Abstract: Short for Readiness Exercise 1984, is a contingency plan developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who were deemed to be "national security threats", in the event that the President declared a "State of Domestic National Emergency".
The plan stated that events that might cause such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America.
To combat what the government perceived as "subversive activities", the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels. Rex-84 was written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both the NSC White House Aide and NSC liaison to FEMA, and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of "national preparedness" programs for FEMA.
They patterned the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million "American Negroes", if there were a black militant uprising in the United States.
Existence of a master military contingency plan (of which REX-84 was a part), "Garden Plot" and a similar earlier exercise, "Lantern Spike" were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in "Garden Plot and the New Action Army." Rex 84 was publicly mentioned during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987.
Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen regularly. For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of over 100,000 persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list. The basic facts about Rex 84 and other contingency planning readiness exercises—and the potential threat they pose to civil liberties if fully implemented in a real operation—are taken seriously by scholars and civil libertarians (Wikipedia, 2010).
Title: Continuity Of Operations Plan
Date: September 11, 2001
Abstract: The Continuity of Operations Plan refers to the preparations and institutions maintained by the United States government, providing survival of federal government operations in the case of catastrophic events. The George W. Bush administration put the Continuity of Operations plan into effect for the first time directly following the September 11 attacks.
Their implementation involved a rotating staff of 75 to 150 senior officials and other government workers from every federal executive department and other parts of the executive branch in two secure bunkers on the East Coast. Friends, family and co-workers were only able to reach them through a toll-free number and personal extensions. The Bush administration did not acknowledge the implementation of the COG plan until March 1, 2002.
Since September 11, 2001, the newly created Department of Homeland Security has conducted at least three exercises to test continuity plans. The first, named "Forward Challenge '04", took place from May 12 to May 13, 2004, and included more than 40 government agencies. The second major exercise took place from June 20 to June 24, 2005. Titled "Pinnacle", the exercise tested responses to various emergencies, including a hypothetical act of terrorism. "Forward Challenge '06" was the third major exercise, and took place on June 19, 2006. It reportedly involved nearly 4,000 government personnel.
In September 2010, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of Emergency in effect since September 14, 2001, will be extended another year. The National Emergencies Act grants various powers to the president during times of emergency, and was intended to prevent a president from declaring a state of emergency of indefinite duration.
In 2007, Professor Larry J. Sabato criticized the incomplete nature of the plan in his book A More Perfect Constitution. In particular, he objected to the fact that there is no Constitutional procedure for replacing U.S. House members in the case of a large-scale attack which could potentially kill a large number of representatives. In regard to the Continuity of Operations Plan, Sabato said it "failed outright" during the September 11 attacks.
The NORAD- and USNORTHCOM-sponsored exercise "Vigilant Shield 2008" took place from October 15 to October 20, 2007 (Wikipedia, 2011).
Title: Civil-Liberties Issues Check Plans To Fight Bioterrorism
Date: May 17, 2002
Probably the same confusion, fear and uncoordinated response that happened during last fall's anthrax attacks. Federal and state plans to respond to bioterrorism have run up against civil libertarians and a host of others who worry their rights will be trampled. Even some hospital groups have fought against plans for bioterror attacks because they don't want contagious patients in their facilities.
Just seven months ago, when anthrax was killing people and closing parts of the U.S. Postal Service and Washington D.C., nothing seemed more important than preparing for bioterror. A model law, drafted at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was rushed to state governments last fall to help their governors and public-health departments strengthen their quarantine powers to deal with a newer, larger and more dangerous bioterror attack with a contagious disease such as smallpox.
But proposed legislation based on the model law was struck down in states including Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming and Wisconsin and died in committee in Mississippi and Washington state. Groups ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council decried what they saw as sweeping infringements of personal liberties. Although 11 states have passed some version of the act, it appears in many states the laws will be delayed or significantly diluted in scope, if implemented at all.
In the meantime, the nation remains vulnerable to bioterror, public-health officials and bill supporters say ruefully. Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington and one of the authors of the model law, calls opponents "ostriches with their heads in the sand."
