questions questions on the minds of young america...

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-comhttp://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/ /><st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the <st1:country-region><st1lace>United States</st1lace></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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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][/B]
</I>


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 <st1lace><st1laceName>NATIONAL</st1laceName><st1laceName>SECURITY</st1laceName><st1laceType>STATE</st1laceType></st1lace>: FEMA and the NSC
by Diana Reynolds


CIVIL SECURITY PLANNING

Since WWII, the <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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 <st1lace><st1laceName>Naval</st1laceName><st1laceName>War</st1laceName><st1laceType>College</st1laceType></st1lace>
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
<st1lace><st1:City>Emmitsburg</st1:City>, <st1:State>Maryland</st1:State></st1lace>--based on the CSTI model. By 1984, the
Center had trained one thousand civil defense personnel in
survival techniques, counterterrorism and military police
methods.

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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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.

MILITARY RULE

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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> opinion
or a global audience in times of crisis.

"THIS IS ONLY A TEST, REPEAT..."

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.


THE FALL OF FEMA

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><st1lace>Nicaragua</st1lace></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 <st1lace><st1laceName>Defense</st1laceName><st1laceName>Training</st1laceName><st1laceType>Academy</st1laceType></st1lace> at Emmitsburg. He now operates a
security consulting firm in <st1lace><st1:City>Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State>D.C.</st1:State></st1lace> 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><st1lace>Beirut</st1lace></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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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
<st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region>"

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
matters.

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 <st1lace><st1laceName>NATIONAL</st1laceName><st1laceName>SECURITY</st1laceName><st1laceType>STATE</st1laceType></st1lace> AND THE DRUG WAR

The <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> government's proposed "war on drugs" is one such
case in which the <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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
network.

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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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><st1lace>New York</st1lace></st1:State>, <st1lace><st1:City>Boston</st1:City>, <st1:State>Washington</st1:State></st1lace>
DC, or <st1:City><st1lace>Los Angeles</st1lace></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.

A NATIONAL DRUG CZAR

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><st1lace>America</st1lace></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><st1lace>America</st1lace></st1:country-region>. The government would be authorized to increase
domestic intelligence and surveillance of <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> citizens. State
security measures would be enhanced by restricting the freedom of
movement within the <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> and granting the government authority to
relocate large groups of civilians at will. The <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> Continental
Forces and a federalized National Guard could seal off borders and
take control of <st1:country-region><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> airspace, all ports of entry, and interstate
highways.

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
unleashed.

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><st1lace>America</st1lace></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><st1lace>America</st1lace></st1:country-region> for 200 years of
democracy.

###

Diana Reynolds is a Research Assocaite and Program Director at the Edward
R. <st1lace><st1laceName>Murrow</st1laceName><st1laceType>Center</st1laceType></st1lace>, The <st1lace><st1laceName>Fletcher</st1laceName><st1laceType>School</st1laceType></st1lace>, <st1lace><st1laceName>Tufts</st1laceName><st1laceType>University</st1laceType></st1lace>. She is also an
Assistant Professor of Politics, <st1lace><st1laceName>Bradford</st1laceName><st1laceType>College</st1laceType></st1lace> and a Lecturer at
<st1lace>Northeastern Univeristy</st1lace>. 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, <st1lace><st1:City>Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State>D.C.</st1:State><st1ostalCode>20004</st1ostalCode></st1lace>. Specify issue #33 (Winter 1990).

 

And this;



The SPOTLIGHT <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:date Month="5" Day="27" Year="1991">MAY 27, 1991</st1:date></PRE>
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /> </PRE>
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN EASILY DISAPPEAR</PRE>
</PRE>
By Mike Blair</PRE>
</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>
</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>
</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><st1lace>America</st1lace></st1:country-region>'s Constitutionally guaranteed</PRE>
liberties, are rightfully so, feared that <st1:country-region><st1lace>America</st1lace></st1:country-region> would be disarmed</PRE>
and would become easy prey for the ever-expanding military power of</PRE>
the <st1lace>Soviet Union</st1lace> and Red <st1:country-region><st1lace>China</st1lace></st1:country-region>.</PRE>
</PRE>
They feared and opposed the powers of the Arms Control and</PRE>
Disarmament Agency, established to disarm <st1:country-region><st1lace>America</st1lace></st1:country-region>.</PRE>
</PRE>
Now, however, with the <st1lace>Soviet Union</st1lace> 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><st1lace>U.S.</st1lace></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>
</PRE>
NEW 'FRIENDSHIP'</PRE>
</PRE>
From this newfound "friendship" with the <st1lace>Soviet Union</st1lace> and in</PRE>
particular from the so-called multinational effort against <st1:country-region><st1lace>Iraq</st1lace></st1:country-region> in</PRE>
the <st1lace>Persian Gulf</st1lace>, President George Bush rarely gives a speech or</PRE>
holds a press conference in which he fails to mention his thoughts</PRE>
about a "<st1lace>New World</st1lace> Order."</PRE>
</PRE>
Now, however, a new method is needed to nullify <st1:country-region><st1lace>America</st1lace></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>
</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>
</PRE>
Here are some of the EOs involved:</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 10995, which provides for the takeover of the</PRE>
communications media. In other wards, forget about freedom of the</PRE>
press.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 10997, which provides for the takeover of all electric</PRE>
power, petroleum, gas and other fuels and minerals.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 10998, which provides for the takeover of all food</PRE>
resources and the nation's farms.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 10999, which provide for the takeover of all modes of</PRE>
transportation, control of highways, sea ports etc.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 11000, which provide for mobilization of all civilians into</PRE>
work brigades under government supervision. In other words, slave</PRE>
labor.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 11001, which provides for government takeover of all</PRE>
health, education and welfare functions.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 11002,designates the postmaster general to operate a</PRE>
national registration of all persons.</PRE>
</PRE>
* EO 11003, which provides for the government to take over</PRE>
airports and aircraft.</PRE>
</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>
</PRE>
* EO 11005, which provides for the government to take over</PRE>
railroads,inland waterways and public storage facilities.</PRE>
</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>
</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>
</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><st1lace>United States</st1lace></st1:country-region> under terms of</PRE>
bilateral or multilateral agreement which authorized such support</PRE>
in the event of a national emergency.</PRE>
</PRE>
In other words, prepare for the billeting of troops in your home</PRE>
contrary to the Third Amendment.</PRE>
</PRE>
"Develop emergency plans for the control of alien enemies and</PRE>
other aliens within the <st1:country-region><st1lace>United States</st1lace></st1:country-region> . . . The location, restraint</PRE>
or custody of aliens . . ."</PRE>
</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>
</PRE>
preparations can be undertaken to forced labor.</PRE>
</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>
</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>
</PRE>
"Regulation of the withdrawal of currency and the transfer of</PRE>
credits including deposit and share account balances.</PRE>
</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>
himself.</PRE>
</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>
him.</PRE>
</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>
</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>
</PRE>
Incredibly, FEMA even has the power to assume the duties of the</PRE>
president himself.</PRE>
</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>
state.</PRE>
</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>
</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."*

 

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.

 

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!


Useful research involves knowing where to look.

 

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

 

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.


http://www.alternet.org/rights/53213/?page=1