchs in Babylonia stand in place of the king."

The Exilarch's in Exile Edom (USA) stand in the place of King George


313The exilarch in Babylonia, like the king, "were vested with the power to deviate from the rules of the Halacha, even in judicial matters."314In finding a logical concurrence between the Babylonian exilarch and modern governments, the Talmud authorities noted during the middle ages that the doctrine of "The Law of the Land is the Law" would not apply to a Jewish government. 315Instead, a Jewish State would be "governed by the King’s Law, which applies to all forms of Jewish government as they continue to develop over the course of time."316As this pertains to a modern Israel, Rabbi Abraham Kook has spoken directly on the subject. His comments seem to be derived from the Talmudic passage which reads "The king’s law applies at all times and in every generation to the leaders of the time in their respective countries."317Rabbi Kook notes that the royal prerogative governs the nation stating that the "king’s law-making prerogatives revert to the nation as a whole."318The king’s law applies to the government where they have flexibility to maintain order because the government is responsible for "the totality of the needs of the people at any time for the general security."319Noting the comparison with the biblical story, Rabbi Kook explains "the duly constituted leaders of the nation, whatever their caliber . . . are certainly not inferior to the exilarchs in Babylonia."320He concludes, "a fortiori . . . the leader certainly stands in place of the king with regard to king’s law, which concerns the leadership of the public [and general administration of the nation]."321Under these standards, the government of Israel has authority to rule the Jewish people under King’s law. They do not have to abide by the Halacha when the interest to society would require steeping around the bounds of Jewish law. In an emergency situation, when it comes to maintaining law and order, and imposing punishment on those deemed dangerous to society, the Knesset is thus granted the same powers that King David would have been granted. In matters of general administration for the public good, these powers are necessary to improve the welfare of the Jewish people. C. Authority for the Government to Apply King’s Justice


Page 50

- 48 Having ascertained that the government may follow the King’s law, when may they apply it? What are the proper circumstances when the government may exercise power that is not specifically permitted under the Halacha? There are three main circumstances when the government has such power: (1) To maintain law and order; (2) for the benefit of society or welfare of the community; (3) in an emergency situation. I will also discuss the limitations on superceding Talmudic law. One of the purposes behind granting the king extrajudicial powers is to maintain law and order in society. The king could, in biblical times, "exercise his royal prerogative when the times call for it."322Ran refers to the principle of hassidur hamedini, "the maintenance of law and order" as one of the primary purposes behind the authority of the government under the king’s law.323The judicial powers granted to the king were in part granted to ensure that strict reliance on Talmudic procedure would not endanger society as in those times when "killing becomes commonplace and there is no fear of punishment."324Ran finds that non-Jewish law may better serve this goal in some circumstances and remarked that "it is possible to find some of the laws and ordinances of the nation measures more effective for the establishment and maintenance of law and order than in the laws of the Torah. This is not to our detriment, for whatever is lacking with regard to law and order may be filled by the king"325He notes that the king must have this authority because the administration of criminal justice is "practical in nature" and must cope with the "everyday ordering of society."326These comments echo the intent of Maimonides when he noted that the "king of Israel has the lawful authority" to maintain law and order "for the sake of social order and stability."327Under this doctrine, the government of Israel has the lawful authority to go against Jewish law to maintain law and order. Especially at a time "when killings are commonplace" and "there is no fear of punishment," more drastic measures must be taken to ensure a law-abiding nation. By granting the king the Talmudic authority, we see this as a granting of the same authority to the Israeli government and they may do what they must to maintain law and order and protect the people from criminals. 

In a land, they robbed, in a land they occupy, in a land they murder.....and they call the Palestinians criminals, outside of a war they created, the sons of the synagogue of satan, who say they are the seed of Abraham, but rejected the God of Abraham the Word, which they crucified on the false witness of the very same Satanic Talmudic laws of the Pharisees, the chassidim of Chabad Lubavitch of the Sofiet king of the North of Dan


Authority granted for the purpose of benefiting society acts almost as a corollary to the purpose of maintaining law and order. Ran agrees, noting that the prerogative of hasiddur hamedini (maintaining law and order) has "as its avowed purpose yishuvo shel olam (the benefit of society)"."328Because some authorities base the king’s authority solely on the basis of a contract between the people and government,329the king has as their ultimate duty the protection of populace and to better the welfare of society as a whole. It is clearly, though, within the government’s authority to "issue decrees for the common good.

Executive Order Decrees

"330Under this rationale it is easy to realize that the Israeli government has the lawful authority to issue orders outside of Halachic tradition. The benefit to society is the primary and perhaps only reason that any extrajudicial punishments are imposed. There is no bloodlust or religious superiority that has been publicly announced as a motive


Page 51

- 49 behind imposing punishment on Palestinians, rather, the public purposes behind every act has been the same: to protect the Jewish people and create a better country so that the Jews may live in security and prosperity.

No Religioue Authority...hehehehahahahahahohohoh, Did ye not say that I said ye are gods in YOUR laws?



 The third purpose identified for the granting of authority to the government is also related to the first to but identifies a time period rather than a overriding rationale: the king may impose extrajudicial punishment as an emergency measure as the times demand. 

National Sekurity Emergency....Martial Law

Maimonides specifically decrees, that the death penalty may be imposed when not permitted under the Halacha in situations of emergency at the hands of the king.331It should be noted that the emergency measure acts not only as a purpose but as a limitation. Because the emergency measure is by its nature, temporary, the king’s authority would naturally be removed when the emergency has ended.332However, this argument could seem to be circular because it was left to the king to decide what constitutes an emergency measure.333Despite this possibly limitless limitation, the Talmud describes one firm rule in regard to the royal prerogative. The king’s decree may go outside the letter of the law, but if actually goes against the Talmud, and the purpose of Talmudic law, then the decree is extortionate and is not lawful.334Understanding these points, when is Israel justified to call an emergency situation? The government may, as the king could, determine when that emergency situation was. There would be little dispute that Israel is currently in a crisis period. With hundreds of attacks each month, that could clearly justify the declaring of an emergency situation. However, has Israel went beyond the letter of the law or actually against the purposes? In imposing punishment on terrorists, who are criminals themselves, to save lives, the government has upheld the purposes of Talmudic law even if they have had to bend the laws in order to achieve their goals. Some of the specific instances will be discussed in more detail in the next section. D. Application of the King’s Justice to Israeli Responses to Terrorism Having determined that the Royal prerogative is a legitimate form of extrajudicial authority under Halachic law, the king’s authority translates to the authority of the state of Israel, and having found when the king’s justice may be imposed, the question becomes, how would this apply to the specific responses to terrorism that Israel has used? I will discuss how the application of the royal prerogative is justifiable in instances of assassinations of terrorists, destruction of homes, and other responses used by the Israeli government. 1. Permissibility of Assassinations under the King’s Judicial Authority Maimonides ruled on capital punishment by the king, stating "If the king of Israel wishes to put them to death by royal decree or for the benefit of society, he has the right to do so."335Maimonides mentions an example when the king lawfully issued capital punishment decrees. The king, in Maimonides’ view, is permitted to kill any person who disobeys his orders or slanders him.

see Presidents of the United States of Greater Israel

336Continuing, he noted that the king has the


Page 52

- 50 authority not only to go outside the bounds of formal Talmudic procedure but also that the king may even order the death of one acquitted if he considers it for the public good.337Maimonides is not the only commentator to hold these views. Ritva, despite some hesitancy in allowing such a broad decree, acknowledges the king’s authority to impose capital punishment as long as it is within the bounds Talmudic law.338What does this mean for terrorists? In simple terms, they have no recourse to complain that Israel would not comply with Jewish law. The king, in this case, the government, has the authority, and the right to issue those capital decrees instructing death for those who plan murders. 

The Poor Palestinians have no choice in the matter. Arafat is playing the proverbial Talmudic game which rules over all goyim in the world, temporary as it is.

How do the assassinations of terrorists fit under the categories discussed earlier? The king has the power to maintain law and order. There is little doubt that killing those who violate the law and disrupt order would fall under the category of maintaining law and order. The Knesset must deal with the everyday functioning of society. Society works better when people are not in fear of terrorist attacks, and society is not disrupted by rampant use of suicide bombers. While some may wish that other methods would be used, that does not take away from the lawful ability to assassinate terrorists to further law and order in Israeli society.339Would the assassination of terrorists be permitted for the benefit of society?

Is ethnic cleansing beneficial to mankind? ask the Holocaust victims.

 Maimonides would find that they would as he would allow even the imposition of capital punishment for a slanderer if it was for the benefit of society. 

And who is a slanderer? One in the United States of Greater Israel, who believes that he has a Constitutional Right given by a king to write what he thinks, the facts? So is this why Arik Sheinerman has sent his Mossad on the shores of the US to dispose the Opposers? The "Haters" of the Religion of zion, Talmudism, which is contrary unto all mankind?


When a terrorist actively incites people to kill, actively plans murders, and actively evades justice, his death would benefit the Israeli society. The people of Israel frightened about the possibility of more terrorist attacks. On the other hand they feel incapable of protecting themselves. With a swift action to eliminate these killers, Israel can allay the people’s fears and also provide the justice that is badly needed in order to show terrorists that they will not get away with their rampant acts of murder. 

Thus the Whore's Pimp the US, seals the other Arabs, away from the plan of Ethnic Cleansing?

Assassinating top terrorists are a benefit to Israeli society and they are indeed justified. 2. Destruction of Property under the Royal Prerogative The ability to impose criminal punishment extends also to the taking of property. Under biblical law, the king was permitted to expropriate property only for military necessity and for the building of roads.340These powers were expanded in the Talmudic period permitting unlimited expropriatory powers.341Of course, when the king takes title to the property in question, he has the right to destroy it as it is his own. Furthermore, when it comes to terrorists who have been killed, Talmudic law states that "property of a person executed for an offense against the king reverted to the king."342In this vein, then the property of terrorists is justifiably taken and destroyed by the state. If the state has basically unlimited authority to expropriate property, then the justification is not even required. Of course, were further justification required, similar justification to assassinations could be found by appealing to the benefit to society and maintenance of law and order that are both improved by the taking of terrorists’ property.


Page 53

- 51 After all, the deterrent measure alone could prevent terrorist bombings. If the terrorist had been killed, then under this law, their property would be forfeited to Israel anyway and Israel would have perfect right to destroy the property. Is the royal prerogative the method then that all responses to terrorism can be safely viewed under Jewish law? It depends in many cases on the actual response, who gave the order, and how it was carried out. More importantly, though, the actual response is more dependent not on what the act was but why. If it can be shown that any particular act was intended for the benefit of society or to maintain law and order, and does not go against Talmudic law (even if it does not actually coincide with Halachic law) then these actions would be justified under Jewish law. Based on a facial examination, it would appear that all actions can be brought under the broad sweep of the King’s Justice. However, only by looking at a particular act and analyzing it under criminal law or the laws of war can one determine whether that act does go against the Torah, or merely oversteps the boundaries of Jewish Law. 3. Justification of Deportations using the "King’s Justice" There are no real justifications for deportations of individuals under criminal law or the laws of war. In the Jewish tradition, deportation and banishment was reserved strictly for manslayers.343The royal prerogative may be able to sidestep this requirement, however. The "king’s justice" gives the monarch (and the government) wide latitude in determining when one may be permitted to be punished, what the punishment will be, and how the punishment will be carried out. In order to determine whether deportations are permitted, it is necessary to justify them under the criteria used to determine punishment under the royal prerogative. The first of the criteria I discussed was that of maintaining law and order. Does deportation suit this cause? Israel has stated that their purpose in deporting relatives of terrorists would be to deter future terrorist attacks.344If deporting family members of terrorists would potentially save human life, and would deter future attacks, there is little that would prevent these from being permissible under the Halacha. One of the purposes stated was when there was no fear of punishment. Yet, the terrorists do not fear their own death. Because of this direct punishment would have no recourse and would lead to no result. However, if a suicide bomber would reconsider their horrific action in order to prevent harm to their family, then there is no reason that these acts by the government would not be permitted. 

Blackmail, extortion........for obedient slaves to the master race gods.

While the Talmud specifically decries capital punishment for conspirators against his throne,345deportations would not kill the party. Instead, deportation seems relatively minor compared to some other possible punishments that could be meted out. Would the deportations lead to a benefit to society? There would seem to be evidence that it would. 

More room for Guela, Aliya, EXOD-US, Thus more violence, thus more deportation, a cycle, an ourobouros of zion

Besides the deterrent factor alone creating fewer future murders, the benefit to society could also be inferred from deporting those who may have collaborated to aid in a terrorist attack. The benefit would be gained when these collaborators would no longer be able to work with their associates and aid in another


Page 54

- 52 family member committing horrific acts. Most of the family members of terrorists support their relative’s choice. From proclaiming them a martyr to idolizing them on playing cards, these terrorist acts are lauded in the Palestinian community. 

The Bushka Regimes mind control propaganda to instill fear in the Palestinians, by showing their playing cards of saddam's regime, destroyed.

The benefit to society as a whole would be obtained by making these acts deemed to cause harm rather than good. If deporting a relative would serve this purpose there can be no excuse for not permitting these actions under the Halacha. Finally, the extenuating circumstances would allow these acts to take place. In times of emergency, the king may resort to actions that would have little justification in normal situations. We note that the rule remains whether the act perpetrated by the government goes against the Torah or merely is not permitted by it. Banishment is used in Biblical law. Manslayers have not purposefully committed any harm yet they are punished. 

Manslayers were jews who slew jews. By your own satanic talmudic putrid laws this did not apply when a Goy accidently slew a god, for they were decapitated. What is it you double speak demons of hell means...SO too


So too, the deportees may not have purposefully caused any harm, or at least have not directly created any harm, but they know that this fate may befall them if their relative performs such a horrible deed. After all, Israel has not deported individuals unless they have at least knowledge of the terrorist attack so the deportees are not innocents. Israel would be justified to engage in these acts in order to prevent further transgressions of the law. The King’s justice is broad, but it seems to be intentionally so. There must be some means for a ruler to adjust for circumstances that the law does not address. There are still specific reasons when such actions may be used. The power is not unlimited. Yet the power does go far beyond the strictures of criminal and wartime laws. But dealing with terrorism seems to be exactly the type of situation the sages had in mind when they permitted such stretching of the law. After all, who could disagree that a Jew murdering Hitler, who never killed anyone himself and never declared war on the Jews, would be justified in doing so? 

scapegoat for the creation of zion and the murder goes on, by the deceptions and the antisemitism which your sages said was necessary for their management.....

The same justifications would apply to Israeli government actions in regard to terrorism. These actions would be justified under Jewish law. V. Conclusion There is much debate in Jewish community, and even greater debate in the world community, over justifications for many of Israeli actions in responding to the terrorist acts that have plagued the nation of Israel. While much of the criticism is attributed to anti-Semitic groups that would (and do) criticize any action undertaken by the Jewish people, criticism has also been levied by many Jews and Israel supporters. From the religious community to civil rights activists, Israel’s deportations and assassinations garner intense scrutiny. Despite this, the Jewish people support Ariel Sharon’s tough stand against the Palestinians. Relatively few Israelis believe that conceding land and rights will lead to peace. Instead they feel that the only way to prevent future acts is to take a forceful position when it comes to responding to terrorism.