The Model Emergency Health Powers Act, was intended to be a template for state laws around the country. It allowed state governors 30 days of emergency power, with the right to quarantine, isolate, test, treat and vaccinate people. People refusing to be treated or vaccinated could be put into quarantine. It also allowed officials to take over hospitals and pharmacies during an emergency, allocate drugs and vaccines, and even ration food and fuel. It further permitted the state to close, evacuate and, when necessary, destroy contaminated property. People seeking release from quarantine were provided court hearings, as well as compensation for property seized under the law.
The latest setback for the law's proponents came in California, where a sweeping Emergency Health Powers Act was gutted in a legislative committee and sent back for study. According to a glum Keith Richman, a physician and the Republican state legislator who introduced the legislation, "My bill is dead."
An autopsy of the California bill illustrates how far apart the two sides are.
The American Civil Liberties Union of California blasted the model act for having too broad a definition of bioterror emergency, and too narrow a set of safeguards for due process, medical privacy, and religious objections to procedures like cremation, spokeswoman Valerie Small Navarro says.
Also opposing the bill was the American Legislative Exchange Council, a free-market advocacy group. Sandy Liddy Bourne, a council official, said the proposed bill "puts a stranglehold on our civil liberties." She charged the act constituted an unwarranted expansion of state public-health powers and warned it would lead to declarations of quarantine "on the vague definition of a biological threat."
Some groups, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative medical lobby, objected to the law's provisions for compulsory shots in an emergency. "Our group is against forcing vaccination on people," says Jane Orient, a Tucson doctor and executive director of the group, which lobbied statehouses from Albany to Sacramento conjuring images of forced treatment at gunpoint.
Measures to limit the spread of deadly contagious disease by temporary isolation of the sick also provoked opposition. The Capitol Resource Institute, a nonprofit family-advocacy group based in Sacramento, rejects any bill that might separate families.
Hospital quarantine of people with a disease such as smallpox is another flashpoint. "At a hospital, unless you empty out quickly, you risk exposing a lot of innocent people," says Jan Emerson, spokeswoman for the California Healthcare Association, which opposes the model act. The association, a lobby for 470 acute-care hospitals, proposes that patients check into a motel, gym, or "MASH"-style field infirmary.
Supporters say laws based on the model act would protect individual liberties better than existing laws. For instance, it provides court hearings for people improperly quarantined, rather than relying on writs of habeas corpus or laws against illegal imprisonment, as do some old state statutes.
"What's wrong with the current system is that most state laws are highly antiquated, and predate most of the advances in public-health sciences and constitutional law in America," says Georgetown's Prof. Gostin. Some states, he says, retain one set of rules for old diseases like smallpox and plague; another for polio and tuberculosis; and still another for newer diseases like West Nile virus.
Broad emergency health powers haven't been invoked in America since the hot summer of 1954, when polio put children into iron lungs, and officials closed off summer camps and swimming pools. In light of the opposition to the model law, some CDC officials wonder if today's Americans are so unused to limits on their liberty that they won't tolerate disease-induced restrictions, even for the greater good.
That possibility worries doctors in the trenches. "The best intelligence tells us that with bioterror, it's not a matter of if, but when," says Poki Namkung, director of public health for Berkeley, Calif. "Every drill that has been run has shown people are not prepared."
But in New York, Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program of the ACLU's national office, is relieved most states are refusing to rush the new bioterror act into law. "The worst laws," he warns, "are made in time of emergency" (UCLA, 2002).
Senate bill "S-3081" allows for the infinite detention of any person, including American citizens, who is deemed to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent without criminal charges or trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged or which the individual has purposely and materially supported. This law basically allows any person at any time to be arrested and held without bail or trial for any amount of time deemed necessary by the U.S. government. This law paves the way for mass arrests and the wholesale extermination that is sure to follow.
Date: May 4, 2007
Abstract: The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 (S. 3081) is a bill introduced by United States Senator John McCain, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and eight other Republican Senators. Its counterpart in the House is H.R. 4892, introduced by Howard McKeon (R-CA). According to the bill's official summary, the bill requires that any person who is arrested on suspicion of terrorism against the Unites States or its coalition partners be placed in military custody for the purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status as an "unprivileged enemy belligerent". Such determination is to be made within 48 hours.
The bill proceeds to define an "unprivileged enemy belligerent" as an individual who:
- Has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
- Has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
- Was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.
