questions questions on the minds of young america...

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tango3, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Martial lawand its implications

    Seems sometime inour lifetimes; we can reasonably expect to live under martial law and the environment created by decades of executive orders we've seen exposed throughthe alternative media..

    • Martial law is defined as: military rule or authority imposed on a civilian population when the civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as in a time of war or during an emergency.
    • Hitler turned Germany into a Nazi dictatorship through executive orders.
    • Executive Order 10995: All communications media are to be seized by the Federal Government. Radio, TV, newspapers, CB, Ham, telephones, and the internet will be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will be suspended indefinitely.
    • Executive Order 10997: All electrical power, fuels, and all minerals well be seized by the federal government.
    • Executive Order 10998: All food resources, farms and farm equipment will be seized by the government. You will not be allowed to hoard food since this is regulated.
    • Executive Order 10999: All modes of transportation will go into government control. Any vehicle can be seized.
    • Executive Order 11000: All civilians can be used for work under federal supervision.
    • Executive Order 11490: Establishes presidential control over all US citizens, businesses, and churches in time of "emergency."
    • Executive Order 12919: Directs various Cabinet officials to be constantly ready to take over virtually all aspects of the US economy during a State of National Emergency at the direction of the president.
    • Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take control over all government agencies in time of emergency. FEMA is under control of executive branch of the government.
    • Executive Order 12656: "ASSIGNMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES", "A national emergency is 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. Policy for national security emergency preparedness shall be established by the President." This order includes federal takeover of all local law enforcement agencies, wage and price controls, prohibits you from moving assets in or out of the United States, creates a draft, controls all travel in and out of the United States, and much more.
    • Martial law can be declared due to natural disasters, Y2k Crisis, Stock Market crash, no electricity, riots, biological attack, .... anything leading to the breakdown of law and order.
    So what's an independantly minded American to do when .gov can legally suspend all civil liberties, confiscate all resources including your personal labor?You can A ) fgo along and find a way to live within the law or B) go along and "not get caught" a philosophy I have never espoused. cache'd food and arms would be confiscated possibly with prison or death sentences attached for refusal ( or after an amnesty period).We need the ultimate "Habeus corpus"( get your bloody bureaucratic paws off me!). We can expect gun/food seizures possible relocation, shutdown of unauthorized media and communications.

    I know there's a thought cooking down in all this talk of opression, perhaps somebody has a plan? Does martial law and or the suspension of civil liberties signify the "terrorists" have won ?and it ( our 200+ year experiment with a democratic republic) has gone the way of the dodo bird?
    Weeb -Weeb Weeb: uh How do we get outta' this one ollie?[soap]

    I don'rt ever see any of the puppets in the oval office rescinding any of these orders.Wait I get it now Gods plan: Hilliary comes to office invoking a new bastardized form of communism/socialismthat wipes the slate and law books clean , people rise up to flush her maniacal administration into the gulf by force. After the hangings stop the next administration is much more careful pissing a[touchdown]way the peoples freedoms and property.

  2. Mortis

    Mortis Snake Eater

    Executive Order 10995: dated 16 Feb 1962, Assigning telecommunications management functions; Revoked by EO 11556, 4 Sept 1970.

    Executive Order 10997: dated 16 Feb 1962; Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of the Interior; Revoked by EO 11490, 28 Oct 1969

    Executive Order 10998: dated 16 Feb 1962; Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Agriculture; Revoked by EO 11490, 28 Oct 1969

    Executive Order 10999: dated 16 Feb 1962; Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Commerce; Revoked by EO 11490, 28 Oct 1969

    Executive Order 11000: dated 16 Feb 1962; Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Labor; Revoked by EO 11490, 28 Oct 1969

    Executive Order 11490: dated 28 Oct 1969; Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies; Revoked by EO 12656, 18 Nov 1988

    Executive Order 12919: dated 3 Jun 1994; National defense industrial resources preparedness; Amended by: EO 13286, 28 Feb 2003

    Executive Order 13010: Critical Infrastructure Protection, dated 15 Jul 1996; Amended by: EO 13025, November 13, 1996; EO13041, April 3, 1997; EO 13064, October 11, 1997; EO 13077, March 10, 1998; Revoked in part by: EO 13138, September 30, 1999

    Sec. 102. Purpose.
    (a) The purpose of this Order is to assign national security emergency preparedness responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies. These assignments are based, whenever possible, on extensions of the regular missions of the departments and agencies.
    (b) This Order does not constitute authority to implement the plans prepared pursuant to this Order. Plans so developed may be executed only in the event that authority for such execution is authorized by law.
    Sec. 103. Scope.

    (b) This Order does not apply to those natural disasters, technological emergencies, or other emergencies, the alleviation of which is normally the responsibility of individuals, the private sector, volunteer organizations, State and local governments, and Federal departments and agencies unless such situations also constitute a national security emergency.
    Interesting that most of these Executive Orders find their origin back in the nasty days of the Cold War. During a time which predates many of the current readers of these threads.

    An example is:
    Executive Order 10995
    Assigning telecommunications management functions
    <DIR><DIR>Signed: February 16, 1962
    Federal Register page and date: 27 FR 1519, February 20, 1962
    Revokes: EO 10460, June 16, 1953
    Amends: EO 10695-A (not published); EO 10705, April 17, 1957
    See: EO 11051, September 27, 1962
    Amended by: EO 11084, February 15, 1963
    Revoked by: EO 11556, September 4, 1970

    Any aspect of Government can be misused. Any people can read into any law and find something to be fearful of if their mistrust of government is deep enough.

    I guess my problem is my interpretation of the EO’s is different then the author. To me they read not much different then guidance from Division down to Regiment and Battalion for the development of SOP’s concerning specific circumstances or actions. All which must be guided by Regulation and Law.