Page 55

- 53 I agree with the majority of Israelis in deciding that the State’s responses should be justified. I also feel that the actions are justified under Jewish law. It is true that some of the justifications are made through broad interpretation of the Halacha. However, in trying times that have never been dealt with before in Jewish history, broad interpretation is not only permissible but necessary. It is true that a narrow interpretation of the same laws I have described throughout this paper may lead to a lack of justification for Israel’s action. But I believe that the Sages would approve of Israel’s actions. I do not think a narrow interpretation would be appropriate. A broad view is necessary to consider the extreme variation of terrorist actions from anything before dealt with under Talmudic law. My view is that the primary purpose behind the Talmudic laws are to promote the values that we hold dear. These values, in essence, are the upholding of Talmudic principles. The Talmud places an incredibly high value on (jewish)  life, especially innocent life. They also place a great deal of value on upholding just laws. It is in these areas that the terrorists strike right at the heart of Jewish ideals. When a terrorist has as his supreme goal to take innocent lives, the Talmud requires that any and all means must be taken to stop that killing. When the terrorist lives by rules of law that directly contradict even the basic Noachide commandments, it is our obligation to ensure that these laws do not interfere with the Jewish dedication to follow the rules of the Torah. Would I prefer that Israel did not have to engage in any of these actions? Of course. I would love see Israel and Palestinians live side by side in a just society devoid of violence and mayhem. Unfortunately, that is not that case. It is to ensure a just society that the Talmud provides flexibility. The sages have permitted interpretation of the Torah as a living document, not unlike the United States Constitution. These decrees then must be used with the current times, and the current dilemmas in order to resolve them in the way that will best benefit the Jewish people and still be lawful. The flexibility was broadened many times by permitting courts, governments, and individuals to break the biblical laws for the greater good or to prevent the greater evil. Is this not the goal of Israel’s actions? Israel is not trying to start a war against the Muslim people, (hahahahahhehehehehhehehehehhohohoohohoh)after all, on .1% of the land and barely 1% of the population in the Middle East, a war would be extremely difficult at best. Israel is trying to maintain peace and order in a difficult time. And because these desperate times call for desperate measures, Israel has resorted to such. The Jewish people have attempted cease-fires to encourage peace on numerous occasions. Every single cease fire was broken by the murder of more Jewish people. So at some point, the Talmudic rules must be suspended and other actions must be taken. It is only because of dire need that assassinations, deportations, and expropriation has been used.


Page 56

- 54 And so, while we all pray that the violence ends, in the mean time, the violence of Israel is justified.

So to say the Palestinians who are treated as slaves in their own lands

So to thought the Natural American, the tribes of America

 I hope that Israel uses restraint in continuing these actions but is not unwillingly to save every life they can. In the future, the creation of a just Palestinian society is a noble goal. In the meantime, as the Noahide commandments continue to be defied and the sanctity of life is rendered meaningless, Israel has an obligation to engage in whatever actions necessary to maintain law and order and protect the Jewish people from danger, wherever and however it may arise. 1Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2In Memoriam; Government web site dedicated to the memory of victims of Palestinian Terrism since September, 2000. 3Id. Other victims of that terrorist attack were: Boaz Aluf, 54, of Jerusalem; Shani Avi-Zedek, 15, of Jerusalem; Leah Baruch, 59, of Jerusalem; Mendel Bereson, 72, of Jerusalem; Rafael Berger, 28, of Jerusalem; Michal Biazi, 24, of Jerusalem; Tatiana Braslavsky, 41, of Jerusalem; Galila Bugala, 11, of Jerusalem; Raisa Dikstein, 67, of Jerusalem; Baruch Gruani, 60, of Jerusalem; Orit Hayla, 21, of Jerusalem; Helena Ivan, 63, of Jerusalem; Iman Kabha, 26, of Barta; Shiri Negari, 21, of Jerusalem; Gila Nakav, 55, of Jerusalem; Yelena Plagov, 42, of Jerusalem; Liat Yagen, 24 of Jerusalem; Rahamim Zidkiyahu, 51, of Jerusalem. 4Hamas was formed in 1987. The group engages in various forms of terrorism against Israel including suicide bombings, assassinations, and random shootings of civilians. 5Israeli Defense Forces website ( provides the following figures: 5071 people injured including 3,595 civilians and 731 persons killed including 506 civilians. The 16,442 attacks include 665 inside Israel not including the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 6W. Laqueur, "Reflections on Terrorism," 64 Foreign Affairs 86, 88 (1986). 7K. Skubiszewski, "Definition of Terrorism," 19 Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights 39, 42 (1989). 8Id. at 43 9Id. at 42 10Id. at 44 11Deuteronomy 4:2; See Also Deut. 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." 12January 27, 2002, Broadcast on Al Jazeera 13Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, July 30, 199814See Hamas Charter 15Id. 16Gross, Emanuel. "Democracy in the War Against Terrorism – The Israeli Experience," 35 Loyola L. Rev. 1161, 1189 (2002). 17Id. at 1191 18See Id. at 1992 19Id. at 1190 20Id. 21Broyde, Michael J. "Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition" 22Horowitz, George. Spirit of Jewish Law, §86 Kinds of War, p. 146 (1993). 23Ibid. 24Broyde, supra note 2125Id. These wars are no longer possible because the seven Cannanite nations mentioned in the Bible as those who Israel must defeat have all been defeated or they no longer exist as distinct peoples in the way they are identified in the Torah. But See discussion, infra at 12, on Amalek encompassing all who embrace the goal of destroying the Jewish nation. 26Broyde, supra note 2127Id.


Page 57

- 55 28Id. 29Id. One of the problems associated with this view is that it would be difficult to determine if fighting has ceased or has merely been interrupted. This issue has not been discussed, but it would seem that some could view this statement as referring to a gap such as the months at a time when no fighting continued during the Hundred Years War and others could view it as referring to the recurring disputes between India and Pakistan over the state of Kashmir where the countries are not deemed, technically, to be at war. I belive this should be viewed on a case by case basis, a bright line test would not aid in this analysis. 30PLO Charter, Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968 31See Horowitz, supra note 22at §74 Duty to Rescue p. 124 32Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yasser Arafat, at a speech at the Palestine General Confederation of Trade Unions in Gaza, October 27, 2001 33 34Broyde, supra note 2135See supra note 5 36Broyde, supra note 2137See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §86 Kinds of War p.146 38Deut. 20:10-11 39See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §86 Kinds of War p.149 40Ibid. at 149-150 41Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Kings 6:1 42See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p.149-150 43Broyde, supra note 2144Id. 45Financial Times, Palestinians Accuse Israel of Declaring War , October 12, 2000. 46From Revolution to Reconstructi on, Chapter 13 (1994) 47Rahover, Nahum, Jewish Law and Noahide Obligation to Preserve Social Order 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 1073, 1090-1091 (1991). 48 49Ibid. 50 51The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; September 29, 1995; Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities, May 4, 1994, Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Areas, May 4, 1994; Sharm el -Sheikh Fact Finding Committee, April 30, 2001 52Broyde, supra note 21 at n.1953Broyde, supra note 2154Blecih, J. David, Contemporary Halachic Problems, 17 ***FULL CITE*** 55Broyde, supra note 2156Sanhedrin 29b 57Sanhedrin 20a 58J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 13. This statement was made prior to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Rabbi Zevin referred to the three wars Israel had engaged in to that point: the 1948 War for Independence, the 1956 Suez Canal War, and the 1967 Six Day War. He found that the consent of the Sanhedrin was not needed and the formal procedures not applicable for these wars and they were thus permissible by Jewish Law. 59Id at 17 60Id. 61Id. 62Ramban, addendum to Maimonides Sefer ha-Mitzvot, no. 17. Note also that Ramban would require the consent of the Sanhedrin although the presence of the king is itself not necessary. 63J. D. Bl eich, supra note 54 at 15 64Broyde, supra note 21 at n.19 65Id. 66J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 16


Page 58

- 56 67Id. at 13. Rabbi Bleich states th at he would follow Rabbi Zevin’s analysis (that consent of Sanhedrin not needed for wars in self defense) and find sanction of the 1973 war. I am extending this analysis to the current conflict with the Palestinians. 68Sanhedrin 72a 69Broyde, supra note 2170Fletcher, George P., Self Defense as a Justification for Punishment , 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 859 at 862 -863. 71See PLO Charter supra note 30, Article 15. 72Deut. 25:19 73Exodus 17:16 And he said: 'The hand upon the throne of HaShem: HaShem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.' 74J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 17; Bleich is noting the statements from Hilkhot Melakhim 5:4-5. 75Id. 76Id. at n.6 77Id. at 17 78See Hamas Charter, PLO Charter supra note 3079J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 17. This seems to suggest that the requirement to destroy Amalek does not refer to an enemy who fulfills both requirements but to destroy any enemy who fulfills either of these requirements. 80Id. 81Broyde, supra note 2182Id. 83Id. 84Id. 85Id. 86Id. 87Israel’s opponents and criticizers do feel that Israe l has been reckless in regard to their actions but judged under the standards of any war in history, these claims would be extremely exaggerated at best. 88 89Broyde, supra note 21. Rabbi Broyde notes that the scope of wartime justifications is broader than those in times of peace. 90Sanhedrin 72a 91See Fletcher, supra, note 70 at 862-863. This logic would require the community to defend themselves sin the same manner that an individual must. 92Shulcan Aruch, Orach Chaim 329:6 93Ex. 20:13 94Deut. 27:24 95I Kings 2:31; I Samuel 25:31 96Rosenberg, Irena Merker; Rosenberg Yale; and Turin, Bentzion, Murder by Gruma: Causation in Homicide Cases Under Jewish Law, 80 B.U.L. 1017, 1028 -1029 (2000). 97Deut. 19:10 98Sokol, Moshe. Some Tensions in the Jewish Law Attitude Toward the Taking of Human Life 7 Jewish Law Annual 97, 99. For this section, the justifications of execution does not apply and will not be discussed. Rescue too is related to the criminal law aspect and will be discussed in Part III. 99Leviticus 21:2; 24:14 100Sanhedrin 72a 101Sanhedrin 8:7 102Lev 20:2; Lev. 24:14 103Maim. Yad Roze’ah, 1:15-16 104See Spirit of Jewish Law, supra note 22 at p. 177 105See Head of Hamas Military Wing Killed in Military Strike 106Id. 107Broyde, supra note 21108Maimonides, Commentary, 1:13


Page 59

- 57 109See Fletcher, supra, note 70 at 862-863. Following the self-defense maxim to "if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." 110Sokol, Moshe. Some Tensions in the Jewish Law Attitude Toward the Taking of Human Life 7 Jewish Law Annual 97, 99 111Lev. 19:16 112Broyde, supra note 21113 114Maimonides, Yad Roze’ah 10 11642 terrorists with direct connections to terrorist actions ar rested in action by the IDF and security forces since the assassination of the late Minister Rechavam Ze'evy on Oct 17 117IDF commandos kill Hamas millitary commander in Gaza, Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2003 118The Rule of Law in the Areas Administered by Israel", Israel National Section of the International Commission of Jurists, 1981 119The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories (1971). Shamgar is referring to the lack of deterrence because Israel does not generally impose capital punishment under their criminal law code. 120Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention (Aug 12, 1949) See Pictet, J.S., "Commentary, IV Geneva Convention" (1958). Pictet states that the prohibition against destruction would not apply if there is an "imperative military requirement." Pictet also notes that Article 78 of the 4th Geneva Convention which restricts doing anything except "at most placing protected person in an internment camp" only applies to innocent people. 121Deut. 20:19-20 122Maimonides, Book of Commandments, Negative No. 57 123See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p. 148 124Contra Apion, II, 29. Josephus wrote these words when accompanying the Roman legions in their conquest of the Holy Land. 125See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §73 Public Safety "Thou Shalt Not Destroy," p. 123 126See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p. 148 127Id. 128Genesis 32:6-7 129Genesis 32:8 130Genesis Rabbah 76:2; See Also Lekach Tov in Torah Shelemah, VI, 1266, n.9 "If he overpowers me, that is bad; and if I overpower him, that is bad." 131Sanhedrin 74a. 132Sifte Hachamim, Gen. 32:8 133Mishna Torah, Kings, 6:7 134Broyde, supra note 21 135Id. 136Bleich, J. David, "Preemptive War in Jewish Law." 137Time Magazine at 138See Broyde, supra note 21. Finding that those who stay to fight or stay in the battlefield are no longer innocents and are considered combatants under Jewish law and their killing would not be considered collateral damage. 139Id. 140This is analogous to a naval or air battle. If country A and Country B were at war, and Country A had a <div style="position:absolute;to


Now that You have understood what the Great Whore has done, it is very important to see what John Ashcroft the Attorney General of the United States of Greater Israel has planned to instill fear and terror in the hearts of US Citizen's in his protections of His Judeo-Churchizionazi' Chosen Master Race, who have "Chose the Robber, gods."

In the future, every crime, including misdemeanor's will be classified as "Terrorism"

Universal Noahide Laws




S. __


Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr.

CORNYN, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on _____________


To combat narco-terrorism, to dismantle narco-terrorist

criminal enterprises, to disrupt narco-terrorist financing

and money laundering schemes, to enact national drug

sentencing reform, to prevent drug trafficking to chil-dren,

to deter drug-related violence, to provide law en-forcement

with the tools needed to win the war against

narco-terrorists and major drug traffickers, and for other


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1

tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2


June 27, 2003




(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 2

‘‘Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations 3

Act of 2003’’ or the ‘‘VICTORY Act’’. 4

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 5

this Act is as follows: 6

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Severability clause.



Sec. 101. Prohibition of narco-terrorism.

Sec. 102. Narco-terrorist criminal enterprises.

Sec. 103. Increased civil and criminal penalties for persons and entities who fa-cilitate

financing of narco-terrorists and terrorists.



Subtitle A—Prohibiting Money Laundering Through Hawalas, ‘‘Reverse’’

Money Laundering, and Other Money Laundering Schemes

Sec. 201. Preventing narco-terrorists from laundering money using hawalas.

Sec. 202. Interstate transportation of criminal proceeds and ‘‘reverse’’ money

laundering by currency couriers.

Sec. 203. Freezing bank accounts of persons arrested for money laundering and

bulk cash smuggling.

Sec. 204. Procedure for issuing subpoenas in money laundering cases.

Sec. 205. Using blank checks in bearer form to smuggle money.

Sec. 206. Treating electronic funds as fungible property.

Sec. 207. Making domestic money laundering statute apply to ‘‘reverse’’ money


Sec. 208. Making international money laundering statute apply to tax evasion.

Sec. 209. Section 1957 violations involving commingled funds and structured


Sec. 210. Charging money laundering as a course of conduct.

Sec. 211. Laundering the proceeds of foreign crimes.

Sec. 212. Illegal money transmitting businesses.

Sec. 213. Definition of public official.

Sec. 214. Other specified activity for money laundering.

Subtitle B—Recovering and Confiscating Criminal Proceeds

Sec. 221. Criminal forfeiture for money laundering conspiracies.

Sec. 222. Fungible property.

Sec. 223. Forfeiting the proceeds of foreign crimes.

Sec. 224. Recovery of criminal proceeds from third parties.

