In 1993 an FBI Informant secretly recorded his FBI handler while having conversations that discussed—the FBI being instrumental in allowing terrorists to make a “real bomb” to blow up the NYC Trade Center.

After terrorists set off the bomb at the Trade Center the informant's tapes were published by the New York and LA Times. Six people were killed. Did love ones of those killed sue the FBI or was there an out of court government settlement; lawsuits would have been problematic after the informant’s tapes showed (FBI involvement in the bombing.)  Subsequent to the bombing, there was rampant speculation in political circles that certain factions in government wanted a bombing in order to speed passage of new "anti-crime legislation." Months prior “The Crime Control Act of 1993” was introduced, also known as S.8 that included huge appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. At the time, terrorism was not a problem in the U.S. Under the broad provisions of S.8, labor and protest demonstrators could be charged as terrorists if police alleged they blocked public access; intimidated or coerced a civilian population under 18USC 2331. Subsequently conservatives and liberals protested the legislation. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 failed to pass. 

Subsequently months prior to the bombing of the( Federal Oklahoma building), the “1995, first Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act was introduced.” This act included many provisions from the failed “Crime Control Act of 1993.” After the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress quickly passed the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act; the passed bill included several provisions from the failed to pass “Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act, prosecutors could use Secret Hearings, secret paid informants, secret testimony, secret witnesses and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges, even against the Death Penalty became difficult if not possible; the passed legislation was particularly alarmingly because U.S. Police/Government routinely pay and make deals with informants to provide court testimony.

Horrors of “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have “redefined illegal Search and seizure” and eliminated injured citizen law suits against government officials and agents under United States Code Title VII Section 2337.

Incorporated in S8 were provisions taken from introduced S.45 titled the "Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991" Both bills contained language that could charge “law abiding citizens” with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations. Mirroring the passed 2001 Patriot Act, “The Crime Control Act of 1993” intended to invoke government property forfeitures against persons’ that made Speeches, writings and/or attended assemblies. And any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act could be arrested and/or have their property seized by the government.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 was written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws. A citizen who allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly would (start out guilty) having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332. Politically active organizations and labor unions would have been especially vulnerable to broad provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 that defined bodily acts as "terrorist acts." A common fistfight at a demonstration or picket line could qualify as a terrorist act. The physical act need not cause bodily harm, as S.8 provisions referred to "involving any violent or bodily act" that may be a terrorist act.

S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and were written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: "appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Under S.8: Any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators who left messages on a member or organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the system and seizure of its records and forfeiture of the home where the system was located. Under provisions The Crime Control Act of 1993, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from "activities that (appeared intended) toward violence". For instance distributing political action flyers.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression the government was after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. That was a Trojan horse. The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be used against most anyone in the United States committing an undefined bodily act or attending an assembly. The Terrorism and Forfeiture provisions were nearly identical to those passed in the 2001 Patriot Act that now allow Government to (retroactively go back several years to arrest U.S. Citizens and seize their property based on a mere Preponderance of civil evidence.

The Crime Control Act of 1993: would have blocked discovery of Government Witnesses and Evidence being used against a defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII. Government could have objected on grounds that compliance with discovery would interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident, or national security operation related to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. For Example: Defending against Government Civil Forfeiture would have been about impossible if citizens were denied access to learning the secret evidence against them. Citizens’ would also had no right to cross-examine government secret witnesses. The 2001 passed Patriot Act now allows government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses now under the Patriot Act, can be paid by government part of the property their testimony causes to be forfeited.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions:
Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses in Capital Cases: Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses need not be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of evidence.

Title VII USC Section 2337:

The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from Government Agents in pursuit of terrorist acts.

Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes: The United States Sentencing Commission would have had the power to increase the” base offense level” for any felony committed in the United States that involved or was intended to promote international terrorism. Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches, Writings and Public Assemblies could be used as evidence by Government to show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization that they were alleged to have afforded support. Note: One person's violent unlawful act at an assembly could be enough for the Government to allege an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population.”

Under current drug forfeiture laws innocent citizens have been implicated by informants who may testify to anything to mitigate their own arrest and/or receive money from the government: this can result in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents, forfeiture of their property, and financial ruination. Under the proposed provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 special breaks would have been given to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty creating informants to cause the arrest and incarceration of any U.S. Citizen believed by government to be a political threat.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have amended the "Exclusionary Rule" to add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule: The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed "illegal searches." Wiretaps and seizures" resulting in obtaining evidence from an (invalid warrant) issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth—could "override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections and be introduced as evidence if police and government acted in good faith.
Section 3509 would have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners' homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to (assert) "a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment."