Recently, I was listening to my local radio station and two people were being interviewed about the Space Preservation Act (HR 3616)that was introduced in the House of Representatives by congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) earlier this year. While the legislation has been slow to move through the House, progressive Berkeley, Calif., has passed a resolution endorsing the Space Preservation Act and the companion world-wide Space Preservation Treaty.

Senator Douglas Roche, a Canadian senator, has asked for Canada to lead an international campaign to stop weapons in space. Since the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty expired this last summer, there is an international void which this new treaty fills. Without a treaty, a new arms race will begin, filling the skies with lethal and controlling weapons. Thinking that this must be important, I started looking into the matter. What I found shocked me.

First of all, the economics of the situation astounds me. Richard Becker, of the International A.N.S.W.E.R (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) told me that one of every two discretionary tax dollars goes to the Department of Defense. With a 15% increase in its budget this year, our military budget will be $471 billion by 2007, equaling the military budgets of all nations in the world.

Currently our $378 billion budget looms over the combined budget of our top six terrorist nations. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq have a combined military budget of $12.6 billion. Becker asks us to look at the overall picture. “Look at what has been lost as compared to what has been spent,” Becker reasons, “21 and a 1/2 trillion dollars has been spent on the military since 1920. What about our homeless, our educational system? Social problems like these could be solved tens of times over.”

Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who used to work for Laurence Livermore Labs who is now on Berkeley’s Environmental Commission, feels that government defense spending bolsters a many unfeasible science projects.

“Star wars will never work,” she explained.

Apparently the system of lasers is thwarted by all the space trash and most of the power is dissipated and reflected. She has been a big supporter of HR3616 and the world treaty.

Currently, she is in Japan campaigning for support of the treaty. She feels that the individual cities proclaiming their support will start a ball rolling. “We are using the Berkeley resolution as a way to get global support and to increase awareness of citizenry.”

The most unbelievable thing that Moret contends is the use of non-lethal weapons, or NLW in space. Time magazine reported that the military is developing “directed energy” weapons. Lev Grossman, of Time, describes these as a “tight, focused beam of energy that flash-heats a target from a distance.” Placed atop Humvees, these transmitters pulse out electromagnetic frequencies.

“The cranium is not transparent to electrical current, but it is to electromagnetic frequencies,” Moret explained, “(the) technology is not affected by space or atmosphere.”

In a 112-page report presented to the European Parliament, the Omega Foundation outlines some of the science-fiction-like effects that new technologies cause on enemies. Internal organs can be superheated, cause a person to fall asleep, create aggressiveness and memory loss.

Dr. Rauni Kilde, the former Chief Medical Officer for Finland is extremely worried that these technologies can permanently affect, and even control, people.

What does this have to do with the HR3616 and the Space Preservation Treaty? Well, one of the weapons the act restricts, reads, “c. directing a source of energy against that object or person;” essentially, the act disallows use of directed energy.

I’ll explain more of the details of non-lethal weapons in my next column, especially the bizarre but true effects of psychotronics.

Samantha Hinrichs reads voraciously. Any comments can be given to [email protected] or give your feedback atwww.statehornet.com