Sec. 225. Restraint of proceeds of foreign crime.

Sec. 226. Extraterritorial jurisdiction.


June 27, 2003



Sec. 227. Availability of tax records.

Sec. 228. Civil order to repatriate assets.

Sec. 229. Forfeiture for failure to report large cash transactions.

Sec. 230. Assets of persons committing terrorist acts against foreign countries.

Sec. 231. Technical amendment to restore wiretap authority for certain money

laundering offenses.

Sec. 232. Knowledge that the property is the proceeds of a specific felony.

Sec. 233. Discovery procedure for locating laundered money.

Sec. 234. Authorization to share recovered property with cooperating foreign


Sec. 235. Criminal forfeiture of property in government custody.

Sec. 236. Non-abatement of criminal forfeiture when defendant dies pending


Sec. 237. Miscellaneous minor and technical amendments.

Sec. 238. Venue for prisoner challenges to seizure of crime proceeds.

Sec. 239. Restoring criminal proceeds to victims.

Sec. 240. Affording property owners a hearing on the seizure of real property.

Sec. 241. Jurisdiction of magistrates.

Sec. 242. Technical amendment regarding the procedures for criminal for-feiture.

Sec. 243. Clarification of 18 U.S.C. 3322.

Sec. 244. Minor amendments to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

Sec. 245. Collection of criminal forfeiture judgment.

Sec. 246. Property detained at the border.

Sec. 247. Exemption from liability for attorney fees in international money

laundering cases.

Sec. 248. Technical correction regarding forfeiture authority for Secretary,

Homeland Security.

Sec. 249. Rule 32.2.

Sec. 250. Forfeiture of the value of drugs seized.

Sec. 251. Forfeiture of facilitating property in narco-terrorism cases and prop-erty

traceable to such property.

Sec. 252. Forfeiture of instrumentalities of terrorism, fraud, and other offenses.


Sec. 301. Sentencing guideline conforming changes and enhancements for acts

of violence during the course of a drug trafficking offense.

Sec. 302. Increase in sentence for aggravating factors.

Sec. 303. Removing sentencing cap on drug traffickers who facilitate the avail-ability

and distribution of large quantities of illegal drugs.

Sec. 304. Additional serious drug offenses as armed career criminal act predi-cates.

Sec. 305. Limit on sentencing of certain defendants in drug trafficking cases.

Sec. 306. Restoration of orderly gradation of sentences to punish large-scale

drug traffickers.

Sec. 307. Conforming sentencing guidelines to conspiracy law.

Sec. 308. Elderly, nonviolent prisoner pilot program.

Sec. 309. Emergency amendment authority.



Sec. 401. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to

a drug trafficking crime.

Sec. 402. Protection of children from drug traffickers.


June 27, 2003






Sec. 501. Predicate crimes for authorization of interception of wire, oral, and

electronic communications.

Sec. 502. Limiting application of statutory exclusionary rule where law enforce-ment

agents act in good faith.

Sec. 503. Administrative subpoenas for terrorism investigations.

Sec. 504. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives.

Sec. 505. Expanded jurisdiction to issue orders to intercept communications.

Sec. 506. Directive to United States Sentencing Commission.


If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by 2

this Act, or the application of such provision or amend- 3

ment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconsti- 4

tutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made 5

by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such 6

to any person or circumstances shall not be affected there- 7

by. 8






Part A of the Controlled Substance Import and Ex- 14

port Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) is amended by inserting 15

after section 1010 the following: 16



‘‘SEC. 1010A. 19


June 27, 2003



‘‘(a) PROHIBITED ACTS.—Any person who, in a cir- 1

cumstance described in subsection (c), manufactures, dis- 2

tributes, imports, exports, or possesses with intent to dis- 3

tribute or manufacture a controlled substance, 4

flunitrazepam, or listed chemical, or attempts or conspires 5

to do so, knowing or intending that such activity, directly 6

or indirectly, aids or provides support, resources, or any- 7

thing of pecuniary value to— 8

(1) a foreign terrorist organization; or 9

(2) any person or group involved in the plan- 10

ning, preparation for, or carrying out of, a terrorist 11

offense, 12

shall be punished as provided under subsection (b). 13

‘‘(b) PENALTIES.— 14

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates 15

subsection (a) shall be sentenced to— 16

‘‘(A)(i) a term of imprisonment of not less 17

than 20 years and not more than life; or 18

‘‘(ii) if death or serious bodily injury re- 19

sults from the use of a controlled substance, a 20

term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years 21

and not more than life; 22

‘‘(B) a fine not to exceed— 23

‘‘(i) $4,000,000, if the defendant is an 24

individual; or 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(ii) $10,000,000, if the defendant is 1

not an individual; and 2

‘‘(C) a term of supervised release of not 3

less than 5 years. 4


FENSE.—Any person who violates subsection (a) 6

after a prior conviction of such person for a felony 7

drug offense becomes final, shall be sentenced to— 8

‘‘(A)(i) a term of imprisonment of not less 9

than 30 years and not more than life; or 10

‘‘(ii) if death or serious bodily injury re- 11

sults from the use of a controlled substance, a 12

term of life imprisonment; 13

‘‘(B) a fine not to exceed— 14

‘‘(i) $8,000,000, if the defendant is an 15

individual; or 16

‘‘(ii) $20,000,000, if the defendant is 17

not an individual; and 18

‘‘(C) a term of supervised release of not 19

less than 10 years. 20

‘‘(c) JURISDICTION.—A United States district court 21

shall have jurisdiction over an offense described in sub- 22

section (a) if— 23

‘‘(1) the offense takes place in the United 24

States; or 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(2) the offense takes place outside of the 1

United States and— 2

‘‘(A) the perpetrator is— 3

‘‘(i) a national of the United States; 4

or 5

‘‘(ii) a stateless person whose habitual 6

residence is in the United States; 7

‘‘(B) the offense— 8

‘‘(i) was directed toward, or resulted 9

in, the carrying out of a terrorist offense— 10

‘‘(I) against any property that is 11

owned or leased by any department or 12

agency of the United States, including 13

an embassy or other diplomatic or 14

consular premises of the United 15

States; 16

‘‘(II) against any person or prop- 17

erty within the United States; 18

‘‘(III) against any national of the 19

United States or the property of such 20

national; 21

‘‘(IV) against any property of 22

any legal entity organized under the 23

laws of the United States, or any of 24


June 27, 2003





its States, districts, commonwealths, 1

territories, or possessions; or 2

‘‘(V) in an attempt to compel the 3

United States to do or abstain from 4

doing any act; or 5

‘‘(ii) is committed— 6

‘‘(I) on board an aircraft, which 7

is registered under the laws of the 8

United States at the time the offense 9

is committed or is operated by the 10

United States; or 11

‘‘(II) on board a vessel of the 12

United States (as defined in section 13

3(b) of the Maritime Drug Enforce- 14

ment Act (46 U.S.C. 1903(b)) or on 15

board a vessel subject to the jurisdic- 16

tion of the United States (as defined 17

in section 3(c) of that Act); or 18

‘‘(C) the foreign terrorist organization has 19

been designated pursuant to the authority 20

granted under the Immigration and Nationality 21

Act. 22


RISDICTION OF UNITED STATES.—This section is in- 24


June 27, 2003



tended to reach prohibited acts, which are committed out- 1

side the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 2

‘‘(e) PROOF REQUIREMENTS.—The prosecution shall 3

not be required to prove that any defendant knew that 4

an organization was designated as a ‘foreign terrorist or- 5

ganization’ under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 6

‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following 7

definitions shall apply: 8


term ‘anything of pecuniary value’ has the meaning 10

given the term in section 1958(b)(1) of title 18, 11

United States Code. 12


term ‘national of the United States’ has the meaning 14

given the term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immi- 15

gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)). 16

‘‘(3) TERRORIST OFFENSE.—The term ‘ter- 17

rorist offense’ means— 18

‘‘(A) an act which constitutes an offense 19

within the scope of a treaty, as defined under 20

section 2339C(e)(7) of title 18, United States 21

Code, which has been implemented by the 22

United States; 23

‘‘(B) any other act intended to cause death 24

or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any 25


June 27, 2003



other person not taking an active part in the 1

hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when 2

the purpose of such act, by its nature or con- 3

text, is to intimidate a population, or to compel 4

a government or an international organization 5

to do or to abstain from doing any act. 6


‘terrorist organization’ has the meaning given the 8

term in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration 9

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)).’’. 10


Part A of the Controlled Substance Import and Ex- 12

port Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) is amended by inserting 13

after section 1010A (as added by section 101) the fol- 14

lowing: 15


‘‘SEC. 1010B. 17


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who engages in 19

a narco-terrorist continuing enterprise shall be— 20

‘‘(A) imprisoned for a period of not less 21

than 40 years and not more than life; 22

‘‘(B) if the defendant is an individual, sub- 23

ject to a fine in an amount not greater than 24

$4,000,000; and 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(C) if the defendant is other than an indi- 1

vidual, subject to a fine in an amount not 2

greater than $10,000,000. 3

‘‘(2) ENHANCED PENALTY.—Any person who, 4

after being convicted of a felony drug offense or 5

crime of violence, who engages in, or works in fur- 6

therance of, a narco-terrorist continuing enterprise, 7

shall be— 8

‘‘(A) imprisoned for a period of not less 9

than 50 years and not more than life; 10

‘‘(B) if the defendant is an individual, sub- 11

ject to a fine in an amount not greater than 12

$8,000,000; and 13

‘‘(C) if the defendant is other than an indi- 14

vidual, subject to a fine in an amount not 15

greater than $20,000,000. 16

‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following 17

definitions shall apply: 18


CONTINUING ENTERPRISE.—The term ‘person en- 20

gaged in a narco-terrorist continuing enterprise’ 21

means a person who violates section 1010A if such 22

violation is a part of a continuing series of violations 23

of section 1010A— 24


June 27, 2003



‘‘(A) which are undertaken by such person 1

in concert with not less than 5 persons, to 2

whom such person occupies a position of orga- 3

nizer, supervisor, or any other position of man- 4

agement; and 5

‘‘(B) from which such person obtains sub- 6

stantial income or resources. 7


The term ‘a continuing series of violations’ means 9

not less than 3 violations of section 1010A. 10


This section is intended to reach prohibited acts, which 12

are committed outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the 13

United States.’’. 14





Section 206 of the International Emergency Eco- 19

nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) is amended— 20

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ 21

and inserting ‘‘$50,000’’; and 22

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$50,000, or, 23

if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more 24

than ten years’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000, or, if a 25


June 27, 2003



natural person, may be imprisoned for not more 1

than 20 years’’. 2




Subtitle A—Prohibiting Money 6

Laundering Through Hawalas, 7

‘‘Reverse’’ Money Laundering, 8

and Other Money Laundering 9

Schemes 10



Section 1956 of title 18, United States Code, is 13

amended by adding at the end the following: 14


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para- 16

graphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), a transaction, 17

transportation, transmission, or transfer of funds 18

shall be considered to involve the proceeds of speci- 19

fied unlawful activity if the transaction, transpor- 20

tation, transmission, or transfer is part of a set of 21

parallel or dependent transactions, any 1 of which 22

involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. 23


June 27, 2003



‘‘(2) DEFINED TERM.—As used in this section, 1

the term ‘dependent transaction’ means a trans- 2

action that— 3

‘‘(A) completes or complements another 4

transaction; or 5

‘‘(B) would not have occurred but for an- 6

other transaction.’’. 7




Section 5332 of title 31, United States Code, is 11

amended— 12

(1) in subsection (a)— 13

(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as 14

paragraph (3); and 15

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 16

following: 17

‘‘(2) CONCEALMENT IN VEHICLE.—Any person 18

who conceals more than $10,000 in currency on his 19

person or in any vehicle, in any compartment or con- 20

tainer within any vehicle, or in any container placed 21

in a common carrier, and transports, attempts to 22

transport, or conspires to transport such currency in 23

or affecting interstate commerce on any public road 24

or highway, or on any bus, train, airplane, vessel, or 25


June 27, 2003



other common carrier, knowing that the currency 1

was derived from some form of unlawful activity, or 2

knowing that the currency was intended to be used 3

to promote some form of unlawful activity, shall be 4

subject to punishment pursuant to subsection (b).’’; 5

(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘5’’ and in- 6

serting ‘‘10’’; and 7

(3) by adding at the end the following: 8

‘‘(d) AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE.—Violations of 9

this section may be investigated by— 10

‘‘(1) the Attorney General; 11

‘‘(2) the Secretary of the Treasury; 12

‘‘(3) the Secretary of the Department of Home- 13

land Security; and 14

‘‘(4) the United States Postal Service.’’. 15




Section 5317 of title 31, United States Code, is 19

amended by adding at the end the following: 20


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If any person is arrested or 22