  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Thanks "Devildog"[winkthumb], guess when you're looking for reasons to mistrust you'll (strike that: "I'll") read just far enough to find it...I never researched these much farther than the screaming internet headlines...lets see where's that emoticon ? Ohyeah::oops: foosed
    boy do i feel had[own2]
  4. Mortis

    Mortis Snake Eater have done nothing more then any individual has done at one time or another. Myself included.

    I'm sure with your background in the Air Force, like myself in the Corps, have seen individuals abuse or distort a regulation for their own means. And in reading many of the contents of those Executive Orders, the possibility for abuse could exist. But I feel the probability is extremely low.

    Maybe I am too fanatical on research and knowledge, but why develope an ulcer over something until you have all available facts at hand.

    Have a good weekend Tango3.
  5. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    T3, you certainly have no need to be embarresed or feel "Owned". Anyone who is "fanatical about reasearch and knowledge" would tell you that EO 11490 signed by Richard Nixon only revoked the former EO's because it consolidated them under new authority. It is a notorious EO touted as being the begginning of changing from a cold war, protect our citizens, program into what we have today, the control our citizens and maintain power.

    There are two ways to approach these things. One is to start with a pre-determined outcome in mind and cite just enough "evidence" to seemingly support that position. The other is to delve deeper into the issue and see where the bread crumbs lead. And only by searching out and examining ALL the available facts can one form an intelligent and rational opinion as to whether it is something to worry about or not.

    So I cite a few more references for you to consider.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
    (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
    (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities. (consolidated into EO 11490)
    EXECUTIVE ORDER11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in ffice:smarttags" />EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com /><st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. [/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=<font][SIZE=/><st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

    <FONT face=][/B]

    And this;

    Subject: FEMA & MARTIAL LAW
    Dated : <st1:date Month="1" Day="19" Year="1991">19 Jan 91</st1:date><st1:time Hour="18" Minute="32">18:32:29</st1:time>

    From: Covert Action Information Bulletin, #33 (Winter 1990).

    THE RISE OF THE <st1:place><st1:placeName>NATIONAL</st1:placeName><st1:placeName>SECURITY</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>STATE</st1:placeType></st1:place>: FEMA and the NSC
    by Diana Reynolds


    Since WWII, the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government has had contingency plans in
    preparation for a large scale disaster or attack. However, during
    the last twenty-five years--beginning with civil unrest at the
    height of the Vietnam War--the government's plans have
    increasingly on focused ways of controlling political dissent.

    On <st1:date Month="10" Day="30" Year="1969">October 30, 1969</st1:date> President Richard Nixon issued Executive
    Order 11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to
    Federal Departments and Agencies," which consolidated some 21
    operative Executive Orders and two Defense Mobilization Orders
    issued between 1951 and 1966 on a variety of emergency
    preparedness matters.

    In 1976 President Gerald Ford ordered the Federal Emergency
    Preparedness Agency (FEPA) to develop plans to establish
    government control of the mechanisms of productions and
    distribution of energy sources, wages and salaries, credit and
    the flow of money in American financial institutions in any
    (heretofore undefined) "national emergency." This
    Executive Order (EO 11921) also indicated that, when a state of
    emergency is declared by the President, Congress could not review
    the matter for a period of six months.

    Even arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff was quick to point
    out that, since the enactment of EO 11490, "The only thing
    standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of
    the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the
    public would stand still for it."

    While Ruff thought a national emergency might be used to destroy
    the free markets in the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> and take away the C.B. radios and
    guns of Americans, was alarmed
    for more rational and obvious reasons. In an editorial, the paper
    repeated Ruff's warning:

    "Executive Order No. 11490 is real, and only the lack of a
    crisis big enough, a president willing enough, and a public
    aroused enough to permit it to be invoked, separates us from a
    possible dictatorship, brought about under current law, waiting to
    be implemented in the event of circumstances which can be
    construed as a `national emergency.'"

    President Carter evidently did not share this concern and, in
    1977, he signed Executive Order 12148 which created the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to replace the Federal
    Emergency Preparedness Agency. This Presidential Directive
    mandated an interface between the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    FEMA for civil defense planning and funding.

    When Ronald Reagan came to power he gave FEMA vastly expanded
    executive emergency powers and appointed retired National Guard
    General Louis O. Giuffrida as his "emergency czar."
    Giuffrida's creation of contingency emergency plans to round up
    "militant negroes" while he was at the <st1:place><st1:placeName>Naval</st1:placeName><st1:placeName>War</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>College</st1:placeType></st1:place>
    caught the attention of then-Governor of California Reagan and his
    executive secretary Edwin Meese III.

    As Governor, Reagan called on Giuffrida to design Operation Cable
    Splicer. Cable Splicer I, II and III were martial law plans to
    legitimize the arrest and detention of anti-Vietnam war activists
    and other political dissidents.

    In 1971, Governor Reagan, with a $425,000 grant from the
    Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, established
    a counterterrorism training center--the California Specialized
    Training Institute (CSTI)--and made Giuffrida its commandant.

    Shortly after he assumed the directorship of FEMA in 1981,
    Giuffrida had flooded high-level FEMA posts with friends from CSTI
    and the military police, had created a Civil Security Division of
    FEMA, and had established a Civil Defense Training Center in
    <st1:place><st1:City>Emmitsburg</st1:City>, <st1:State>Maryland</st1:State></st1:place>--based on the CSTI model. By 1984, the
    Center had trained one thousand civil defense personnel in
    survival techniques, counterterrorism and military police

    From February to July of 1982, President Reagan signed a series of
    National Security Decision Directives (NSDD)--presidential
    decisions on national security objectives--on civil defense
    policy and emergency mobilization preparedness. While Reagan's
    real <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> civil defense policy is contained in the classified NSDD
    26, some of the law enforcement and public safety provisions of
    the policy are made public in NSDD 47. This National Security
    Decision Directive provides for an intensified counterintelligence
    effort at home and the maintenance of law and order in a variety
    of emergencies, particularly terrorist incidents, civil
    disturbances, and nuclear emergencies.