It further prohibits the use of Department of Justice (DOJ) appropriated funds to prosecute an unprivileged enemy belligerent in an Article III court. Finally, the bill allows for the detention of a person who is deemed to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent without criminal charges or trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged or which the individual has purposely and materially supported. S.3081 was co-sponsored in the Senate by: Scott Brown [MA], Saxby Chambliss [GA], James Inhofe [OK], George LeMieux [FL], Jeff Sessions [AL], John Thune [SD], David Vitter [LA], and Roger Wicker [MS] (Wikipedia, 2010).
Title: U.S. Congress' Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Of 2007
Date: April 19, 2007
Abstract: A bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with "homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization” by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.
The bill was introduced to the House on April 19 2007, and passed on Oct 23, 2007. It was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959. The bill defines some terms including "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and "ideologically based violence," which have provoked controversy from some quarters.
Amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to:
Establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;
Establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States;
Conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibited the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Violent Radicalization: The process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
Homegrown Terrorism: The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Ideologically Based Violence: The use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs (Wikipedia, 2010).
Title: The White House National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51
Date: May 4, 2007
Abstract: National Security Presidential Directive: NSPD 51 was created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency".
Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings (Wikipedia, 2010).
Date: September 25, 2009
Source: Fox News
Date: September 30, 2009
Abstract: There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
1. Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
2. Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
3. They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
4. They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
5. They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
6. They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
7. They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
8. They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later” (Newsmax, 2009).
Title: 'Continuity Of Government' Planning: War, Terror And The Supplanting Of The U.S. Constitution
Date: May 30, 2010
Source: Peter Dale Scott
Abstract: In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution. As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up.
Congressman Jack Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?Senator Daniel Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Congressman Jack Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Senator Daniel Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session. But we have never heard if there was or was not an executive session, or if the rest of Congress was ever aware of the matter.
According to James Bamford, “The existence of the secret government was
so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed.” Key
individuals in Congress were almost certainly aware. Brooks was responding to a
story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald. Chardy’s story alleged that Oliver North was involved with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in plans to take over federal, state
and local functions during a national emergency.
This planning for “Continuity
of Government” (COG) called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning
control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments
and declaration of martial law.” To my knowledge no one in the public
(including myself) attached enough importance to the Chardy story.
himself suggested that Reagan’s Attorney General, William French Smith, had
intervened to stop the COG plan from being presented to the President. Seven
years later, in 1994, Tim Weiner reported in the New York Times that what he
called “The Doomsday Project” – the
search for “ways to keep the Government running after a sustained nuclear
attack on Washington” –had “less than six months to live.” To say that
nuclear attack planning was over was correct, But this statement was also very
On the basis of Weiner’s report, the first two books on COG
planning, by James Bamford and James Mann, books otherwise excellent and
well-informed, reported that COG planning had been abandoned. They were wrong. Mann
and Bamford did report that, from the beginning, two of the key COG planners on the secret committee were Dick Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld, the two men who implemented COG under 9/11. What they
and Weiner did not report was that under Reagan the purpose of COG planning had
officially changed: it was no longer for arrangements “after a nuclear war,”
but for any “national security emergency.”
This was defined in Executive
Order 12656 of 1988 as: “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military
attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or
seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” In other words extraordinary emergency
measures, originally designed for an America devastated in a nuclear attack,
were now to be applied to anything the White House considered an emergency.
Thus Cheney and Rumsfeld continued their secret planning
when Clinton was president; both men, both Republicans, were heads of
major corporations and not even in the government at that time. Moreover,
Andrew Cockburn claims that the Clinton administration,
according to a Pentagon source, had “no idea what was going on.” The
expanded application of COG to any emergency was envisaged as early as 1984,
when, according to Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, Lt. Col. Oliver North was working with officials of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency . . . to draw up a secret contingency plan to
surveil political dissenters and to arrange for the detention of hundreds of
thousands of undocumented aliens in case of an unspecified national emergency.
The plan, part of which was codenamed Rex 84, called for the suspension of the
Constitution under a number of scenarios, including a U.S. invasion
of Nicaragua. Clearly 9/11 met the conditions for the imposition of
COG measures, and we know for certain that COG planning was instituted on that
day in 2001, before the last plane had crashed in Pennsylvania.