charged in connection with any offense under this 23

chapter, or any offense under section 1956, 1957, or 24

1960 of title 18 (relating to the movement of funds 25


June 27, 2003



into or out of the United States), the Attorney Gen- 1

eral may apply to any Federal judge or magistrate 2

judge in the district in which the arrest is made, or 3

the charges are filed, for an ex parte order restrain- 4

ing any account held by the person arrested or 5

charged for not more than 30 days. This time period 6

may be extended for good cause shown at a hearing 7

conducted in the manner provided in rule 43(e) of 8

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9

‘‘(2) CONTENTS OF APPLICATION.—The appli- 10

cation for the restraining order referred to in para- 11

graph (1) shall— 12

‘‘(A) identify the offense for which the per- 13

son has been arrested or charged; 14

‘‘(B) identify the location and description 15

of the accounts to be restrained; and 16

‘‘(C) state that the restraining order is 17

needed to prevent the removal of the funds in 18

the account by the person arrested or charged, 19

or by others associated with such person, dur- 20

ing the time needed by the Government to con- 21

duct such investigation as may be necessary to 22

establish whether there is probable cause to be- 23

lieve that the funds in the accounts are subject 24


June 27, 2003



to forfeiture in connection with the commission 1

of any criminal offense. 2

‘‘(3) RELEASE OF FUNDS.—At the expiration of 3

the period of restraint described in paragraph (1), 4

the financial institution holding the funds that have 5

been subject to restraint shall be free to release 6

those funds at the direction of the account holder 7

unless the Government has obtained a seizure war- 8

rant, a restraining order, or an arrest warrant in 9

rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain 10

Admiralty and Maritime Claims. 11

‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this 12

section— 13

‘‘(A) the term ‘account’ includes any ac- 14

count (as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 15

section 5318A(e)) at any financial institution; 16

and 17

‘‘(B) the term ‘account held by the person 18

arrested or charged’ includes an account held in 19

the name of such person, and any account over 20

which such person has effective control as a sig- 21

natory or otherwise.’’. 22


June 27, 2003





(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5318 of title 31, United 3

States Code, is amended— 4

(1) by redesignating subsection (l), as added by 5

section 359 of the International Money Laundering 6

Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 7

2001 (115 Stat. 328), as subsection (m); and 8

(2) by adding at the end the following: 9


Attorney General may issue a subpoena in the manner set 11

forth in section 3486 of title 18— 12

‘‘(1) in any situation in which subsection (k) 13

applies; or 14

‘‘(2) in any investigation of a violation of sec- 15

tion 5316, 5324, 5331, or 5332 of this title or sec- 16

tion 1956, 1957, or 1960 of title 18.’’. 17


5318(k)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, is 19

amended— 20

(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘related to such 21

correspondent account’’; and 22

(2) by adding at the end the following: 23


POENA.—A subpoena issued by the Attor- 25


June 27, 2003



ney General under clause (i) may be a 1

grand jury or a trial subpoena.’’. 2


Section 604(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 4

U.S.C. 1681b(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the 5

period at the end ‘‘, or an investigative subpoena issued 6

pursuant to section 5318 of title 31, United States Code’’. 7

(d) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.—Section 1510(b) of 8

title 18, United States Code, is amended— 9

(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘or an in- 10

vestigative subpoena issued pursuant to section 5318 11

of title 31’’ after ‘‘grand jury subpoena’’; and 12

(2) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ‘‘, an in- 13

vestigative subpoena issued pursuant to section 5318 14

of title 31,’’ after ‘‘grand jury subpoena’’. 15


Section 1120(b)(1) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act 17

of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3420(b)(1) is amended— 18

(1) by inserting ‘‘, or an investigative subpoena 19

issued pursuant to section 5318 of title 31, United 20

States Code,’’ after ‘‘grand jury subpoena’’; and 21

(2) by inserting ‘‘or to the Government’’ after 22

‘‘to the grand jury’’. 23


June 27, 2003





Section 5316 of title 31, United States Code, is 3

amended by adding at the end the following: 4


BLANK.—For purposes of this section, a monetary instru- 6

ment in bearer form that has the amount left blank so 7

that the amount could be filled in by the bearer, shall be 8

considered to have a value equal to the value of the funds 9

in the account on which the monetary instrument is drawn 10

at the time it was being transported.’’. 11



Section 5317(c) of title 31, United States Code, is 14

amended— 15

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Any prop- 16

erty’’ and inserting the following: 17

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any property’’; and 18

(2) by adding at the end the following: 19

‘‘(B) FUNGIBLE PROPERTY.—In any civil 20

forfeiture action brought pursuant to this sec- 21

tion, section 5332, or section 981(a)(1)(A) of 22

title 18, currency, precious metals, gem stones, 23

and funds held in any account at any financial 24

institution in electronic form shall be considered 25

fungible property identical to other property lo- 26


June 27, 2003



cated in the same place or account at an earlier 1

time. 2

‘‘(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In any case de- 3

scribed under subparagraph (B)— 4

‘‘(i) the Government shall not be re- 5

quired to identify the specific property in- 6

volved in the offense that is the basis for 7

the forfeiture; and 8

‘‘(ii) the removal and replacement of 9

the property involved in such offense with 10

identical property shall not be a defense.’’. 11




Section 1957 of title 18, United States Code, is 15

amended— 16

(1) in the header, by inserting ‘‘or in sup- 17

port of criminal activity’’ after ‘‘specified 18

unlawful activity’’; and 19

(2) in subsection (a)— 20

(A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Whoever’’; 21

and 22

(B) by adding at the end the following: 23

‘‘(2) Whoever, in any of the circumstances de- 24

scribed under subsection (d), engages or attempts to 25


June 27, 2003



engage in a monetary transaction involving property 1

of a value greater than $10,000, with the intent to 2

promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activ- 3

ity, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a 4

term of years not to exceed the statutory maximum 5

for the activity being promoted, or both.’’. 6



Section 1956(a)(2)(A) of title 18, United States 9

Code, is amended— 10

(1) by striking ‘‘to promote’’ and inserting 11

‘‘to— 12

‘‘(i) promote’’; and 13

(2) by adding at the end the following: 14

‘‘(ii) engage in conduct constituting a vio- 15

lation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal 16

Revenue Code of 1986; or’’. 17




Section 1957(f) of title 18, United States Code, is 21

amended— 22

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 23

end; 24


June 27, 2003



(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 1

the end and inserting a semicolon; and 2

(3) by adding at the end the following: 3

‘‘(4) the term ‘monetary transaction in crimi- 4

nally derived property of a value greater than 5

$10,000’ includes— 6

‘‘(A) a monetary transaction involving the 7

transfer, withdrawal, encumbrance, or other 8

disposition of more than $10,000 from a bank 9

account in which more than $10,000 in pro- 10

ceeds of specified unlawful activity have been 11

commingled with other funds; 12

‘‘(B) a series of monetary transactions in 13

amounts under $10,000 that exceed $10,000 in 14

the aggregate and that are closely related to 15

each other in terms of such factors as time, the 16

identity of the parties involved, the nature and 17

purpose of the transactions and the manner in 18

which they are conducted; and 19

‘‘(C) any financial transaction described in 20

section 1956(j) that involves more than 21

$10,000 in proceeds of specified unlawful activ- 22

ity; and 23

‘‘(5) the term ‘monetary transaction involving 24

property of a value greater than $10,000’ includes 25


June 27, 2003



a series of monetary transactions in amounts under 1

$10,000 that exceed $10,000 in the aggregate and 2

are closely related to each other in terms of time, 3

the identity of the parties involved, the nature and 4

purpose of the transactions, and the manner in 5

which such transactions are conducted.’’. 6



Section 1956(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 9

amended— 10

(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Any person’’; 11

(2) by striking ‘‘or section 1957’’ and inserting 12

‘‘, section 1957, or section 1960’’; and 13

(3) by adding at the end the following: 14

‘‘(2) Multiple violations of this section that are part 15

of the same scheme or continuing course of conduct may 16

be charged in a single count in an indictment or informa- 17

tion.’’. 18



Section 1956(c)(7)(B) of title 18, United States 21

Code, is amended— 22

(1) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 23

(2) in clause (vi), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; 24

and 25


June 27, 2003



(3) by adding at the end the following: 1

‘‘(vii) any act or activity that would 2

constitute a specified unlawful activity 3

under this paragraph if committed within 4

the jurisdiction of the United States or any 5

State;’’. 6


(a) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Section 1960 of 8

title 18, United States Code, is amended— 9

(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘unlicensed’’ 10

and inserting ‘‘illegal’’; 11

(2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘unlicensed’’ 12

and inserting ‘‘illegal’’; and 13

(3) in subsection (b)(1)— 14

(A) by striking ‘‘unlicensed’’ and inserting 15

‘‘illegal’’; and 16

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘to 17

be used to be used’’ and inserting ‘‘to be used’’. 18



Section 1960(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 21

amended— 22

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 23

end; 24


June 27, 2003



(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 1

the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 2

(3) by adding at the end the following: 3

‘‘(4) the term ‘business’ includes any person or 4

association of persons, formal or informal, licensed 5

or unlicensed, that provides money transmitting 6

services outside of the conventional financial institu- 7

tions system on behalf of any third party in return 8

for remuneration or other consideration.’’. 9


1960(b)(1)(B).—Section 1960(b)(1)(B) of title 18, 11

United States Code, is amended by inserting before the 12

semicolon the following: ‘‘, whether or not the defendant 13

knew that the operation was required to comply with such 14

registration requirements’’. 15

(d) AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE.—Section 1960 of 16

title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 17

end the following: 18

‘‘(c) Violations of this section may be investigated 19

by— 20

‘‘(1) the Attorney General; 21

‘‘(2) the Secretary of the Treasury; 22

‘‘(3) the Secretary of the Department of Home- 23

land Security; and 24

‘‘(4) the United States Postal Service.’’. 25


June 27, 2003




Section 1956(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 2

amended— 3

(1) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at 4

the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 5

(2) by adding at the end the following: 6

‘‘(9) the term ‘public official’ means any officer 7

or employee of a government or any department, 8

agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public 9

international organization, or any person acting in 10

an official capacity for or on behalf of any such gov- 11

ernment or department, agency, or instrumentality, 12

or for or on behalf of any such public international 13

organization.’’. 14



(a) AMENDMENTS TO RICO.—Section 1961(1) of 17

title 18, United States Code, is amended— 18

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘bur- 19

glary, embezzlement’’, after ‘‘robbery,’’; 20

(2) in subparagraph (B)— 21

(A) by inserting ‘‘and 1470’’ after ‘‘1461– 22

1465’’; 23

(B) by striking ‘‘1588’’ and inserting 24

‘‘1592’’; 25


June 27, 2003



(C) by inserting ‘‘section 1960 (relating to 1

unlicensed money transmitting businesses)’’, be- 2

fore ‘‘sections 2251,’’; and 3

(D) by inserting ‘‘2252A,’’ after ‘‘2252,’’; 4

(3) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘fraud in 5

the sale of securities’’ and inserting ‘‘fraud in the 6

purchase or sale of securities’’; and 7

(4) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ‘‘or 8

274A’’ after ‘‘274’’. 9

(b) MONEY LAUNDERING.—Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of 10

title 18, United States Code, is amended— 11

(1) by striking ‘‘2339A or 2339B’’ and insert- 12

ing ‘‘2339A, 2339B, or 2339C’’; and 13

(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end 14

the following: ‘‘, or section 208 of the Social Secu- 15

rity Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to obtaining funds 16

through misuse of a social security number)’’. 17


TURAL ASSETS.—Section 1956(c)(7) of title 18, United 19

States Code, as amended by subsection (b), is further 20

amended— 21

(1) in subparagraph (E)— 22

(A) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting ‘‘, or 23

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), or 24

any wildlife protection offense, as defined in 25


June 27, 2003



section 44’’, after ‘‘the Resources Conservation 1

and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.)’’; 2

(2) in subparagraph (F), by adding ‘‘or’’ after 3

the semicolon; and 4

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the fol- 5

lowing: 6

‘‘(G) any violation of the Archaeological 7

Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 8

470aa et seq.) or the Native American Graves 9

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 10

3001 et seq.).’’. 11


(1) Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, 13

is amended by inserting after section 43 the fol- 14

lowing: 15

‘‘§ 44. Definition of Wildlife Protection Offense 16

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—As used in this title, the term 17

‘wildlife protection offense’ means any act that may be 18

prosecuted as a criminal offense, which constitutes any 19

violation of— 20

‘‘(1) a provision of this chapter; 21

‘‘(2) any Act listed in subsection (b); or 22

‘‘(3) any regulation promulgated under the au- 23

thority of such Act. 24





‘‘(b) WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACTS.—The statutes 1

referred to in subsection (a) are— 2

‘‘(1) the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 701 and 18 3

U.S.C. 42); 4

‘‘(2) the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 5

U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) 6

‘‘(3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 7

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 8

‘‘(4) the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 9

1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.); 10

‘‘(5) the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 11

U.S.C. 4201 et seq.); 12

‘‘(6) the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 13

(16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.); 14

‘‘(7) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 15

(16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.); 16

‘‘(8) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 17

703 et seq.); 18

‘‘(9) the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 19

(16 U.S.C. 718 et seq.); 20

‘‘(10) the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 21

U.S.C. 742a et seq.); 22

‘‘(11) the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 23

(16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.); 24


June 27, 2003



‘‘(12) the National Wildlife Refuge System Ad- 1

ministration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); 2

‘‘(13) the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation 3

Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.); 4

‘‘(14) the Federal Cave Resources Protection 5

Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.); or 6

‘‘(15) the Antarctic Marine Living Resources 7

Convention (16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.). 8


The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 18, United 10

States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat- 11

ing to section 43 the following new item: 12

‘‘44. Definition of wildlife protection offense.’’.

Subtitle B—Recovering and 13

Confiscating Criminal Proceeds 14



Section 982(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 17

amended by striking ‘‘of this title,’’ and inserting ‘‘, or 18

a conspiracy to commit any such offense,’’. 19


(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 984(b) of title 18, United 21

States Code, is amended to read as follows: 22

‘‘(b) The provisions of this section may be invoked 23

only if the action for forfeiture was commenced by the sei- 24

zure or restraint of the property, or by the filing of a com- 25


June 27, 2003



plaint, within 2 years of the completion of the offense that 1

is the basis for the forfeiture.’’. 2


tion 984(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 4

by striking ‘‘precious metals’’ and inserting ‘‘precious met- 5

als or stones’’. 6



Section 981(a)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States 9

Code, is amended to read as follows: 10

‘‘(i) involves any violation of foreign law 11

that would constitute an offense for which prop- 12

erty could be forfeited under Federal law if the 13

offense were committed in the United States, or 14

any other conduct described in section 15

1956(c)(7)(B);’’. 16



Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 19

amended by adding at the end the following: 20


ERTY.— 22

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If property involved in 23

a violation of subsection (a) or section 1957, 24

1960, or 1962, or a conspiracy to commit any 25


June 27, 2003



such offense, is transferred to a third party who 1

is not a bona fide purchaser for value, the 2

United States may file a civil action against the 3

transferee to recover the property, or a sum of 4

money equal to the value of the property imme- 5

diately before the transfer, plus interest from 6

the time of the transfer. 7

‘‘(B) VENUE.—Venue for an action under 8

subparagraph (A) shall lie in any district in 9

which the criminal violation or the transfer of 10

the property occurred.’’. 11


Section 981(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 13

amended— 14

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘an of- 15

fense that would give rise to the forfeiture of prop- 16

erty in the United States under this section or under 17

the Controlled Substances Act,’’ and inserting ‘‘con- 18

duct that may be the basis for a forfeiture action 19

that has been, or could be, filed in a Federal court 20

under this section or under the Controlled Sub- 21

stances Act or that may be the basis for a foreign 22

forfeiture judgment enforceable in the United States 23

under section 2467 of title 28,’’; and 24

(2) by adding at the end the following: 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(C) If property subject to restraint under 1

subparagraph (A) is located in more than 1 dis- 2

trict, a court in any district in which the prop- 3

erty is located may enter an order under sub- 4

paragraph (A) regarding property located in 5

that district and any other district.’’. 6


Section 1956(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 8

is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 9

‘‘or has an effect in the United States’’. 10


Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 12

(relating to confidentiality of returns) is amended— 13

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ‘‘sub- 14

section (i)(9),’’ after ‘‘subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii),’’; 15