    Reagan gave the National Security Council (NSC) authority over the
    planning for civil defense policy with its expanded civil security
    powers. He mandated the creation of a senior-level
    interdepartmental board, the Emergency Mobilization Preparedness
    Board (EMPB), and charged it with responsibilities for policy and
    planning guidance, coordination of planning, resolution of issues,
    and monitoring progress.

    The members of the EMPB were the Assistant for National Security
    Affairs (as its Chair), the DOD's Secretary of Defense for Policy,
    the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and representatives
    from 10 other federal agencies. FEMA provided the staff, support
    secretariat and operational supervision for the EMPB and their
    working group on civil defense. According to then Secretary of
    Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, by February 1983, the EMPB had
    prepared--and the President had approved--a national policy
    statement on emergency mobilization preparedness.

    Oliver North served on the EMPB, having been assigned there from
    1982 to 1984 by former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane.
    General Giuffrida was there too, providing operational
    supervision. By forming the EMPB, Ronald Reagan made it possible
    for a small group of people, under the authority of the NSC, to
    wield enormous power. They, in turn, used this executive
    authority to change civil defense planning into a military/police
    version of civil security.


    In January of 1982, FEMA and the Department of Defense issued a
    joint paper entitled, "The Civil/Military Alliance in
    Emergency Management" which specified many of the provisions
    of Reagan's policy on emergency mobilization preparedness. This
    document indicates that FEMA had been given
    emergency powers to acquire resources from federal and state
    agencies (including National Guard personnel) and the private
    sector (banking, communications, transportation, etc.) "for
    use in civil disturbance operations."

    Apparently General Frank S. Salcedo, Chief of FEMA's Civil
    Security Division and Giuffrida's former colleague at CSTI, wanted
    more. In 1983, in a workshop at the annual meeting of the Academy
    of Criminal Justice Sciences, Salcedo recommended expanding FEMA's
    power further in the areas of survivability training, research on
    imposing martial law, and the potential threat posed by foreign
    and domestic adversaries. As he saw it at least 100,000 <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
    citizens, from survivalists to tax protesters, were serious
    threats to civil security.

    Salcedo saw FEMA's new frontier in the protection of industrial
    and government leaders from assassination, and of civil and
    military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as the
    prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> opinion
    or a global audience in times of crisis.


    While improving capabilities to respond to civil security
    emergencies was for the most part a planning activity with the
    Reagan Administration, FEMA was also active in exercises to test
    these plans. In 1981, FEMA and DOD began a continuing tradition of
    biannual joint exercises to test civilian mo,bil,ization, civil
    security emergency and counterterrorism plans using such names as
    "Proud Saber/Rex-82," "Pre-Nest," and "Rex-84/Night Train."

    The Rex-84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Exercise Plan),
    indicates that FEMA in association with 34 other federal civil
    departments and agencies conducted a civil readiness exercise
    during <st1:date Month="4" Day="5" Year="1984">April 5-13, 1984</st1:date>. It was conducted in coordination and
    simultaneously with a Joint Chiefs exercise, Night Train 84, a
    worldwide military command post exercise (including Continental
    U.S. Forces or CONUS) based on multi-emergency scenarios operating
    both abroad and at home. In the combined exercise, Rex-84 Bravo,
    FEMA and DOD led the other federal agencies and departments,
    including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the
    Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Veterans
    Administration through a gaming exercise to test military
    assistance in civil defense.

    The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations
    and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or
    resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was
    authorization for the military to implement government ordered
    movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels,
    the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and
    the imposition of martial rule.

    Attorney General William French Smith finally became aware of the
    abuses of the Emergency Mobilization Preparedness Board operating
    under the NSC. He admonished McFarlane, Assistant to the
    President for National Security Affairs, who theoretically chaired
    the planning group. In a letter dated <st1:date Month="8" Day="2" Year="1984">August 2, 1984</st1:date>, Smith
    responded to a request by the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) to review, for form and legality, a draft Executive Order
    revising the powerful EO 11490, assigning emergency preparedness
    functions to federal departments and agencies. The Attorney
    General said that apart from the legal review by the Office of
    Legal Counsel,

    "...I believe that the draft Executive Order raises
    serious substantive and public policy issues that should be
    further addressed before this proposal is submitted to the
    President. In short I believe that the role assigned to the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the revised
    Executive Order exceeds its proper function as a coordinating
    agency for emergency preparedness.

    "This Department and others have repeatedly raised
    serious policy and legal objections to the creation of an
    `emergency czar' role for FEMA. Specific policy concerns regarding
    recent FEMA initiatives include the abandonment of the principle
    of `several' agency responsibility and the expansion of the
    definition of severe emergencies to encompass `routine' domestic
    law enforcement emergencies. Legal objections relate to the
    absence of Presidential or Congressional authorization for
    unilateral FEMA directives which seek to establish new Federal
    Government management structures or otherwise task Cabinet
    departments and other federal agencies.


    Smith's letter signaled what seemed to be the beginning of the end
    for FEMA and Reagan's Emergency Mobilization Preparedness Board.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Director William Webster had
    previously complained when FEMA's Director of Civil Security,
    General Salcedo, had intruded into the FBI's domestic intelligence
    jurisdiction under the rubric of counter terrorism. Salcedo was
    forced to turn over to Webster some 12,000 names he had been
    compiling on a list of potential threats to civil security.