Report confirms this twice, on pages 38 and 326. It was under the auspices
of COG that Bush stayed out of Washington on that day, and other
government leaders like Paul Wolfowitz were swiftly evacuated to Site R, inside
a hollowed out mountain near Camp David. What few have recognized is that, nearly a decade later, some aspects
of COG remain in effect. COG plans are still authorized by a proclamation of
emergency that has been extended each year by presidential authority, most
recently by President Obama in September 2009.
COG plans are also the
probable source for the 1000-page Patriot Act presented to Congress five days
after 9/11, and also for the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame
— a ten-year plan, initiated in September 2001, to expand detention camps, at a
cost of $400 million in Fiscal Year 2007 alone. At the same time we have seen
the implementation of the plans outlined by Chardy in 1987: the warrantless
detentions that Oliver North had planned for in Rex 1984, the warrantless eavesdropping that is their logical
counterpart, and the militarization of the domestic United
States under a new military command, NORTHCOM.
Through NORTHCOM the U.S. Army now is engaged with local enforcement to
control America, in the same way that through CENTCOM it is engaged with
local enforcement to control
Afghanistan and Iraq. We learned that COG planning was
still active in 2007, when President Bush issued National Security Presidential
Directive 51 (NSPD 51). This, for the
sixth time, extended for one year the emergency proclaimed on September 14,
2001. It empowered the President to personally ensure “continuity of
government” in the event of any “catastrophic emergency.” He announced that
NSPD 51 contains “classified Continuity Annexes” which shall “be protected from
Under pressure from his 911truth constituents,
Congressman Peter DeFazio of the Homeland Security Committee twice requested to
see these Annexes, the second time in a letter signed by the Chair of his committee.
His request was denied. The National Emergencies Act, one of the post-Watergate
reforms that Vice-President Cheney so abhorred, specifies that: “Not later than six months after a national
emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period
thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to
consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall
be terminated” (50 U.S.C. 1622, 2002).
Yet in nine years Congress has not
once met to discuss the State of Emergency declared by George W. Bush
in response to 9/11, a State of Emergency that remains in effect
today. Appeals to the Congress to meet its responsibilities to review COG have
fallen on deaf ears. It is clear that the planning by Cheney, Rumsfeld and
others in the last two decades was not confined to an immediate response to
The 1000-page Patriot Act, dropped on Congress as promptly as the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution had been back in 1964, is still with us; Congress has never seriously
challenged it, and Obama quietly extended it on February 27 of this year. We should not forget that the Patriot Act
was only passed after lethal anthrax letters were mailed to two crucial
Democratic Senators – Senators Daschle and Leahy – who had initially
questioned the bill. After the anthrax letters, however, they withdrew their
initial opposition. Someone — we still do not know who – must have planned
those anthrax letters well in advance. This is a fact most Americans do not
want to think about.
Someone also must
have planned the unusual number of war games taking place on 9/11. COG planners
and FEMA had been involved in war games planning over the previous two decades;
and on 9/11 FEMA was again involved with other agencies in preparing for Operation
Tripod, a bioterrorism exercise in New York City. Someone also
must have planned the new more restrictive instructions, on June 1, 2001, determining that military interceptions of hijacked
aircraft had to be approved “at the highest levels of government” (i.e. the
President, Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense).
attributes this order to a JCS Memo of June 1, 2001, entitled “Aircraft Piracy
(Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects.” But the written
requirements had been less restrictive before June 1, 2001, and I am informed
that the change was quietly revoked the following December. In The Road to 9/11
I suggest the change in the JCS memo came from the National Preparedness Review
in which President Bush authorized Vice-President Cheney, together with FEMA,
“to tackle the… task of dealing with terrorist attacks.”
Not noticed by the press was the fact that
Cheney and FEMA had already been working on COG planning as a team throughout
the 1980s and 1990s. Weiner’s article persuaded authors James Mann and
James Bamford that Reagan’s COG plans had now been abandoned, because “there
was, it seemed, no longer any enemy in the world capable of . . . decapitating
however, only one phase of COG planning had been terminated, a Pentagon program
for response to a nuclear attack. Instead, according to author Andrew
Cockburn, a new target was found: Although
the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million a year in
the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now replaced by terrorists.