and 16

(2) in subparagraph (i)— 17

(A) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by inserting 18

‘‘or related civil forfeiture’’ after ‘‘Federal 19

criminal statute’’; 20

(B) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by inserting 21

‘‘or civil forfeiture investigation or proceeding’’ 22

after ‘‘Federal criminal investigation or pro- 23

ceeding’’; and 24

(C) by adding at the end the following: 25


June 27, 2003




TICE.—For the purposes of this subsection, an em- 2

ployee of the Department of Justice includes a gov- 3

ernment contractor who is personally and directly 4

engaged in the activities described in this subsection 5

under the supervision of the Department of Jus- 6

tice.’’. 7


Section 983(j) of title 18, United States Code, is 9

amended by adding at the end the following: 10


‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to its au- 12

thority to enter a pretrial restraining order 13

under this section, the court may order a party 14

or claimant to repatriate any property that may 15

be seized and forfeited, and to deposit that 16

property, pending trial, in the registry of the 17

court, or with the United States Marshals Serv- 18

ice or the Secretary of the Treasury, in an in- 19

terest-bearing account, as appropriate. 20

‘‘(B) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—Failure to 21

comply with an order under this paragraph 22

shall be punishable as a civil or criminal con- 23

tempt of court, and may also result in an en- 24

hancement of the sentence of a criminal defend- 25


June 27, 2003



ant subject to such an order under the obstruc- 1

tion of justice provision of the Federal sen- 2

tencing guidelines.’’. 3



Section 5317(c) of title 31, United States Code, is 6

amended— 7

(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘or 5324 8

of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘5324, or 5331’’; and 9

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or 5324 of 10

this title’’ and inserting ‘‘5324, or 5331’’. 11



Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 14

amended— 15

(1) in subparagraph (G)— 16

(A) in clause (ii), by deleting ‘‘or’’ at the 17

end; 18

(B) in clause (iii), by striking the period at 19

the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 20

(C) by adding at the end the following: 21

‘‘(iv) of any individual, entity, or organiza- 22

tion engaged in planning or perpetrating any 23

act of international terrorism (as defined in sec- 24

tion 2331) against any international organiza- 25


June 27, 2003



tion (as defined in section 209(b) of the State 1

Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 2

U.S.C. 4309(b)) or against any foreign govern- 3

ment, its citizens or residents, or their prop- 4

erty.’’; and 5

(2) in subparagraph (H), by adding at the end 6

the following: ‘‘Property that is located beyond the 7

territorial boundaries of the United States shall not 8

be subject to forfeiture under subparagraph (G)(iv) 9

unless an act in furtherance of planning or perpetra- 10

tion of an act of international terrorism occurred 11

within the jurisdiction of the United States.’’. 12




(a) MONEY LAUNDERING.—Section 2516(1)(c) of 16

title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘sec- 17

tion 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitting busi- 18

nesses),’’ before ‘‘section 659’’. 19


2516(1)(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 21

to read as follows: 22

‘‘(g) any offense punishable under section 5322, 23

5324 or 5332 of title 31, United States Code (deal- 24


June 27, 2003



ing with the reporting and illegal structuring of cur- 1

rency transactions);’’. 2




1956(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 6

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘speci- 7

fied unlawful activity’’ and inserting ‘‘some form of 8

unlawful activity’’; and 9

(2) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘speci- 10

fied unlawful activity’’ and inserting ‘‘some form of 11

unlawful activity’’. 12

(b) PROCEEDS OF A FELONY.—Section 1956(c)(1) of 13

title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, 14

and regardless of whether or not the person knew that 15

the activity constituted a felony’’ before the semicolon at 16

the end. 17



Section 413(m) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 20

U.S.C. 853(m)) is amended by inserting before the period 21

at the end the following: ‘‘to the extent that the provisions 22

of the Rule are consistent with the purposes for which dis- 23

covery is conducted under this subsection. Because this 24

subsection applies only to matters occurring after the de- 25


June 27, 2003



fendant has been convicted and the property of the defend- 1

ant has been declared forfeited, the provisions of Rule 15 2

requiring the presence of the defendant at the deposition 3

of any other witness, or a waiver by the defendant of a 4

right to be present, shall not apply’’. 5




(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 981(i)(1) of title 18, 9

United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘this chapter’’ 10

and inserting ‘‘any provision of Federal law’’. 11

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 511(e)(1) 12

of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(e)(1)) 13

is amended— 14

(1) in subparagraph (C), by adding ‘‘or’’ after 15

the semicolon; 16

(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 17

inserting a period; and 18

(3) by striking subparagraph (E). 19



Section 413(f) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 22

U.S.C. 853(f)) is amended— 23

(1) by striking ‘‘The Government’’ and insert- 24

ing the following: 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(1) The Government’’; and 1

(2) by adding at the end the following: 2

‘‘(2) If property subject to criminal forfeiture 3

under this section is already in the custody of the 4

United States or any agency thereof, it shall not be 5

necessary to seize or restrain the property for the 6

purpose of criminal forfeiture. 7

‘‘(3) If the seizure warrant is obtained after the 8

property to be seized has been listed in an indict- 9

ment or criminal information or related bill of par- 10

ticulars, the requirement that the warrant be exe- 11

cuted within 10 days under Rule 41, Federal Rules 12

of Criminal Procedure, shall not apply.’’. 13



Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 16

U.S.C. 853), as amended by sections 234 and 236, is fur- 17

ther amended by adding at the end the following: 18


An order of forfeiture that has been made part of a crimi- 20

nal sentence under this section shall not abate by reason 21

of the death thereafter of any or all of the defendants or 22

petitioners or potential petitioners, regardless of any ap- 23

peal that may be pending at the time of death.’’. 24


June 27, 2003






(a) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.—Section 982(b)(2) of 3

title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘The 4

substitution’’ and inserting ‘‘With respect to a forfeiture 5

under subsection (a)(1), the substitution’’. 6


tion 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 8

amended— 9

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (Y) and (Z) 10

as subparagraphs (Z) and (AA), respectively; and 11

(2) by inserting after subparagraph (X) the fol- 12

lowing: 13

‘‘(Y) a bail bondsman;’’. 14


Section 1957 of title 18, United States Code, is 16

amended— 17

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘engages or 18

attempts to engage in’’ and inserting ‘‘conducts or 19

attempts to conduct’’; and 20

(2) in subsection (f)— 21

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 22

the end; 23

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe- 24

riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 25

(C) by inserting at the end the following: 26


June 27, 2003





‘‘(4) the term ‘conducts’ has the meaning given 1

the term in section 1956.’’. 2


1510(b)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 4

by inserting ‘‘, a subpoena issued pursuant to section 1782 5

of title 28,’’ before ‘‘or a Department of Justice sub- 6

poena’’. 7


ACT.— 9

(1) USA PATRIOT ACT.—Section 322 of Public 10

Law 107–56 is amended by striking ‘‘title 18’’ and 11

inserting ‘‘title 28’’. 12

(2) TITLE 18.—Title 18, United States Code, is 13

amended— 14

(A) in section 981(k), by striking ‘‘foreign 15

bank’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘for- 16

eign bank or financial institution’’; and 17

(B) in section 1956(b), by striking ‘‘de- 18

scribed in paragraph (2)’’ each place it appears. 19

(3) TITLE 31.—Chapter 53 of title 31, United 20

States Code, is amended— 21

(A) in section 5312(a)(3)(C), by striking 22

‘‘5333’’ and inserting ‘‘5331’’; 23

(B) in section 5318(k)(1)(B) by striking 24

‘‘(f)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)’’; 25


June 27, 2003





(C) in section 5324(b), by striking ‘‘5333’’ 1

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘5331’’; and 2

(D) in section 5332(a)(1), by striking ‘‘ar- 3

ticle of luggage’’ and inserting ‘‘article of lug- 4

gage or mail’’. 5



(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 983(e) of title 18, United 8

States Code, is amended— 9

(1) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the 10

following: ‘‘If the person filing the motion was a de- 11

fendant in a criminal prosecution related to the sei- 12

zure of the property, the motion shall be filed in the 13

district where such prosecution took place, or in the 14

district where the property was seized.’’; and 15

(2) by adding at the end the following: 16

‘‘(6) Any person entitled to written notice in an 17

judicial forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture 18

statute who does not receive such notice may file a 19

motion to set aside the judgment of forfeiture with 20

respect to that person’s interest in the property in 21

accordance with the procedures for setting aside a 22

non-judicial forfeiture, as set forth in paragraphs (1) 23

through (5).’’. 24





(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of section 1

983(e) of title 18, United States Code, shall apply to any 2

motion to set aside a declaration or judgment of forfeiture 3

if such motion is filed on or after August 23, 2000. 4


The amendments to section 981(e)(6) of title 18, 6

United States Code, made by Public Law 106–185 (114 7

Stat. 202), relating to the restoration of criminally derived 8

property to crime victims, shall apply to all cases pending 9

on August 23, 2000, or commenced thereafter, regardless 10

of the date of the offense or the date when the criminally 11

derived property was recovered. 12



Section 985(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 15

amended to read as follows: 16

‘‘(e) If the court authorizes a seizure of real property 17

under subsections (d)(1)(B)(ii), it shall afford the prop- 18

erty owner an opportunity for a prompt post-seizure hear- 19

ing to determine whether there was probable cause for the 20

seizure.’’. 21


Section 636(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 23

amended— 24




(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 1

the semicolon; 2

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and 3

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 4

(3) by adding at the end the following: 5

‘‘(6) all powers and duties conferred or imposed 6

upon the courts by sections 981 through 986 of title 7

18, United States Code, in connection with forfeiture 8

proceedings, but not including the conduct of the 9

trial.’’. 10



Section 2461(c) of title 28, United States Code, is 13

amended by striking ‘‘in accordance with the procedures 14

set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act 15

(21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that sec- 16

tion.’’ and inserting ‘‘in accordance with those Rules. The 17

procedures set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Sub- 18

stances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except for subsection (d) of 19

that section, shall apply to all stages of the criminal for- 20

feiture proceeding.’’. 21

SEC. 243. CLARIFICATION OF 18 U.S.C. 3322. 22

Section 3322(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 23

amended by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, 24

including disclosing such information in a complaint, or 25


June 27, 2003




in an application for a seizure warrant or restraining 1

order, or for use at any trial or hearing. Disclosure to an 2

attorney for the Government under this section shall in- 3

clude disclosure to any Government employee or con- 4

tractor regularly engaged in assisting the attorney to 5

whom the information is disclosed in the conduct of civil 6

litigation.’’. 7



(a) SECTION 981.—Section 981 of title 18, United 10

States Code, as amended by this title, is further amended 11

by adding at the end the following: 12

‘‘(l) The procedural provisions of this section shall 13

apply to any civil forfeiture statute, as that term is defined 14

in Section 983(i).’’. 15


SONS.—Section 983(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 17

is amended— 18

(1) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by adding at the 19

end the following: ‘‘In a State where the State or 20

local law enforcement agency must obtain an order 21

from a State court authorizing the turnover, the pe- 22

riod from the date the law enforcement agency ap- 23

plies for the turnover order to the date when such 24



order is issued by the court shall not be included in 1

the 90-day period.’’; and 2

(2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting at the 3

end the following: ‘‘The Government shall not be re- 4

quired to return property to a person who is incar- 5

cerated.’’. 6

(c) CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—Section 983(a)(3) of 7

title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 8

‘‘criminal indictment’’ each place it appears and inserting 9

‘‘criminal indictment or information’’. 10


BAND.—Section 983(d)(4) of title 18, United States Code, 12

is amended— 13

(1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘Notwith- 14

standing’’; and 15

(2) by inserting the following at the end: 16

‘‘(B) As used in this paragraph, the term ‘prop- 17

erty that it is illegal to possess’ includes— 18

‘‘(i) animal or animal products protected 19

by any law enacted to conserve or protect en- 20

dangered species or other wildlife or natural re- 21

sources; 22

‘‘(ii) historic or cultural artifacts, works of 23

art, archaeological or paleontological resources, 24

human remains, fossils and other things pro- 25


June 27, 200348


tected by any law enacted to preserve, protect, 1

recover or restore historic or cultural resources; 2

and 3

‘‘(iii) any firearm, explosive, chemical 4

agent or other instrumentality used to commit 5

a crime of violence.’’. 6



Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 9

U.S.C. 853), as amended by this title, is further amended 10

by adding at the end the following: 11


MENT.—In addition to the authority otherwise provided 13

under this section, an order of forfeiture may be 14

enforced— 15

‘‘(1) in the manner provided for the collection 16

and payment of fines under subchapter B of chapter 17

229 of title 18, United States Code; or 18

‘‘(2) in the same manner as a judgment in a 19

civil action.’’. 20


Section 983(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, as 22

amended by section 244(b), is further amended— 23

(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end 24

the following: 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(vi) In cases where property is detained at an 1

international border or port of entry for the purpose 2

of examination, testing, inspection, obtaining docu- 3

mentation or other investigation relating to the im- 4

portation of the property into, or the exportation of 5

the property out of, the United States, such period 6

of detention shall not be included in the 60-day pe- 7

riod described in clause (i). In such cases, the 60- 8

day period shall begin to run when the period of de- 9

tention is concluded, and a law enforcement agency 10

of the United States determines that the property 11

will be seized for the purpose of forfeiture to the 12

United States.’’; and 13

(2) in subparagraph (D)— 14

(A) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 15

end; 16

(B) by redesignating clause (v) as clause 17

(vi); and 18

(C) by inserting after clause (iv) the fol- 19

lowing: 20

‘‘(v) initiation of a forfeiture proceeding 21

before the seizing agency has received the re- 22

sults of a scientific test or laboratory analysis 23

of the seized property that is material to the de- 24


June 27, 2003





termination whether the property is subject to 1

forfeiture; or’’. 2




Section 2465 of title 28, United States Code, is 6

amended by adding at the end the following: 7

‘‘(c) The United States shall not be liable for attorney 8

fees or other litigation costs under subsection (b)(1) if— 9

‘‘(1) the Government established the forfeit- 10

ability of the property pursuant to section 11

981(a)(1)(A) of title 18, or any forfeiture provision 12

of chapter 53 of title 31, by a preponderance of the 13

evidence; and 14

‘‘(2) the forfeiture action involved the move- 15

ment of funds across an international border or into 16

or out of an account at a foreign financial institu- 17

tion.’’. 18




Section 981 of title 18, United States Code, as 22

amended by this title, is further amended— 23


June 27, 2003





(1) by inserting ‘‘, Secretary of Homeland Se- 1

curity’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of the Treasury’’ each 2