    Furthermore, it came to light that while FEMA had been expending
    the lion's share of its energy and funding on building a civil
    security infrastructure, it had neglected its authorized civil
    defense role. On <st1:date Month="6" Day="15" Year="1984">June 15, 1984</st1:date>, barely a month after Giuffrida
    filed his glowing accomplishment report with Meese, Robert Guffus,
    Inspector General of FEMA, wrote a draft report on FEMA's
    Comprehensive Cooperative Agreements (CCA) (with states) in civil
    defense preparedness.

    He concluded that management actions were needed to improve the
    effectiveness of programs with state and local governments. In his
    review of the CCAs he found inadequate FEMA management control,
    imprecise program guidelines and a lack of personnel resources.
    Programmatic and financial weaknesses were a result of fiscal
    mis-management, unclear assignment of responsibilities,
    overlapping job descriptions, inflated training figures, and lack
    of written procedures.

    McFarlane removed North from the EMPB and assigned him to help
    with conducting unconventional warfare in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Nicaragua</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Giuffrida
    resigned in 1985 after a House subcommittee charged that FEMA was
    being mismanaged, and it was publicized that Giuffrida had staffed
    FEMA with his military/police cronies and had allowed $170,000 of
    agency funds to be used to outfit a deluxe bachelor pad at the
    Civil <st1:place><st1:placeName>Defense</st1:placeName><st1:placeName>Training</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>Academy</st1:placeType></st1:place> at Emmitsburg. He now operates a
    security consulting firm in <st1:place><st1:City>Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State>D.C.</st1:State></st1:place> General Salcedo has
    moved on to be Presidential Liaison to Veterans Organizations at
    the Veterans Administration.

    There is some debate about what happened to the plans for a civil
    security emergency. There was a rumored joint investigation
    conducted by the Defense Department and the CIA into the
    unconstitutionality of planning for a civil security emergency by
    several government agencies. Supposedly, the two investigators,
    Special Forces Lt. Colonel Kvererdas and the CIA's William
    Buckley, prior to his fatal <st1:City><st1:place>Beirut</st1:place></st1:City> assignment, destroyed the plans
    and the exercise data.

    Some believe that much of the planning was incorporated into Vice
    President Bush's Report from his Task Force on Combatting
    Terrorism which has inspired civil security contingency planning
    at the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Immigration and Naturalization Service by an Alien
    Border Control (ABC) Committee. The working group within the INS
    was designing plans and programs regarding the control and removal
    of alien terrorists, potential terrorist aliens and those "who
    are likely to be supportive of terrorist activity within the

    The most obvious resting place for the material is the National
    Security Council. In 1987, Reagan signed another NSDD, number
    259, which superseded both NSDD 26, the secret civil defense plan
    of <st1:date Month="2" Day="25" Year="1982">February 25, 1982</st1:date> and the unclassified version dated March 16,
    1982. Even though the 1987 version is shorter and more vague than
    its predecessors, no significant changes are evident in civil
    defense planning and programs from the 1984 EMPB scenarios.

    Just before he left office, Reagan signed Executive Order 12656
    which assigned new emergency preparedness responsibilities.
    Reagan's final national security legacy to civil defense planning
    puts the NSC clearly in charge. In Section 104, EO 12656 states
    that the NSC is the principal forum for consideration of national
    security emergency preparedness policy and will arrange for
    Executive branch liaison with, and assistance to, the Congress and
    the Federal judiciary on national security emergency preparedness

    The Director of FEMA has now been promoted to advisor to the NSC
    on mobilization preparedness, civil defense, continuity of
    government, technological disasters, "and other issues, as
    appropriate." The Director of FEMA is also authorized to
    assist in the implementation of national security emergency
    preparedness policy by coordinating federal departments and
    agencies; as well as state and local governments. The exercise
    program is to continue and plans and procedures "will be
    designed and developed to provide maximum flexibility to the
    President for his implementation of emergency actions."

    On the same day that Reagan signed EO 12656 he also signed the
    Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 which provided yet another in a series
    of get-tough-but-do-nothing drug policies produced by the Reagan
    Administration. If and when the Anti-Drug Abuse Act fails--a
    victim of underfunding and bureaucratic in-fighting--then
    Executive Order 12656 could become an historic document in the war
    on drugs.

    THE <st1:place><st1:placeName>NATIONAL</st1:placeName><st1:placeName>SECURITY</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>STATE</st1:placeType></st1:place> AND THE DRUG WAR

    The <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government's proposed "war on drugs" is one such
    case in which the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government will have the authority to use
    the national security apparatus to suppress civil liberties. It
    may be the first opportunity to call into action the years of
    planning and expense used to develop the emergency preparedness

    The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed in the final hours of the 100th
    Congress, when incumbents were anxious to return to their
    districts in order to campaign and when public opinion was calling
    for drastic action in the war on drugs. The Act was quickly
    drafted by congressional committees and private
    consultants, then passed by Congress without the usual legislative
    hearings and debate.

    The Act broadly defines the programs, goals, guidelines and
    appropriations for all the 58 federal departments plus the
    thousands of state and local agencies involved in the national war
    on drugs. Some provisions were made for drug education,
    prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, but much of the text
    focuses on the punitive measures to be taken by the government.

    The anti-drug policy authorizes the use of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> military to
    assist in the drug war at home. If you live in federal housing or
    if you reside in large urban areas such as <st1:State><st1:place>New York</st1:place></st1:State>, <st1:place><st1:City>Boston</st1:City>, <st1:State>Washington</st1:State></st1:place>
    DC, or <st1:City><st1:place>Los Angeles</st1:place></st1:City>--where crime and addiction have
    turned neighborhoods into combat zones--this Act will authorize
    the military to fence off your streets, keep track of who comes
    from and goes to your home, stop and frisk you, your friends and
    family, and regularly inspect your home and belongings. If you or
    anyone who visits you is suspected by the authorities of using,
    selling or trafficking in any kind of illicit narcotic substance,
    you can be evicted from your home whether your landlord is the
    government or a private party.