. . . There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected
to run the “shadow government” had been drawn from across the political
spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike.
But now, down in the bunkers,
Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company, the players’ roster
being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. . . .“You could say this was a secret
government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was
extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going on.”
The Pentagon official’s description of a
“secret government-in-waiting” (which still included both Cheney and Rumsfeld)
is very close to the standard definition of a cabal, as a group of persons
secretly united to bring about a change or overthrow of government. In the
same era Cheney and Rumsfeld projected change also by their public lobbying,
through the Project for the New American Century, for a more
militant Middle East policy.
light of how COG was actually implemented in 2001, one can legitimately suspect
that, however interested this group had been in continuity of government under
Reagan, under Clinton the focus of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s COG
planning was now a change of government (Peter Dale Scott, 2010).
Title: USNORTHCOM Gears Up For Potential Attack On U.S. Soil
Date: June 9, 2010
Source: The Intel Hub
Abstract: USNORTHCOM has admitted that they are preparing military operations within the United States. This is the first time in history this has been done and they will be working with DHS, state and local law enforcement on U.S. soil. The focus of this operation will be in our own back yard. Northcom is planning on defending against enemy attacks and supporting civilian authorities with fighting an unconventional foe, all on US soil. NORTHCOM went on to say that the drill will be in the Gulf area. They anticipate no infrastructure and possible extreme weather conditions.
“Even more significant, this inspection marked the first time that any Air Force unit has been wartime validated in support of the security and defense of the United States of America. That’s huge,” Nelson said. “The survival of thousand Americans rests on this training”. The Intel Hub believes that their could be a mass evacuation of the Gulf. The chemicals that are being used on this oil spill could, by themselves cause a tremendous amount of various health problems.We will keep you posted.
This could be part of Operation Garden Plot. and possibly could be why there has been reports of hardened troops building up in the Gulf. BP is currently saying that the oil spill should be stopped by next week. One thing is for sure, the dispersant isn’t going anywhere in months much less weeks (The Intel Hub, 2010).
Title: Eight Regional Homeland Response Force Units Announced
Date: July 16, 2010
Source: Bio Prep Watch
Abstract: The Department of Defense and the National Guard Bureau recently announced that eight more regional homeland response force units will be created in the 2012 fiscal year.
According to the American Forces Press Service, the new units will be formed as part of a restructuring of the U.S. chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive response enterprise.
The eight new units will join two others based in Ohio and Washington state, whose formation was announced on June 3. One unit will be based in each of ten Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. In addition to Ohio and Washington, units will be located in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, Missouri, Utah and California.
The new units will be expected to reach the site of an emergency within 12 hours, crossing state borders if necessary. Each unit will consist of at least 570 guardsmen, including a medical team, a search and extraction team, a decontamination team and a command and control element. When not deployed, the personnel from each unit will continue to train, plan and exercise on a regional level.
The Defense Department CBRNE consequence management enterprise, of which these units are considered the key element, will also include a defense CBRN Response Force, two consequence management command and control sections, 57 weapons of mass destruction civil support teams and 17 CBRNE-enhanced response force packages (Bio Prep Watch, 2010).
Date: September 13, 2011
Source: ABC News
Abstract: Congress may be in the doghouse with the American public, but a new poll suggests that the broader government — especially the military — gets high marks for keeping the nation safe and secure.
What's more, nearly seven in 10 Americans are trying to make things better by volunteering, a sign that optimism survives in a nation riled by partisan policy fights and economic uncertainty.
"It's very healthy because it indicates that although we are annoyed, skeptical and have less trust than we'd like in our institutions, we are not hopeless," said David Eisner, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, which partnered on the poll with The Associated Press. "We believe that the bedrock values and principles that we built our society on are right."
The public's contempt for Congress exceeds that of other American institutions, including banks, major corporations and the media. The broader government's performance "making sure that our nation is safe from foreign and domestic threats" received an uptick in confidence from 53 percent a year ago to 72 percent now. And a growing number of people said the government is doing a good job of "making sure all Americans feel safe, secure and free," up from 54 percent in August 2010 to 63 percent now.
The military in particular earns the most respect of the survey, with 54 percent deeply confident in the institution.