place it appears; and 3

(2) in subsection (j)— 4

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 5

the end; 6

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the pe- 7

riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 8

(C) by inserting at the end the following: 9

‘‘(3) the term ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Secu- 10

rity’’ means the Secretary of the Department of 11

Homeland Security or his delegate.’’. 12

SEC. 249. RULE 32.2. 13

Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro- 14

cedure is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If 15

the court fails to include the order of forfeiture in the sen- 16

tence of judgment, the Government, or the court on its 17

own motion, may move at any time to correct the error 18

pursuant to Rule 36.’’. 19


Section 413(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 21

U.S.C. 853(a)), is amended by adding at the end the fol- 22

lowing: ‘‘In addition to any other money judgment that 23

may be imposed under this section, a person who does not 24

receive any proceeds from the sale, importation, or dis- 25


June 27, 2003





tribution of a controlled substance because the person is 1

arrested, or the controlled substance is seized, before the 2

sale, importation, or distribution is complete, shall pay a 3

money judgment equal to the amount of money that would 4

have been paid if such sale, importation, or distribution 5

had been completed.’’. 6




(a) CONVEYANCES.—Section 511(a)(4) of the Con- 10

trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)(4)) is amended 11

by inserting before the period at the end the following: 12

‘‘, and any property that is traceable to such convey- 13

ances’’. 14


OTHER THINGS OF VALUE.—Section 511(a)(6) of the 16

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6)) is 17

amended by striking ‘‘and all moneys, negotiable instru- 18

ments, and securities used or intended to be used to facili- 19

tate any violation of this subchapter’’ and inserting ‘‘all 20

moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, and other 21

things of value used, or intended to be used, to facilitate 22

any violation of this subchapter, and any property trace- 23

able to such valuables.’’. 24


June 27, 2003






(c) REAL PROPERTY.—Section 511(a)(7) of the Con- 1

trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7)) is amended 2

by inserting before the period at the end the following: 3

‘‘, and any property that is traceable to such property’’. 4

(d) AMMUNITION.—Section 511(a)(11) of the Con- 5

trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)(11)) is amended 6

by inserting ‘‘, ammunition, holster, or other carrying 7

case’’ before ‘‘used or intended to be used.’’. 8



Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 11

amended by adding at the end the following: 12

‘‘(I)(i) Any computer, photostatic reproduction 13

machine, electronic communications device, or other 14

material, article, apparatus, device, or thing made, 15

possessed, fitted, used, or intended to be used on a 16

continuing basis to commit a violation of section 17

513, 514, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1341, 18

1342, 1343, or 1344, or a conspiracy to commit 19

such offense, and any property traceable to such 20

property. 21

‘‘(ii) Any conveyance used on 2 or more occa- 22

sions to transport the instrumentalities used in the 23

commission of a violation of section 1028 or 1029, 24


June 27, 2003



or a conspiracy to commit such offense, and any 1

property traceable to such conveyance. 2

‘‘(J) Any conveyance, chemicals, laboratory 3

equipment, or other material, article, apparatus, de- 4

vice or thing made, possessed, fitted, used, or in- 5

tended to be used to commit— 6

‘‘(i) an offense punishable under Chapter 7

113B (relating to terrorism); 8

‘‘(ii) a violation of Chapter 53 of the Inter- 9

nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to fire- 10

arms); 11

‘‘(iii) a violation of subsection (a)(1), 12

(a)(3), (b), (c), (d), or (h)(1) of section 842, or 13

any of the subsections (d) through (m) of sec- 14

tion 844 (relating to explosives); or 15

‘‘(iv) any other offense enumerated in sec- 16

tion 2339A(a) or a conspiracy to commit any 17

such offense, and any property traceable to 18

such property.’’. 19


June 27, 2003










Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 7

28, United States Code, and in accordance with this sec- 8

tion, the United States Sentencing Commission shall re- 9

view and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines, com- 10

mentary, and policy statements to ensure that the guide- 11

lines provide an appropriate enhancement of between 2 to 12

8 base offense levels, for each of the following factors, if 13

the defendant, during the course of a drug trafficking 14

offense— 15

(1) used violence; 16

(2) made a credible threat to use violence; 17

(3) directed or threatened the use of violence; 18

or 19

(4) possessed a firearm, or other dangerous 20

weapon. 21


TORS. 23

Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 24

28, United States Code, and in accordance with this sec- 25


June 27, 2003






tion, the United States Sentencing Commission shall re- 1

view and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines, com- 2

mentary, and policy statements for offenses involving con- 3

trolled substances to take into account the following im- 4

portant aggravating factors relating to the seriousness of 5

the offense and the culpability of the defendant: 6

(1) The defendant induced another person to 7

purchase, sell, transport, or store controlled sub- 8

stances, used impulse, fear, friendship, affection, or 9

some combination thereof to involve such person in 10

the offense, and such person was to receive little or 11

no compensation from the offense. 12

(2) The defendant maintained an establishment 13

for the manufacture or distribution of a controlled 14

substance, as generally described in section 406 of 15

the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856). 16

(3) The defendant distributed a controlled sub- 17

stance to a person under age 18, a person over age 18

64, or a pregnant individual, or involved a person 19

under age 18, a person over age 64, or a pregnant 20

individual in drug trafficking. 21

(4) The defendant bribed, or attempted to 22

bribe, a Federal, State, or local law enforcement of- 23

ficial in connection with a drug trafficking offense. 24


June 27, 2003



(5) The defendant committed the drug traf- 1

ficking offense as part of a pattern of criminal con- 2

duct engaged in as a livelihood. 3

(6) The defendant had a prior conviction for a 4

felony drug offense. 5

(7) The defendant was involved in the importa- 6

tion of a controlled substance into the United States. 7





(a) IN GENERAL.—The Guidelines Manual promul- 12

gated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 13

994(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 14

(1) in section 2D1.1 15

(A) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘, ex- 16

cept that if the defendant receives an adjust- 17

ment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role), the base 18

offense level under this subsection shall not be 19

more than level 30’’; 20

(B) in subsection (b), by striking para- 21

graph (6); and 22

(C) in the Commentary, by striking Appli- 23

cation Note 21; and 24


June 27, 2003






(2) in the Commentary to section 3B1.2, by 1

striking Application Note 6. 2


Commission shall not promulgate any amendment to alter 4

or repeal the amendments made by this section. 5



Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 18, United States 8

Code, is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 9

following: ‘‘, or which, if it had been prosecuted as a viola- 10

tion of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et 11

seq.) at the time of the offense and because of the type 12

and quantity of the controlled substance involved, would 13

have been punishable by a maximum term of imprison- 14

ment of not less than 10 years’’. 15





(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 3553(f) of title 18, 20

United States Code, is amended— 21

(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as 22

follows: 23


June 27, 2003






‘‘(1) the defendant does not have any criminal 1

history points, as determined under the Federal sen- 2

tencing guidelines;’’; 3

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 4

the end; and 5

(C) by striking paragraph (5) and insert- 6

ing the following: 7

‘‘(5) the defendant entered a timely plea of 8

guilty to the offense of conviction; 9

‘‘(6) not later than the time of the sentencing, 10

the Government files a certification with the court 11

stating that the defendant, in a timely manner— 12

‘‘(A) plead guilty to the offense of convic- 13

tion; 14

‘‘(B) truthfully provided all information 15

and evidence that the defendant has concerning 16

the offense or offenses that were part of the 17

same course of conduct or common scheme or 18

plan, whether or not such information was pre- 19

viously known or used by the Government; and 20

‘‘(C) testified fully and truthfully in all 21

proceedings at the request of the Government, 22

was prepared to do so, or has agreed to do so 23

in the future; and’’. 24


June 27, 2003







(A) IN GENERAL.—The Guideline Manual 3

promulgated by the United States Sentencing 4

Commission pursuant to section 994(a) of title 5

28, United States Code, is amended by repeal- 6

ing section 2D1.1(b)(6). 7

(B) RESTRICTION.—The Sentencing Com- 8

mission shall not promulgate any amendment 9

that would alter or repeal the amendment under 10

subparagraph (A). 11




ant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United 15

States Code, and in accordance with this section, the 16

United States Sentencing Commission shall review and 17

amend, as appropriate, the Federal sentencing guidelines, 18

commentary, and policy statements to ensure that if the 19

defendant qualifies for a minimal role adjustment under 20

section 3B1.2(a) of the guidelines and an adjustment 21

under section 5C1.2 of the guidelines, the defendant shall 22

be entitled to an additional reduction of 2 base offense 23

levels if the defendant, at the sentencing hearing, estab- 24


June 27, 2003





lishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the 1

defendant— 2

(1) did not directly participate in the distribu- 3

tion of controlled substances; 4

(2) did not receive any significant compensation 5

or benefit as a result of the offense; and 6

(3) was not predisposed to commit the offense. 7




(a) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to its authority under 11

section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accord- 12

ance with this section, the United States Sentencing Com- 13

mission shall, not later than 30 days after the date of en- 14

actment of this Act, amend section 2D1.1(c) of the Fed- 15

eral sentencing guidelines, and related policy statements— 16

(1) with respect to heroin, other Schedule I or 17

II opiates, cocaine, other Schedule I or II stimu- 18

lants, cocaine base, PCP, PCP (actual), LSD, other 19

schedule I or II hallucinogens, fentanyl, fentanyl 20

analogue, marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, to re- 21

store base offense levels 40 and 42 as they existed 22

prior to amendment 505, which was promulgated by 23

the Sentencing Commission with an effective date of 24

November 1, 1994; and 25


June 27, 2003




(2) with respect to methamphetamine, meth- 1

amphetamine (actual), ‘‘Ice’’, amphetamine, amphet- 2

amine (actual), Schedule I or II depressants, and 3

flunitrazepam, to provide for appropriate drug quan- 4

tities to be assigned base offense levels 40 and 42, 5

respectively, for amounts above the minimum 6

amounts for these drugs under section 2D1.1(c)(1). 7

(b) RESTRICTION.—The Sentencing Commission 8

shall not promulgate any amendment that— 9

(1) alters or repeals the amendment described 10

under subsection (a)(1); or 11

(2) is inconsistent with subsection (a)(2). 12




COMMISSION.—Pursuant to its authority under section 16

994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance 17

with this section, the United States Sentencing Commis- 18

sion shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enact- 19

ment of this Act, review and amend the Federal sen- 20

tencing guidelines, policy statements, official commentary, 21

and illustrations of conduct for which the defendant is ac- 22

countable under section 1B1.3 to ensure that a defendant 23

is accountable for ‘‘relevant conduct’’, including— 24





(1) in the case of a criminal conspiracy (a 1

criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise un- 2

dertaken by the defendant in concert with others, 3

whether or not charged as a conspiracy) for the con- 4

duct (acts and omissions) of others that was— 5

(A) in furtherance of the conspiracy; and 6

(B) known to the defendant or reasonably 7

foreseeable in connection with that conspiracy; 8

and 9

(2) all conduct of members of a conspiracy 10

prior to the defendant joining that conspiracy that 11

was known to the defendant when he or she joined 12

the conspiracy. 13

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Sentencing 14

Commission shall make appropriate conforming amend- 15

ments to the Federal sentencing guidelines, policy state- 16

ments, and commentary, consistent with the amendment 17

made under subsection (a). 18


GRAM. 20

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi- 21

nitions shall apply: 22

(1) CRIME OF VIOLENCE.—The term ‘‘crime of 23

violence’’ has the same meaning given the term in 24

section 16 of title 18, United States Code. 25


June 27, 2003



(2) DESIGNATED FACILITY.—The term ‘‘des- 1

ignated facility’’ means a Federal penitentiary des- 2

ignated by the Attorney General as appropriate for 3

the pilot program. 4

(3) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 5

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. 6

(4) ELIGIBLE PRISONER.—The term ‘‘eligible 7

prisoner’’ means a prisoner in the custody of the 8

Bureau of Prisons who— 9

(A) is not less than 65 years of age; 10

(B) is serving a term of imprisonment 11

after conviction for an offense other than a 12

crime of violence and has served the greater of 13

10 years or 1 2 of the term of imprisonment; 14

(C) has not been convicted in the past of 15

any Federal or State crime of violence, or any 16

other Federal offense for which a sentencing 17

enhancement was applied under section 301 or 18

302; 19

(D) has not been determined by the Bu- 20

reau of Prisons, on the basis of information the 21

Bureau uses to make custody classifications, 22

and in the sole discretion of the Bureau, to 23

have a history of violence; 24


June 27, 2003




(E) has not escaped, or attempted to es- 1

cape, from the Bureau of Prisons facility; and 2

(F) has not been determined by the Direc- 3

tor, pursuant to the disciplinary system of the 4

Bureau of Prisons, to have committed an in- 5

fraction involving an act of violence. 6

(5) HOME DETENTION.—The term ‘‘home de- 7

tention’’ has the same meaning given the term in the 8

Federal sentencing guidelines, and includes deten- 9

tion in a nursing home or other residential long-term 10

care facility. 11

(6) PILOT PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘pilot pro- 12

gram’’ means the pilot program carried out in ac- 13

cordance with this section. 14

(7) TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.—The term ‘‘term 15

of imprisonment’’ includes multiple terms of impris- 16

onment ordered to run consecutively or concurrently, 17

which shall be treated as a single, aggregate term of 18

imprisonment for purposes of this section. 19


(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 21

3624 of title 18, United States Code, or any other 22

provision of law, the Director shall carry out a pilot 23

program at 1 or more designated facilities, under 24

which the Director shall, in accordance with para- 25


June 27, 2003



graph (2), place each prisoner who is determined to 1

be an eligible prisoner on home detention until the 2

date on which the term of imprisonment to which 3

the prisoner was sentenced expires. 4

(2) TIMING OF RELEASE.—In carrying out the 5

pilot program, the Director shall place an eligible 6

prisoner on home detention under paragraph (1)— 7

(A) with respect to a prisoner who is deter- 8

mined to be an eligible prisoner on or before the 9

date that is 90 days after the date of enactment 10

of this Act, not later than 180 days after the 11

date of enactment of this Act; and 12

(B) with respect to a prisoner who is de- 13

termined to be an eligible prisoner after the 14

date that is 90 days after the date of enactment 15

of this Act and before the date that is 3 years 16

and 91 days after such date of enactment, not 17

later than 90 days after the date of such deter- 18

mination. 19


TION.—A violation of the terms of the home deten- 21

tion, including the commission of another Federal, 22

State, or local crime, shall result in the return of the 23

prisoner to the prior custody of that prisoner. 24



June 27, 2003



(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall contract 1

with an independent organization to monitor and 2

evaluate the progress of each prisoner released 3

under the pilot program during the 3-year period be- 4

ginning on the date of such release. 5

(2) ANNUAL REPORT.—The organization de- 6

scribed in paragraph (1) shall annually submit to 7

the Director and to Congress a report on the pilot 8

program, which shall include— 9

(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of 10

the pilot program in providing successful transi- 11

tion to eligible prisoners from incarceration to 12

the community, including data relating to the 13

recidivism rates for those prisoners; and 14

(B) the cost savings to the Federal Gov- 15

ernment resulting from the early removal of eli- 16

gible prisoners from incarceration. 17


(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Sentencing 19

Commission shall— 20

(1) promulgate amendments in accordance with 21

the directives in this Act and the procedure set forth 22

in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 23

U.S.C. 994 note), as though the authority under 24

that Act had not expired; and 25


June 27, 2003



(2) pursuant to the emergency authority pro- 1

vided under paragraph (1), make such conforming 2

amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines, 3

commentary, and policy statements as the Commis- 4

sion determines necessary to achieve consistency 5

with other guideline provisions and applicable law. 6

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made pur- 7

suant to this section shall apply to any offense committed 8

on or after 180 days after the date of enactment of this 9

Act. 10









(a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Sub- 19

stances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding 20

at the end the following: 21




‘‘SEC. 424. 25


June 27, 2003




‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, during and in 1

relation to any drug trafficking crime, murders, kidnaps, 2

maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits as- 3

sault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens 4

to commit a crime of violence against, any individual, or 5

attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished, in addi- 6

tion and consecutive to the punishment provided for the 7

drug trafficking crime— 8

‘‘(1) in the case of murder, by death or impris- 9

onment for not less than 30 years or for life, a fine 10

under title 18, United States Code, or both; 11

‘‘(2) in the case of kidnapping— 12

‘‘(A) by imprisonment for not less than 30 13

years or for life, a fine under such title 18, or 14

both; and 15

‘‘(B) if death of any person results, by 16

death or imprisonment for not less than 30 17

years or for life, a fine under such title 18, or 18

both; 19

‘‘(3) in the case of maiming, by imprisonment 20

for not less than 15 years and not more than 50 21

years, a fine under such title 18, or both; 22

‘‘(4) in the case of assault with a dangerous 23

weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 24

by imprisonment for not less than 10 years and not 25


June 27, 2003



more than 30 years, a fine under such title 18, or 1

both; 2

‘‘(5) in the case of threatening to commit a 3

crime of violence specified in paragraphs (1) through 4

(4), by imprisonment for not less than 3 years and 5

not more than 20 years, a fine under such title 18, 6

or both; 7

‘‘(6) in the case of attempting or conspiring to 8

commit murder or kidnaping, by imprisonment for 9

not more than 30 years, a fine under such title 18, 10

or both; and 11

‘‘(7) in the case of attempting or conspiring to 12

commit a crime involving maiming, assault with a 13

dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious 14

bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 20 15

years, a fine under such title 18, or both. 16

‘‘(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this 17

section may be brought in— 18

‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the murder or 19

other crime of violence occurred; or 20

‘‘(2) any judicial district in which the drug traf- 21

ficking crime may be prosecuted. 22


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A defendant who has been 24

found guilty of an offense under this section for 25


June 27, 2003



which a sentence of death is provided shall be sub- 1

ject to the provisions of chapter 228 of title 18, 2

United States Code. 3

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—If a death sentence is im- 4

posed under this section, such sentence shall not be 5

in addition and consecutive to the punishment for 6

the drug trafficking crime. 7

‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— 8

‘‘(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the mean- 9

ing given that term in section 924(c)(3) of title 18, 10

United States Code; and 11

‘‘(2) the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ has the 12

meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 13

18, United States Code.’’. 14

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 15

for the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting 16

after the item relating to section 423, the following: 17

‘‘Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation

to a drug trafficking crime.’’.