    The Act increases state powers in the areas of government
    surveillance, intelligence gathering, and seizure of private property.
    It authorizes regional intelligence sharing centers, which
    not only compile statistics but provide contracts to states, local
    criminal justice agencies, and non-profit organizations for
    purposes of identifying, targeting and removing criminal
    conspiracies and activities spanning jurisdictional boundaries.

    The Justice Department is given the power to confiscate private
    property and deny state and federal entitlement by decree. Once
    caught, even casual marijuana users could be subject to the
    confiscation of their homes, cars, and bank accounts. The
    government seizure takes place through civil proceedings where the
    burden is on the defendant to prove his or her innocence, unlike
    the "innocent until proven guilty" due process guarantee
    of criminal proceedings.


    William Bennett, as the Director of the Office of National Drug
    Policy, is an adviser to and voting member of the National
    Security Council. It is here in the NSC that the ultimate drug
    war could be fought. All it would take is a President determined
    enough, a Congress pliant enough, and people desperate enough for
    the drug war in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region> to be declared a national security
    emergency. If and when that happens, the NSC--as part of civil
    emergency preparedness--would be in charge of its implementation
    under the guidance of the President.

    A national security emergency would without a doubt decrease drug
    use in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. The government would be authorized to increase
    domestic intelligence and surveillance of <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> citizens. State
    security measures would be enhanced by restricting the freedom of
    movement within the <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> and granting the government authority to
    relocate large groups of civilians at will. The <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Continental
    Forces and a federalized National Guard could seal off borders and
    take control of <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> airspace, all ports of entry, and interstate

    It was James Madison's worst nightmare that a
    righteous faction would some day be strong enough to sweep away
    the constitutional restraints, designed by the framers to prevent
    the tyranny of centralized power, executive privilege and
    arbitrary government authority over the individual.

    These restraints, the balancing and checking of powers among branches
    and layers of government and the civil guarantees contained in the
    Bill of Rights would be the first casualties in a drug-induced
    national security state with Reagan's civil emergency preparedness

    Nevertheless, there will be those who will welcome the National
    Security Council into the drug fray, believing that increasing
    state police powers to emergency levels is the only way left to
    fight <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s enemy within. In the short run, a national
    security state would probably be a relief to those whose personal
    security and quality of life has been diminished by drugs or drug
    related crime. And as the general public watches the progression
    of institutional chaos and social decay, they too may be willing
    to pay the ultimate price: one drug-free <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region> for 200 years of


    Diana Reynolds is a Research Assocaite and Program Director at the Edward
    R. <st1:place><st1:placeName>Murrow</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>Center</st1:placeType></st1:place>, The <st1:place><st1:placeName>Fletcher</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>School</st1:placeType></st1:place>, <st1:place><st1:placeName>Tufts</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>University</st1:placeType></st1:place>. She is also an
    Assistant Professor of Politics, <st1:place><st1:placeName>Bradford</st1:placeName><st1:placeType>College</st1:placeType></st1:place> and a Lecturer at
    <st1:place>Northeastern Univeristy</st1:place>. Research assistance for this article was provided
    by Charles Haber.

    Thanks to the staff of Covert Action Information Bulletin for providing the
    disk for this article.

    The original article contained 33 footnotes. To obtain the complete article
    in print form, send $3.50 to: Covert Action Information Bulletin, PO Box
    50272, <st1:place><st1:City>Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State>D.C.</st1:State><st1:postalCode>20004</st1:postalCode></st1:place>. Specify issue #33 (Winter 1990).
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    And this;