But deep contempt for Congress and aspects of President Barack Obama's health care law remain among Americans tired of partisan standoffs over basic pocketbook issues. The Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll of 1,000 adults, conducted Aug. 18-22, found that 57 percent have little or no confidence in Congress, up from 49 percent last year.
So while Boise, Idaho, retiree Dale Shoemaker, 54, feels safer, he doesn't give the nation's political institutions credit.
"I think we're more secure. There are a lot of professional, talented people doing a tremendous job," Shoemaker, who used to consider himself a Republican but now is more of an independent. "But the leadership of the Congress and the Senate are not making decisions about what to do, and they're leaving people hanging."
It's notable news on the brink of an election year for Obama, the health care law's chief author and the one who made the call in May to take out terrorist chief Osama bin Laden. Congress, too, is taking note of its estimation in the eyes of the voting public as both parties gird for battle over control of the House and Senate.
No party profited politically from the standoff over the nation's finances much of the year, especially by the unseemly debt limit dispute that earned the nation a credit rating downgrade and sank approval ratings for all policymakers involved. The bickering continued even as the unemployment rate refused to drop much below 10 percent.
A poll last month found the infighting sank Congress' approval rating to 12 percent.
Congress and the broader government give Americans heartburn, with one central feature of Obama's signature health care overhaul standing out as an example. More than eight in 10 people surveyed — 82 percent — say the federal government should not have the power to require Americans to buy health care insurance. Politically important independents were more aligned with Republicans on the mandate question, with 87 percent who don't identify with one of the two major parties saying government should have no right to require insurance; 95 percent of Republicans agreed, according to the poll.
"I just think that people should have the right to buy health insurance, or not," said Daisy Mallory, 78, a retired factory worker from of La Grange, Ill., who says Medicare covers her health care costs. Obama, she said, may have misjudged public's opposition to health care mandates. "I think he understands it better now," she said.
Obama himself acknowledged that his party took a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans made the health care law and the Democrats who muscled it through Congress their Issue No. 1 — and won enough seats to control the House. Obama has said he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the law's constitutionality, but Republicans continue to mention it as a key example of government overreach that they would repeal.
But after nine months in control of the House, Republicans haven't boosted the public's view of Congress.
In the AP-NCC poll, just 8 percent say they are confident in the people running Congress, 10 percent in the federal government. Majorities of Republicans and Democrats lack confidence in congressional leaders, with politically crucial independents showing the sharpest increase in distrust of Congress over the past year. That's up from 49 percent in 2010 to 62 percent now
Even so, most Americans feel safe and more have confidence in the government to keep it that way, the poll shows.
The uptick in approval for the government's handling of national security crosses party lines, but Republicans have shifted sharply. Last year, just 32 percent of Republicans gave the government positive reviews on keeping the nation safe; now, 61 percent of Republicans agree on that. And on making sure Americans feel "safe, secure and free," the same group has jumped from 33 percent who said the government is doing a "good job" to 54 percent now, the poll shows.
The urge to contribute through volunteerism remains strong, according to the poll. Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country needs more sense of community and people helping one another. Most — 69 percent — have volunteered in the past year. Eight in 10 said they have made a charitable donation of $25 or more during that time.The AP-National Constitution Center poll was conducted Aug. 18-22 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellular telephone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points (ABC News, 2011).
Title: FEMA Communication Takeover Test Scheduled For November 9
Date: October 18, 2011
Abstract: FEMA, the FCC, and Homeland Security plan to commandeer the airwaves next month. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) will be tested at 1 PM EST on November 9. EAS alerts are transmitted over radio and television broadcast stations, cable television and other media services.
Local and state EAS components are tested weekly and monthly, but this will be the first national test of the system. It is significant that FEMA will conduct the mandatory test.
FEMA was created by executive fiat. EO 12148 was signed into law by a stroke of Jimmy Carter’s pen on July 20, 1979. FEMA is described as a federal agency designed to coordinate government response to natural disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities.
In fact, the federal agency was established as part of a martial law mechanism.
Under Reagan, FEMA was headed by Louis O. Giuffrida, the former national guard general who contributed to the Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, two sub programs under REX 84, a plan to establish concentration camps in America. Operation Cable Splicer is described as “the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.” For more information on these martial law programs, see Mary Louise, Stalag 17, American Style Plans For Civilian Internment (& Worst).