OF AGE; FIRST OFFENSE.—Section 418 of the Controlled 21

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859) is amended— 22

(1) in subsection (a)— 23


June 27, 2003




(A) by striking ‘‘involving the same con- 1

trolled substance and schedule’’ and inserting 2

‘‘without regard to the type of controlled sub- 3

stance and schedule’’; and 4

(B) by striking ‘‘not less than one year’’ 5

and inserting ‘‘not less than 5 years’’; and 6

(2) in subsection (b)— 7

(A) by striking ‘‘involving the same con- 8

trolled substance and schedule’’ and inserting 9

‘‘without regard to the type of controlled sub- 10

stance and schedule’’; 11

(B) by striking ‘‘after a prior conviction 12

under subsection (a) of this section (or under 13

section 303(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, 14

and Cosmetic Act as in effect prior to the effec- 15

tive date of section 701(b) of this Act)’’ and in- 16

serting ‘‘after a prior conviction for a felony 17

drug offense’’; and 18

(C) by striking ‘‘not less than one year’’ 19

and inserting ‘‘not less than 10 years’’. 20


SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES.—Section 419 of the Controlled 22

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 860) is amended— 23

(1) in subsection (a)— 24

(A) by striking ‘‘within 100 feet of’’; and 25


June 27, 2003




(B) by striking ‘‘not less than one year’’ 1

and inserting ‘‘not less than 5 years’’; 2

(2) in subsection (b)— 3

(A) by striking ‘‘within 100 feet of’’; 4

(B) by striking ‘‘after a prior conviction 5

under subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘after a 6

prior conviction for a felony drug offense’’; 7

(3) by striking ‘‘not less than three years’’ each 8

place it appears and inserting ‘‘not less than 10 9

years’’; and 10

(4) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol- 11

lows: 12

‘‘(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, any person 13

at least 18 years of age who knowingly and intentionally— 14

‘‘(A) employs, hires, uses, persuades, induces, 15

entices, or coerces a person under 18 years of age 16

to violate this section; or 17

‘‘(B) employs, hires, uses, persuades, induces, 18

entices, or coerces a person under 18 years of age 19

to assist in avoiding detection or apprehension for 20

any offense under this section by any Federal, State, 21

or local law enforcement official, is punishable by a 22

term of imprisonment, a fine, or both, up to triple 23

those authorized under section 401, except if a 24

greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided 25


June 27, 2003



under section 401(b), a person shall be sentenced 1

under this subsection to a term of imprisonment of 2

not less than 10 years. 3

‘‘(2) Any person who has previously been convicted 4

for a felony drug offense shall be sentenced to a term of 5

imprisonment of not less than 15 years for a subsequent 6

violation of paragraph (1).’’. 7


YEARS OLD.—Section 420 of the Controlled Substances 9

Act (21 U.S.C. 861) is amended— 10

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘not be less 11

than one year’’ and inserting ‘‘be not less than 10 12

years’’; 13

(2) in subsection (c)— 14

(A) by striking ‘‘after a prior conviction 15

under subsection (a) of this section’’ and insert- 16

ing ‘‘after a prior conviction for a felony drug 17

offense’’; and 18

(B) by striking ‘‘not be less than one year’’ 19

and inserting ‘‘be not less than 15 years’’; and 20

(3) in subsection (d)— 21

(A) by striking ‘‘or (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘or 22

(2)—’’; 23

(B) by striking ‘‘younger.’’ and inserting 24

‘‘younger,’’ 25


June 27, 2003





(C) by striking ‘‘not more than five years’’ 1

and inserting ‘‘not less than 5 years’’. 2


(1) IN GENERAL.—Not more than 30 days after 4

the date of enactment of this Act, the Sentencing 5

Commission shall amend the sentencing guidelines, 6

policy statements, and official commentary issued 7

under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, 8

to ensure that the base offense level for any felony 9

violation of the Controlled Substances Act (21 10

U.S.C. 841 et seq.), or a felony violation of the Con- 11

trolled Substances Import and Export Act (21 12

U.S.C. 851 et seq.)— 13

(A) is increased by 2 levels if any part of 14

the offense or relevant conduct involved pos- 15

sessing, storing, using, or trafficking drugs— 16

(i) in or near the presence of a minor; 17

or 18

(ii) in a location in which a minor re- 19

sides for any period of time; and 20

(B) is increased by an additional 2 levels 21

if the defendant was the parent or guardian of 22

the minor. 23


TORY MINIMUMS.—Section 3553(f) of title 18, 25


June 27, 2003



United States Code, as amended by section 305, is 1

further amended by adding at the end the following: 2

‘‘(7) no part of the offense or relevant 3

conduct— 4

‘‘(A) involved possessing, storing, using, or 5

trafficking drugs in or near the presence of a 6

minor; 7

‘‘(B) occurred in a location in which a 8

minor resides for any period of time; or 9

‘‘(C) involved conduct constituting an of- 10

fense under section 418, 419, or 420 of the 11

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859, 860, 12

and 861).’’. 13











Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 24

amended— 25


June 27, 2003



(1) in paragraph (q), by striking ‘‘or’’; 1

(2) by redesignating paragraph (r) as para- 2

graph (s); and 3

(3) by inserting after paragraph (q) the fol- 4

lowing: 5

‘‘(r) any violation of section 424 of the Con- 6

trolled Substances Act (relating to narco-terrorism, 7

murder and violent crimes in furtherance of a drug 8

trafficking crime); or’’. 9




Chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, is 13

amended 14

(1) in section 2515— 15

(A) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting 16

the following: 17

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever’’; and 18

(B) by adding at the end the following: 19

‘‘(b) EXCLUSION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 20

the disclosure by the United States in a criminal trial or 21

hearing or before a grand jury of the contents of a wire 22

or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, un- 23

less the violation of this chapter involved bad faith by law 24

enforcement.’’; and 25


June 27, 2003





(2) in section 2518(10)(a), by inserting ‘‘A 1

court may not grant a motion to suppress the con- 2

tents of a wire or oral communication, or evidence 3

derived therefrom, unless the court finds that the 4

violation of this chapter involved bad faith by law 5

enforcement.’’ after ‘‘grounds of the motion.’’. 6



Section 3486(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States 9

Code, is amended— 10

(1) by striking ‘‘of’’ and inserting ‘‘to’’; 11

(2) in clause (i)— 12

(A) by striking ‘‘or (II)’’ and inserting the 13

following: 14

‘‘(II)’’; and 15

(B) by striking ‘‘, the Attorney General’’ 16

and inserting the following: ‘‘; or 17

‘‘(III) any investigation under chapter 18

113B, 19

the Attorney General’’. 20



(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 49 of title 18, United 23

States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol- 24

lowing: 25


June 27, 2003






‘‘§ 1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugi- 1

tives 2

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 3

‘‘(1) FUGITIVE.—The term ‘fugitive’ means a 4

person who— 5

‘‘(A) having been accused by complaint, in- 6

formation, or indictment under Federal law or 7

having been convicted of committing a felony 8

under Federal law, flees or attempts to flee 9

from or evades or attempts to evade the juris- 10

diction of the court with jurisdiction over the 11

felony; 12

‘‘(B) having been accused by complaint, in- 13

formation, or indictment under State law or 14

having been convicted of committing a felony 15

under State law, flees or attempts to flee from, 16

or evades or attempts to evade, the jurisdiction 17

of the court with jurisdiction over the felony; 18

‘‘(C) escapes from lawful Federal or State 19

custody after having been accused by complaint, 20

information, or indictment or having been con- 21

victed of committing a felony under Federal or 22

State law; or 23

‘‘(D) is in violation of subparagraph (2) or 24

(3) of the first undesignated paragraph of sec- 25

tion 1073. 26


June 27, 2003



‘‘(2) INVESTIGATION.—The term ‘investigation’ 1

means, with respect to a State fugitive described in 2

subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), an inves- 3

tigation in which there is reason to believe that the 4

fugitive fled from or evaded, or attempted to flee 5

from or evade, the jurisdiction of the court, or es- 6

caped from custody, in or affecting, or using any fa- 7

cility of, interstate or foreign commerce, or as to 8

whom an appropriate law enforcement officer or offi- 9

cial of a State or political subdivision has requested 10

the Attorney General to assist in the investigation, 11

and the Attorney General finds that the particular 12

circumstances of the request give rise to a Federal 13

interest sufficient for the exercise of Federal juris- 14

diction pursuant to section 1075. 15

‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means a State 16

of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 17

any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 18

United States. 19


‘‘(1) SUBPOENAS.—In any investigation with 21

respect to the apprehension of a fugitive, the Attor- 22

ney General may subpoena witnesses for the purpose 23

of the production of any records (including books, 24

papers, documents, electronic data, and other tan- 25


June 27, 2003





gible and intangible items that constitute or contain 1

evidence) that the Attorney General finds, based on 2

articulable facts, are relevant to discerning the 3

whereabouts of the fugitive. A subpoena under this 4

subsection shall describe the records or items re- 5

quired to be produced and prescribe a return date 6

within a reasonable period of time within which the 7

records or items can be assembled and made avail- 8

able. 9

‘‘(2) WITNESSES.—The attendance of witnesses 10

and the production of records may be required from 11

any place in any State or other place subject to the 12

jurisdiction of the United States at any designated 13

place where the witness was served with a subpoena, 14

except that a witness shall not be required to appear 15

more than 500 miles distant from the place where 16

the witness was served. Witnesses summoned under 17

this section shall be paid the same fees and mileage 18

that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United 19

States. 20

‘‘(c) SERVICE.— 21

‘‘(1) AGENT.—A subpoena issued under this 22

section may be served by any person designated in 23

the subpoena as the agent of service. 24


June 27, 2003



‘‘(2) NATURAL PERSON.—Service upon a nat- 1

ural person may be made by personal delivery of the 2

subpoena to that person or by certified mail with re- 3

turn receipt requested. 4

‘‘(3) CORPORATION.—Service may be made 5

upon a domestic or foreign corporation or upon a 6

partnership or other unincorporated association that 7

is subject to suit under a common name, by deliv- 8

ering the subpoena to an officer, to a managing or 9

general agent, or to any other agent authorized by 10

appointment or by law to receive service of process. 11

‘‘(4) AFFIDAVIT.—The affidavit of the person 12

serving the subpoena entered on a true copy thereof 13

by the person serving it shall be proof of service. 14


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of the contu- 16

macy by or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any 17

person, the Attorney General may invoke the aid of 18

any court of the United States within the jurisdic- 19

tion of which the investigation is carried on or of 20

which the subpoenaed person is an inhabitant, or in 21

which he carries on business or may be found, to 22

compel compliance with the subpoena. The court 23

may issue an order requiring the subpoenaed person 24


June 27, 2003





to appear before the Attorney General to produce 1

records if so ordered. 2

‘‘(2) CONTEMPT.—Any failure to obey the order 3

of the court may be punishable by the court as con- 4

tempt thereof. 5

‘‘(3) PROCESS.—All process in any case to en- 6

force an order under this subsection may be served 7

in any judicial district in which the person may be 8

found. 9


later than 20 days after the date of service of an ad- 11

ministrative subpoena under this section upon any 12

person, or at any time before the return date speci- 13

fied in the subpoena, whichever period is shorter, 14

such person may file, in the district in which the 15

subpoena was served, or such person resides, is 16

found, or transacts business, a petition to modify or 17

quash such subpoena on grounds that— 18

‘‘(A) the terms of the subpoena are unrea- 19

sonable or oppressive; 20

‘‘(B) the subpoena fails to meet the re- 21

quirements of this section; or 22

‘‘(C) the subpoena violates the constitu- 23

tional rights or any other legal rights or privi- 24

lege of the subpoenaed party. 25


June 27, 2003



‘‘(e) GUIDELINES.— 1

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall 2

issue guidelines governing the issuance of adminis- 3

trative subpoenas pursuant to this section. 4

‘‘(2) REVIEW.—The guidelines required by this 5

subsection shall mandate that administrative sub- 6

poenas may be issued only after review and approval 7

of senior supervisory personnel of the relevant com- 8

ponent of the Department of Justice, as determined 9

by the Attorney General. 10


‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an administrative sub- 12

poena is issued under this section to a provider of 13

an electronic communication service (as defined in 14

section 2510) or remote computing service (as de- 15

fined in section 2711), the Attorney General may— 16

‘‘(A) delay notification to the subscriber or 17

customer to whom the record pertains, in ac- 18

cordance with section 2705(a); and 19

‘‘(B) apply to a court, in accordance with 20

section 2705(b), for an order commanding the 21

provider of an electronic communication service 22

or remote computing service, for such period as 23

the court determines appropriate, not to notify 24


June 27, 2003




any other person of the existence of the sub- 1

poena or court order. 2


a subpoena is issued under this section to a financial 4

institution for financial records of any customer of 5

such institution, the Attorney General may apply to 6

a court under section 1109 of the Right to Financial 7

Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3409) for an order 8

to delay customer notice as otherwise required. 9


‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise 11

provided under paragraphs (1) and (2), a court 12

may require the party to whom an administra- 13

tive subpoena is directed to refrain from noti- 14

fying any other party or person of the existence 15

of the subpoena for 30 days. 16

‘‘(B) EXTENSION.—The Attorney General 17

may apply to a court for an order extending the 18

nondisclosure period under subparagraph (A) as 19

the court determines appropriate. 20


shall enter an order under paragraph (2) if the 22

court determines that there is reason to believe 23

that notification of the existence of the adminis- 24


June 27, 2003



trative subpoena issued under this section 1

will— 2

‘‘(i) endanger the life or physical safe- 3

ty of an individual; 4

‘‘(ii) facilitate the flight of an indi- 5

vidual from prosecution, custody, or con- 6

finement after conviction; 7

‘‘(iii) result in the destruction of, or 8

tampering with, evidence; 9

‘‘(iv) lead to the intimidation of poten- 10

tial witnesses; or 11

‘‘(v) seriously jeoparde an investiga- 12

tion or unduly delay a trial.’’. 13


son, including officers, agents, and employees, who in good 15

faith produce the records or items requested in a subpoena 16

shall not be liable in any court of any State or the United 17

States to any customer or other person for such produc- 18

tion or for nondisclosure of that production to the cus- 19

tomer, in compliance with the terms of a court order for 20

nondisclosure.’’. 21


The analysis for chapter 49 of title 18, United States 23

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 24

‘‘1075. Administrative subpoenas to apprehend fugitives.’’.