    The SPOTLIGHT <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:date Month="5" Day="27" Year="1991">MAY 27, 1991</st1:date></PRE>
    <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /> </PRE>
    By Mike Blair</PRE>
    It is a frightening thought, but there are EOs on the books that</PRE>
    make it possible for the president to ignore the Constitution and</PRE>
    its cherished Bill of Rights, Congress, the judiciary and the very</PRE>
    will of the American people.</PRE>
    It is a fact that a complete dictatorship can be imposed upon</PRE>
    the people at any time, simply by the president declaring a</PRE>
    national emergency.</PRE>
    During the 1950s and 1960s, it was believed that the best way to</PRE>
    bring about one-world government was by disarming the United</PRE>
    States. Those who feared for <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s Constitutionally guaranteed</PRE>
    liberties, are rightfully so, feared that <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region> would be disarmed</PRE>
    and would become easy prey for the ever-expanding military power of</PRE>
    the <st1:place>Soviet Union</st1:place> and Red <st1:country-region><st1:place>China</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</PRE>
    They feared and opposed the powers of the Arms Control and</PRE>
    Disarmament Agency, established to disarm <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</PRE>
    Now, however, with the <st1:place>Soviet Union</st1:place> virtually falling apart at</PRE>
    the seams (to date each and every one of the Soviets' 15 republics</PRE>
    have declared their sovereignty and threaten to break away from the</PRE>
    national union). disarmament by both sides has become a necessity</PRE>
    to cure <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> and Soviet social ills. And while the Soviets have</PRE>
    been caught cheating time and time again on their disarmament</PRE>
    agreements, the general movement has been toward an easing of the</PRE>
    arms race.</PRE>
    From this newfound "friendship" with the <st1:place>Soviet Union</st1:place> and in</PRE>
    particular from the so-called multinational effort against <st1:country-region><st1:place>Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> in</PRE>
    the <st1:place>Persian Gulf</st1:place>, President George Bush rarely gives a speech or</PRE>
    holds a press conference in which he fails to mention his thoughts</PRE>
    about a "<st1:place>New World</st1:place> Order."</PRE>
    Now, however, a new method is needed to nullify <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s</PRE>
    treasured Constitution, and the insidious EOs have gained a new and</PRE>
    even more dangerous part to play in the plotting of the one</PRE>
    worlders of the Trilateralist-Bilderberger ilk.</PRE>
    The biggest danger of such schemes as those proposed by Rep.</PRE>
    Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen Phil Gramm (R-Texas) is that any</PRE>
    declared "national emergencies" would allow the president to</PRE>
    activate repressive EOs signed by presidents going back to World</PRE>
    War II.</PRE>
    Here are some of the EOs involved:</PRE>
    * EO 10995, which provides for the takeover of the</PRE>
    communications media. In other wards, forget about freedom of the</PRE>
    * EO 10997, which provides for the takeover of all electric</PRE>
    power, petroleum, gas and other fuels and minerals.</PRE>
    * EO 10998, which provides for the takeover of all food</PRE>
    resources and the nation's farms.</PRE>
    * EO 10999, which provide for the takeover of all modes of</PRE>
    transportation, control of highways, sea ports etc.</PRE>
    * EO 11000, which provide for mobilization of all civilians into</PRE>
    work brigades under government supervision. In other words, slave</PRE>
    * EO 11001, which provides for government takeover of all</PRE>
    health, education and welfare functions.</PRE>
    * EO 11002,designates the postmaster general to operate a</PRE>
    national registration of all persons.</PRE>
    * EO 11003, which provides for the government to take over</PRE>
    airports and aircraft.</PRE>
    * EO 11004, which provides for the Housing and Finance Authority</PRE>
    to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned and</PRE>
    establish new locations for populations.</PRE>
    * EO 11005, which provides for the government to take over</PRE>
    railroads,inland waterways and public storage facilities.</PRE>
    All of the above orders were combined by President Richard nixon</PRE>
    into the notorious EO 11490 (pronounced "EO eleven-4-9-oh"), which</PRE>
    allows all of these insidious things to take place if a national</PRE>
    emergency is declared.</PRE>
    Here are some direct quotes from the 40-page Nixon EO: "Develop</PRE>
    plans and procedures for the Department of Defense utilization of</PRE>
    nonindustrial facilities in the event of an emergency in order to</PRE>
    reduce requirements for new construction and to provide facilities</PRE>
    in a minimum period of time ..." in other words, the confiscation</PRE>
    of private property.</PRE>
    "develop plans and procedures for the provision of logistical</PRE>
    support to members of foreign forces, their employees and</PRE>
    dependents as may be present in the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> under terms of</PRE>
    bilateral or multilateral agreement which authorized such support</PRE>
    in the event of a national emergency.</PRE>
    In other words, prepare for the billeting of troops in your home</PRE>
    contrary to the Third Amendment.</PRE>
    "Develop emergency plans for the control of alien enemies and</PRE>
    other aliens within the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> . . . The location, restraint</PRE>
    or custody of aliens . . ."</PRE>
    "The Secretary of Labor shall have primary responsibility for</PRE>
    preparing national emergency plans and developing preparedness</PRE>
    programs covering civilian manpower resources,"</PRE>
    preparations can be undertaken to forced labor.</PRE>
    "Provision for regulation of money and credit in accordance with</PRE>
    the needs of the economy, including the acquisition,</PRE>
    decentralization and distribution of emergency supplies of</PRE>
    currency; the collection of cash items and non-cash items; and the</PRE>
    conduct of fiscal agency and foreign operations.</PRE>
    "Provision for the continued or resumed operation of banking,</PRE>
    savings and loan, and farm credit institutions, including measures</PRE>
    for the recreation of evidence of assets or liabilities destroyed</PRE>
    or inaccessible.</PRE>
    "Regulation of the withdrawal of currency and the transfer of</PRE>
    credits including deposit and share account balances.</PRE>
    There are those naive souls who believe that fears of the United</PRE>
    States ever becoming a dictatorship are unwarranted. From the above</PRE>
    EO signed by Nixon on <st1:date Month="10" Day="28" Year="1969">October 28, 1969</st1:date>, the reader can judge for</PRE>
    Then along came President Jimmy Carter and EO 12148, titled the</PRE>
    Federal Emergency Management Act. All prior EOs having anything to</PRE>
    do with emergency planning were incorporated into it. This EO gives</PRE>
    the president absolute power during any "emergency." so declared by</PRE>
    From Carter's machinations emerged a totally new bureaucracy,</PRE>
    the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA), which assumed</PRE>
    control of a chain of older "emergency agencies," including the</PRE>
    Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, the Federal Insurance</PRE>
    Administration, the National Weather Service, the Federal Emergency</PRE>
    Broadcast Systems and about a dozen others.</PRE>
    In an "emergency." FEMA was, through EO 12148, to virtually take</PRE>
    over the key functions of the national government by means of</PRE>
    "senior representatives" and "liaison agents" now positioned in</PRE>
    every major government agency.</PRE>
    Incredibly, FEMA even has the power to assume the duties of the</PRE>
    president himself.</PRE>
    FEMA, under its more innocent-appearing posture, is the</PRE>
    organization of the federal government that rushes in to administer</PRE>
    federal aid and assistance when a disaster strikes a community or</PRE>
    Those who want to know the complete truth about its not-so-</PRE>
    innocent nature only need to peruse Carter's EO 12148, as it</PRE>
    appeared on <st1:date Month="7" Day="24" Year="1979">July 24, 1979</st1:date>, in the Federal Register, and as it was</PRE>
    reprinted in the <st1:date Month="5" Day="26" Year="1990">May 26 1990</st1:date> issue of The SPOTLIGHT.</PRE>
    Finally, President Ronald Reagan updated this EO in his last</PRE>
    full year of office on <st1:date Month="11" Day="18" Year="1988">November 18, 1988</st1:date>, leaving his successor,</PRE>Bush, the tools to create a dictatorship, his "New World Order."*
  7. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    It appears there is a possibility of some egocentric and power hungry individual to push aside the constitution in the name of saving the constitution and the republic for which it stands. How ironic.