Giuffrida, a counterinsurgency enthusiast, focused the agency’s resources on the “civil disturbance” aspect of its charter and worked to undermine Posse Comitatus. In 1982, Reagan formally militarized FEMA with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 26). The result was a series of national training exercises led by the military. Under REX 82, civilian police from around the country received what FEMA euphemistically referred to as “military police methods” for quelling domestic political unrest.
Under Reagan, with Giuffrida at the helm, FEMA mutated “civil defense planning into a military/police version of civil society,” a plan on a collision course with Posse Comitatus.
“Hidden behind FEMA’s benevolent face as the body whose chief responsibility is disaster relief, another FEMA exists,” Ritt Goldstein wrote in 2002, referring to Bush’s effort to turn the agency into a counter-terrorism and “enemy combatant” detention outfit under the newly established Department of Homeland Security.
“At present, the final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national crisis plan, remains beyond public knowledge,” Goldstein writes. “But given the ‘War On Terror’s’ scope, even if a formal crisis is not declared, speculation exists that a de facto drift into an effective deployment of FEMA’s crisis powers could occur.”Next month’s EAS test represents the public notification aspect of that national crisis plan. It is significant that EAS will be tested nationally. Natural disasters are usually regional affairs and do not require a nationwide response. The new national EAS system is designed for a more significant event that conforms to the implementation of martial law as envisioned under Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, a plan that was nearly revealed when Representative Jack Brooks of Texas grilled Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 (Infowars, 2011).
Title: President Obama Signs Executive Order Allowing For Control Over All US Resources
Date: March 17, 2012
Abstract: On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order's functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel; - White House
Additionally, each cabinet under the Executive Branch has been given specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(e) "Food resources" means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. "Food resources" also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
Executive Orders created for national defense and national preparedness are not new in American history, but in each instance they brought about a Constitutional crisis that nearly led standing Presidents to hold dictatorial power over the citizenry. During the Civil War, President Lincoln halted freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while at the same time revoking Habeas Corpus and the right to a fair trial under the sixth amendment. During World War I, when Congress refused to grant Woodrow Wilson extended power over resources to help the war effort, he invoked an Executive Order which allowed him complete control over businesses, industry, transportation, food, and other economic policies.
In both cases, it was only after the death of each President that full Constitutional powers were restored to the citizens of the United States.
The economy of the United States is based on the free flow of resources, energy, and the rights of consumers to buy and sell as they see fit. Any interference in this economic process quickly leads to shortages, rising prices, and civil unrest. The purpose of President Obama signing this new Executive Order is yet unclear, however, it may coincide with information coming out of Israel yesterday that plans for a tactical or strategic strike on Iran are accelerating. Oil prices in Europe rose over $3 a barrel for Brent crude after the Israeli actions, and US oil prices rose $2 for WTI.
The Obama administration appears to be preparing for a long drawn out war in the Middle East, or at the very least, an expected crisis that will require the need to override Constitutional authority and claim dominion over all resources in the United States under the guise of national defense. With the rise in Disaster Preparedness growing for both individuals and states leading up to yesterday's Executive Order, the mood of the nation points strongly towards some event or disaster that will require massive preparations on a national as well as local scale.
If you wish to ensure you receive email updates to all of Ken’s articles on Finance and Economics, please subscribe clicking the link above. You can also join Ken’s Twitter account at @FinanceExaminer to read these, and other sources of financial news you won’t find elsewhere. Additionally, you can have easy access to these and other financial news from around the blogosphere by going to The Daily Economist (Examiner, 2012).Title: Martial Law By Executive Order
Date: March 21, 2012
Source: Huffington Post
Abstract: President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.
Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.
The 2012 NDAA deemed the United States a "battlefield," as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.
In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:
1. The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
2. The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
3. The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
4. The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
5. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
6. The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.
The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.
The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.
What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.
Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.
It is hard to know what to say in the face of such egregious disregard for the integrity of what America has stood and fought for since its founding. It is hard in part because none of us thought such encroachments would ever happen here, certainly not under the watch of a "progressive" like Obama.
At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the "global war on terror." Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.
The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude (Huffington Post, 2012).