June 27, 2003







Chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, is 3

amended— 4

(1) in section 2510— 5

(A) in paragraph (9)— 6

(i) by amending subparagraph (a) to 7

read as follows: 8

‘‘(A) a judge of any district court of the 9

United States (including a magistrate judge of 10

such court) or any United States court of ap- 11

peals with jurisdiction over the offense being in- 12

vestigated; and’’; and 13

(ii) in subparagraph (b), by striking 14

‘‘(b)’’ and inserting ‘‘(B)’’; 15

(B) in paragraph (20), by striking ‘‘and’’ 16

at the end; 17

(C) in paragraph (21), by striking the pe- 18

riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 19

(D) by adding at the end the following: 20

‘‘(22) the term ‘wireless’ means the use of elec- 21

tromagnetic waves (rather than some form of wire) 22

to carry a signal over a communication path.’’; and 23

(2) in section 2518(3), by striking ‘‘authorized 24

by a Federal court within such jurisdiction’’ and in- 25

serting ‘‘or a device that employs wireless technology 26


June 27, 2003





in part to transmit wire, oral, or electronic commu- 1

nications, the interception of which is authorized by 2

a Federal court’’. 3



(a) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to its authority under 6

section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in ac- 7

cordance with this section, the United States Sentencing 8

Commission shall review and amend the Federal sen- 9

tencing guidelines, commentary, and policy statements to 10

implement the provisions of this Act and the amendments 11

made by this Act. 12

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 13

the Sentencing Commission shall— 14

(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and 15

policy statements reflect the creation of new criminal 16

offenses to combat narco-terrorism, narco-terrorism 17

financing schemes, money laundering schemes, drug 18

trafficking to children, and violent crimes in further- 19

ance of drug trafficking; 20

(2) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and 21

policy statements reflect— 22

(A) the serious nature of the offenses and 23

penalties set forth in this Act, and the amend- 24

ments made by this Act; 25


June 27, 2003





(B) the intent of Congress to combat the 1

problems of narco-terrorism, narco-terrorism fi- 2

nancing schemes, and money laundering 3

schemes; and 4

(C) the need to deter, prevent, and punish 5

drug trafficking to children and violent crimes 6

in furtherance of drug trafficking; 7

(3) ensure that modifications to the sentencing 8

guidelines and policy statements are consistent with 9

the intent of Congress to deter, prevent, and enact 10

severe punishments for, the criminal offenses de- 11

scribed under paragraph (2); 12

(4) ensure that the guidelines and policy state- 13

ments include offense levels and enhancements that 14

are sufficient to deter, prevent, and punish criminals 15

who commit the offenses described under paragraph 16

(2); 17

(5) ensure reasonable consistency with other 18

relevant directives and other sentencing guidelines; 19

(6) make any necessary conforming changes to 20

the sentencing guidelines; and 21

(7) assure that the guidelines adequately meet 22

the purposes of sentencing set forth under section 23

3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code. 24


June 27, 2003



From the Nile to the Euphrates

Israel Widens Its War On Terror
Enforcing Universal Noahidism
In The First Airstrike In Syria In 30 Years,
Sunday Israel Hit An
Alleged Terrorist Camp

By Ben Lynfield
The Christian Science Monitor

JERUSALEM -- Israel took its war with the Palestinians into Syria Sunday, the first expansion of the three-year-old battle beyond its own cities and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The target of the air assault - chosen after a devastating suicide bombing in Haifa, Israel - was what Israel said was a terrorist training base near Damascus. It was the first Israeli attack on Syrian soil since 1973. Israel said the base was used by Islamic Jihad, the group responsible for the bombing at a Haifa restaurant Saturday that killed 19 people.
Senior Israeli officials say the attack on Syria marks a strategy shift. "It's time we put a real threat not just to the suicide bombers but to the regimes behind them," says Yuval Steinitz, the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "This includes Arafat and the Palestinians and [Syrian President] Bashar Assad as well."
Arab leaders condemned the suicide bombing, and the attack on Syria, worrying aloud Sunday that it could "drag the whole region into a circle of violence," as Jordan's foreign minister put it.
Syria, for example, could choose to respond via proxy forces in Lebanon.
Sunday, Syrian officials signaled that they would not respond militarily to the Israeli attack, calling instead for a UN Security Council meeting. "Syria has practiced the highest level of self-restraint, realizing that Israel is trying to create pretexts hereand there to export its internal crisis to the region," wrote Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara in a letter to the UN.
The reasoning, say supporters of Israel's more aggressive posture, is that military force, or the threat of it, is the only thing that can dissuade Syrian support for Islamic Jihad and thereby protect Israeli citizens. Israeli analysts predict there could be more military strikes if Syria does not close down facilities that Israel says are used by Islamic Jihad and Hamas and other militant groups
"There is a message in the attack to the region as a whole that Israel is prepared to strike whenever and wherever it sees fit," says Leslie Susser, diplomatic correspondent for Jerusalem Report magazine.
"Israel is saying we have another arrow in the bow and can use it from time to time. It is saying we will not be restricted to the kind of responses we had in the past or to the West Bank and Gaza Strip," Susser says.
But there are doubts about whether the attack will have the desired impact.
Eyal Zisser, a specialist on Syria at Tel Aviv University, says that Mr.Assad is unlikely to close down Islamic Jihad as a result of the strike. He argues that if Syria did not listen to US Secretary of State Colin Powell's demands during a May visit to Damascus on these matters, the Israeli attack is unlikely to have more impact. "Israel will face a dilemma over whether to escalate attacks" to press Assad if there are further attacks in Israel by Islamic Jihad, he predicts. "If this attack does not work, either they will have to give it up and say there was no use attacking Syria in the first place or to attack next time a building in Damascus." Mr. Zisser adds: I doubt that would happen, I don't think Israel or the United States wants that."
Israeli leaders attacked Syria, say diplomatic sources, because they were encouraged by the United States's tough approach towards Damascus, including Mr. Powell's ultimatum to close down offices and strong statements by President Bush. But analysts also say that attacking Syria was influenced in part by the need to assuage the Israeli public after the Haifa attack.
On Saturday, Islamic Jihad dispatched a 29-year old woman lawyer, Hanadi Jaradat to perpetrate the bombing at the Maxim Restaurant in Haifa. Her brother, an Islamic Jihad member and a cousin, a militia fighter had been killed by Israeli forces in June. The restaurant was jointly owned by Jews and Arabs. It was packed with families on Sabbath afternoon, something the fatality toll grimly reflects; three children were among the dead. Nine of the 48 wounded were seriously hurt.
In weighing responses after the attack, Israeli conservatives renewed calls for the expulsion of Palestinian president Yasser Arafat, whom Israel last month said should be "removed" on the grounds that he is an obstacle to peace. But given broad international opposition to that step, the government was expected to opt for something less. "Arafat's expulsion will not serve our interests now," said cabinet minister Gideon Ezra. "What is needed is to isolate him." In practice, media reports said, that would mean confining him in a very small space inside his compound and preventing him from having contact with the outside world.
Mr. Arafat and other Palestinian leaders strongly condemned the attack, with the prime minister designate Ahmed Qurei phoning the mayor of Haifa to offer condolences. "Our position is clear, we are against harming all civilians," says Palestinian legislator Jamal Shobaki. "It is not in the interests of the Palestinian people. We must acceptable means against the occupation, respecting our traditions. This must be stopped completely."
But Dore Gold, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, responds: "Israel has gone through the last two and a half years of Arafat condemning terror and initiating it at the same time. These statements by the Palestinian leadership don't make a great impression."
Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.


Universal Noahide of Talmud Bavli, Lebanon

Shots Fired on Tense Lebanese-Israeli Border
Mon October 06, 2003 12:43 PM ET

KFAR KILA, Lebanon (Reuters) - Shots were fired from Israel over the border into Lebanon on Monday, Lebanese security sources said, one day after Israeli planes bombed inside Syria. "The Israelis fired in the air over Lebanese cars on the road between Kfar Kila and Adayseh with the excuse that they came under fire from our side," the security source said.

"But no one fired from our side and there are no injuries on our side," he added.

The incident comes a day after Israel launched its deepest air strike into Syria in 30 years, attacking what it called a training camp for Palestinian militants.

It described the raid as self-defense, after a suicide bombing in Haifa by the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad killed 19 people.

Witnesses said two cars and several houses on the Lebanese side of the border were damaged in Monday's shooting incident.

The United Nations UNIFIL peacekeeping force in south Lebanon said there had been firing in the area, but gave no further details.

"There has been firing in the area. We are aware of the situation and are investigating," UNIFIL spokesman Milos Strugar said.

In a separate incident, Israeli troops in the disputed Shebaa Farms border area shelled close to the edges of a south Lebanese village, security sources said. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

Hizbollah guerrillas, who are backed by Syria and Iran, helped bring about Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation. They have since launched deadly attacks on Israeli troops in the Shebaa Farms area.




"Purim Syria,  Botched?

Syria Raid Condemned
Internationally - Bush Slip?

Note - Interesting choice of words by Bush... "Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland" note, he did not say "THEIR homeland" but "THE homeland" which begs the question, whose homeland is it? - ed
Syria Raid Condemned Internationally
CAIRO (AFP) -- Israel's weekend air raid on a suspected Palestinian militant training base in Syria was roundly condemned today as an unacceptable escalation in the violence-wracked Middle East.
US President George W Bush said he had told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon although his country has the right to defend itself against extremists, it must avoid escalating tensions in the region.
"I made it very clear to the prime minister, like I have consistently done, that Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland," said Bush.
"However, I said that it's very important that any action Israel take should avoid escalation, creating higher tensions," in the region, the president said.
In London, an official spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "While of course we understand Israel's right to security, we believe that the action yesterday (Sunday) was unacceptable because we believe it represented an escalation."
China said it was "shocked" at Israel's air strike and "strongly condemned" the action.
"China strongly calls for the involved parties to exercise utmost restraint to avoid further deterioration of the situation in the region," the Xinhua news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan as saying.
But Russia, which, along with Britain, China and the United States, holds one of the five permanent seats on the UN security council, said a draft UN resolution brought by Damascus to condemn the deepest Israeli raids inside Syria in 30 years needed to be more balanced and condemn extremist violence.
"The draft resolution would benefit from being more balanced and in particular by mentioning the indispensable nature of the ban on terrorist acts in the region," deputy foreign minister Yury Fedotov told Interfax news agency.
Israel launched an air attack early yesterday on what it said was a Palestinian militant training base northwest of Damascus used by the Islamic Jihad and Hamas groups.
It was the deepest military strike by Israel inside Syria since 1974 and came in response to a suicide bombing claimed by Islamic Jihad that killed 19 people, plus the bomber, and wounded at least 50 others in the northern Israeli city of Haifa late on Saturday.
Syria brought a draft resolution to the security council yesterday to condemn the raid. The council met for about three hours but adjourned without taking a vote.
"It is just as well that the UN security council is still considering this affair, because it is very serious when one country starts to fly over the territory of other countries," Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moeller said, quoted by the Ritzau news agency.
In Damascus, a Syrian official said on condition of anonymity: "We have asked the UN security council to denounce this aggression and to stop it from happening again, and we have shown much restraint, but a new aggression could lead to trouble."
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad consulted today over the diplomatic response launched by Syria, Egyptian state television reported.
Mubarak said Egypt "condemned the aggression against Syria and stuck firmly by this country's side", it said.
Further criticism of Israel's raid came from the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which described the attack as a "grave act of provocation and a flagrant violation of Syria's sovereignty ... bound to worsen the grave situation in the Middle East and hinder efforts to re-establish peace and security".
Predominantly Muslim non-Arab Turkey, which has been Israel's main regional ally since signing a military cooperation accord in 1996, expressed concern that "this incident will lead to escalation of tensions in the region".
In the Middle East, Iran's powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who now heads the Islamic republic's top political arbitration body, denounced what he called the "insolent" Israeli raid.
Sudanese President Omar el-Beshir praised Syria for its restraint, calling for "a unified international stance against the Israeli aggression".
Libyan foreign minister Abdul Rahman Shalgham called Syrian counterpart Faruq al-Shara to express Tripoli's solidarity with Damascus after Israel's "terrorist aggression", Libya's Jana news agency said.
Elsewhere in the world, South Africa's deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad said the raid was "clearly a violation of international law ... I think we are sitting on a powderkeg right now".
The Bangladeshi foreign ministry said the raid disregarded "international law and the principles of international relations".
Philippines foreign secretary Blas Ople, meanwhile, condemned Israel's air strike as "unnecessary, unfortunate, and certainly difficult to justify" but also urged Damascus to do more to fight international terrorism.
Copyright 2003 News Limited.,4057,7485889%255E1702,00.html


Keep a close "EYE on the incoming false Lamb. Every king of the jews had a Prophet. In the Order of the High Priesthood of Babylon, the Nimrodic Talmudic daughter of the whore, the Pontifex Maximus, Giovanni Battista "RE". Yes Re as in the sun God, as in the Moshiach ben Satan

The Revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant John

11: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12: And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13: And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14: And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15: And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The Babylon Kings, served as both king and priest of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion. As priests, they bore the title [b]"Pontifex Maximus"[/b] (Baker’s Pocket Dictionary of Religious Terms) or "Supreme Pontiff," meaning "supreme pathfinder" or "bridge maker," representing "the path or connection between this life and the next." Thus we see THE SUPREME HIGH PRIEST OF BABYLON is Pontifex Maximus

BABYLON--Pontifex Maximus--supreme Priest of pagan gods.
The last king to reign in Babylon was Belshazzar, who celebrated the pagan Babylonian ritual using the sacred Jewish temple vessels which his father King Nebuchadnezzar confiscated from the Jewish temple in 587 B.C.: After the death of Belshazzar in 539 B.C., the Persian Emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon and forced the Babylonian princes to flee to [b]Pergamum.[/b] They continued their reign there as priest-kings of Babylonian paganism.

In 133 B.C., Attalus III, the last Babylonian King to rule in Pergamum, willed his dominions to the Roman Caesar, and the kingdom of Pergamum merged with the Roman Empire along with Satan-Nimrod’s throne and the title "Pontifex Maximus."


Mention has been made of Giovanni Battista Re, to whom the pope showed his preference by placing his name at the head of the list of the 44 new cardinals. In Vatican terms, this indicates that Re is the heir apparent. Re was born in 1934 in the diocese of Brescia (Lombardy), served in the Vatican secretariat of state and went on to become secretary to the Congregation for Bishops; he is also John Paul II's trusted adviser and substitute (in the secretariat of state). He could win the votes of those electors who would prefer a pope primarily concerned with the future of the Holy See rather than one chosen on the basis of charisma. Such a pontiff would be capable of repairing the Church's internal divisions, tackling the reform of the curia and giving back to the local churches the powers lost in the centralising policies of the 1990s.



OWR Part 2


In the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord, amen

The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II


"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws


Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2