    Liquidate. Consolidate. Emigrate.
  8. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Lets say we can trust ole droopy drawers; "curious george" to act on all these EO's and patriot act's I through xvi with constitutionally minded integrity, what about the next or third or fourth executive down the line?
  9. Mortis

    Mortis Snake Eater

    This is a long, but interesting read. Much more current then articles written 17 years ago.

    This was also written by a Tufts Professor.

    Daniel W. Drezner is Associate Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the author of "All Politics Is Global."

    Got some other things to research, but I have a few questions I have been dying to ask. Research first.....Questions later.
  10. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Researching the New World Order by reading a report put out by the Council on Foriegn Relations is like researching Nazism by reading reports put out by Goebbles! [LMAO]

    Useful research involves knowing where to look.
  11. Mortis

    Mortis Snake Eater

    Yeah.... I'm still looking for something that moves beyound supposition. Although I do like this extract I found.

    Although the United Nations is a central figure in some theories, conspiracy theory in the twenty-first century allows for the addition of many ideas that in the past might have been thought mutually exclusive. Extra-terrestrials (either the "Reptilians" or the "Greys" or both), the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and other groups may be included in the conspiracy, in more or less dominant roles. Some theorists say a secret annual conference of the Bilderberg Group plans world events to establish the New World Order. Additionaly, religious eschatology, often featuring the anti-Christ, is central to some theories, and irrelevant to others.<unquote>

    I vote for the Reptilians. The Greys are wimps.
  12. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    sorry I draw the line at David Ickes and his "reptilian shape shifter" theories as utter bullshit.but I'd feel better if every EO wasn't squarely aimed at relieving the populace of any shred of independence.( food comm, weapons, freedom).The populace preparing to support itself should be welcomed by a lawful constitutional government. not looked upon as resources to be seized and redistributed for the general welfare.
  13. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder


  14. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Well, I just saved a lot of money at Geico!
  15. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    [fnny] :lol:
  16. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Something to worry about?

    Editor's note: After writing about the White House's issuance of a "National Continuity Policy" on May 9 which entrusts President Bush to lead the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch, to ensure "constitutional government" in the case of a "catastrophic emergency," Progressive magazine editor Matthew Rothschild has followed up after consulting with the ACLU to see what they thought about it. (For another take on the National Continuity Policy, read Marjorie Cohn's article, "Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King?")
    A note of caution since I wrote about Bush's plans to anoint himself the insurer of constitutional government in the event of emergency.
    I decided to see what the American Civil Liberties Union thought of the May 9 release of the National Security Presidential Directive, and to my surprise, the ACLU did not seem that concerned about it.
    "These presidential directives on the continuity of government have existed for a long time," says Mike German, ACLU policy counsel. "All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn't change the order of succession, or anything like that."
    Plus, he praised the Bush Administration for making the document public, since previous ones have remained classified.
    "I'm glad they made it public," he says. "The fact that this was done in an open and transparent manner should be applauded."
    As to the substance of the document: "It's impossible to know whether this is an attempt to usurp some authority that had otherwise not been contemplated by law," German says.
    It certainly is curious as to why the Bush Administration released the document. The last paragraph is entitled "Security," and it states: "This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected form unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annex's attached to this directive are classified."
    But whatever the reason for the disclosure, the document is not reassuring, especially given Bush's demonstrated disdain for the Constitution.
    Take his approval of warrantless NSA domestic spying. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that it "undisputedly" violates the Fourth Amendment, "undisputedly" violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violates the First Amendment, and violates the separation of powers. Not mincing any words, she added: "The Constitution itself has been violated."
    Or take his policy of denying U.S. citizens due process. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case, said the President does not have a blank check in times of war. "We necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts," O'Connor wrote. And she explicitly warned about an Executive Branch approach that "serves only to condense power into a single branch of government."
    Condensing power into a single branch is precisely what concerns me about Bush's new directive.
    The directive also uses fudge words that President Bush was fond of while he was trying to find ways to justify torture. The continuity of government directive says it will be implemented in a manner "consistent with" the Constitution and "consistent with applicable law."
    Compare that with Bush's February 7, 2002, order governing the treatment of detainees: "The war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm. . . . Our nation recognizes that this new paradigm -- ushered in not by us, but by terrorists -- requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva."
    In that context, Bush used the phrase "consistent with" to justify actions that were antithetical to the Geneva Conventions.
    You have to wonder whether he's using that phrase in a similar way when it comes to the Constitution in times of an emergency.
    What's more, there are the comments by former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration who have said that martial law is coming if we're attacked again.
    Wayne Downing was Bush's deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism under Condoleezza Rice early in the first term. On December 24, 2002, six months after he retired, he told The Washington Post: "The United States may have to declare martial law someday in the case of a devastating attack with weapons of mass destruction causing tens of thousands of casualties. This could mean that the military would be given the authority to impose curfews, protect businesses and communities, even make arrests."

    General Tommy Franks, who led the Iraq invasion, told Cigar Aficionado in December 2003 that if terrorists attack us again, this time with a weapon of mass destruction, it will cause the "population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution."
    Downing and Franks aren't the only former officials talking about martial law.
    On April 7, 2004, Ted Koppel hosted a Nightline program on the very subject.
    He said if Washington, D.C., is attacked, "Aren't we left for at least the foreseeable future with some sort of martial law anyway?"
    Kenneth Duberstein, Reagan's chief of staff, responded: "You have to suspend rights."
    Richard Clarke, who was Clinton's counterterrorism expert and was in the Bush Administration on 9/11, responded: "There would be a period of, for lack of a better term, something like martial law."
    One month later, Koppel spoke at the University of California-Berkeley commencement and again addressed the martial law issue quite frankly: "Do not doubt for a moment that, at some point, during the next few years, one or the other of those weapons [chemical, biological, or nuclear] will almost certainly be used in an act of terrorism against the United States . . . in the United States. Then the time for discussing our civil liberties will be over. More than likely, the use of a chemical or biological weapon in a terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland would lead to the imposition of martial law. For how long and under what circumstances it would be lifted again has, to the best of my knowledge, never even been publicly addressed. But understand that the most implacable enemy of our civil liberties is fear. What we will do after the next terrorist attack is not a conversation that should be deferred."
    So why is it being deferred?
    Why is Congress not taking up the urgent need to hold hearings on this very subject?
    Here are two more reasons to be worried.
    The Northern Command, Northcom, created by Bush, already has plans to militarize the United States in the event of an attack.
    "The new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks," Bradley Graham wrote in The Washington Post on August 8, 2005.
    Then there is the revision to the Posse Comitatus Act, which Bush whisked through last October.
    In an editorial on February 19 of this year, aptly entitled "Making Martial Law Easier," The New York Times wrote: "Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any 'other condition.' Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate."
    Interestingly, some in the Bush Justice Department didn't believe this Congressional change was even necessary. On October 23, 2001, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, then-special counsel in the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a memo to Alberto Gonzales, then-White House Counsel, and William Haynes II, then-general counsel for the Pentagon: "We recently opined that the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 USCs.1385 (1994), which generally prohibits the use of Armed Forces for law enforcement purposes absent constitutional or statutory authority to do so, does not forbid the use of military force for the military purpose of preventing and deterring terrorism within the United States."
    Now Congress has given Bush and the Pentagon this power anyway.
    I hope the ACLU is correct, and that Bush's May 9 directive is nothing to worry about.
    But given all that we know about the Bush Administration, I, for one, am not convinced.
    What I am convinced of, however, is the need for Congressional hearings on this subject -- before it's too late.
  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    As we all know the only problem with this situation is the people who would declare an emergency also have the means ( and the propensity?) to create the emergency.
  18. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    USA= [sinking][sinking] :mad:

  19. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    [peep]agreed ogm[cmfrt],We appear to be perched precariously on the edge and all it takes is one little push by anyone who feels we are the great satan,or feels wronged by our past declares martial law with the typically bland and udefined language oversteps its bounds, folks get upset with open ended decrees,

    ( it'll be life as usual for .gov bureacrats)open resistence flares up; We've all read the books)..either oldline constitutional patriots`will win; or the old big business military industrial complex paradigm will quash them (us)( God help the rest of the world if the neocons win out.)

    Worst part: strongest country in the world and we( .gov) the are doing this to ourselves, no one could bring us down if we didn't shoot holes in the boat to help.( help!)[cmfrt]
  20. Mortis

    Mortis Snake Eater

    Well….I took the suggestion and looked for proof. Maybe that isn’t the right word but it is close enough. Everyone gages proof with different yardsticks. Mine is simple. Is there anything I can take into a Court of Law and prove guilt. I’m not referring to a Kangaroo Court or even a Salem Witch Hunt, but the same court each of us would want to face if charged with some crime.

    Remember, in a Criminal Court, the Defendant has no requirement on himself to prove his innocence. It is the responsibility of the Prosecutor to prove guilt. I found nothing that a 6 week out of Law School Lawyer could have tossed out, followed by laughter.

    But this thread concerns Executive Orders. And specifically a listing of EO’s and their slanted meanings as written by a Diana Reynolds. It is one thing to accept something written that supports your beliefs, but it is another thing to accept those items written by another who’s agenda is separate from yours.

    Diana Reynolds is a Research Associate and Program Director at the Edward R. MurrowCenter, The FletcherSchool, TuftsUniversity. She is also an Assistant Professor of Politics, BradfordCollege and a Lecturer at Northeastern University.

    Bradford closed in 2000. It was becoming known as a hotbed of Political Activism in the 1990’s.

    Reynolds was not listed on the facility or staff of Northeastern University nor Tufts University as of 21 Jun 07.

    Diana Reynolds is a graduate of the University of Western Ontario, with an LL.B. and an honours degree in Political Science with French (with distinction). She is a member of the Ontario bar, and possesses several years of experience in the field of international human rights, having served with the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. She is pursuing a master's degree at the Institute of Comparative Law at McGill, and worked for two terms as a researcher with the Special Court for Sierra Leone Clinic. Her thesis explores the relationship between international criminal tribunals/courts and domestic courts in the prosecution and trial of violations of international humanitarian law. Her research focuses on trials conducted by national courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the more recently established War Crimes Chamber at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    She is listed well down on the page. Folks might like to take a close look at her BIO. Especially the OSCE.

    But I do invite all to examine where the EO article originated. The Public Eye.

    Look beyond the article. Learn ‘About’ the people behind the website and the article. And under Programs, examine their Activists Resource Kits, which in their own words are; designed especially for advocates include Defending Public Education, Defending Reproductive Rights, Defending Immigrant Rights, Defending Justice, and Defending Democracy.
    Amazing how many people forget that Orwell’s Thought Police is a sword that cuts both ways. Ask yourself why some demand that you ignore specific groups information. Is it because they wish you to believe that 2 + 2 = 5?

    Remember what Winston Smith said: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.” When others dictate what you can read or not read, you give up the freedom to determine what equals four and give into their version of the equation. You become a victim of the Thought Police.

    In this the only thing you actually know about your enemy is what you are being told by someone whose final agenda could be diametrically different from your own.

    Consider this; “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas.” This is common within the Conspiracy Theories. Too bad the writer of such a quote was Adolf Hitler.

    THINK FOR YOURSELF. Allow no one to do your thinking for you. And CHECK your sources to insure they are on the same path as you are. It would be terrible to fight a good fight only to find out you were fighting against your own beliefs in the end.

survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary