Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US
By Patrick Martin
9 August 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the
Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within
the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be
used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions
or the entire country.
The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of
the military’s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but “officers
who drafted the plans” gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham,
who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air
Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted
for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect
of military rule.
According to Graham, “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 that could quickly overwhelm civilian
resources.”
The Post account declares, “The war plans represent a historic shift
for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in
domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law
enforcement.”
A total of 15 potential crisis scenarios are outlined, ranging from
“low-end,” which Graham describes as “relatively modest crowd-control
missions,” to “high-end,” after as many as three simultaneous
catastrophic mass-casualty events, such as a nuclear, biological or
chemical weapons attack.
In each case, the military would deploy a quick-reaction force of as
many as 3,000 troops per attack—i.e., 9,000 total in the worst-case
scenario. More troops could be made available as needed.
The Post quotes a statement by Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of
Northcom: “In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a
chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of
Defense is best positioned—of the various eight federal agencies that
would be involved—to take the lead.”
The newspaper describes an unresolved debate among the military
planners on how to integrate the new domestic mission with ongoing US
deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign conflicts. One
major document of over 1,000 pages, designated CONPLAN 2002, provides
a general overview of air, sea and land operations in both a
post-attack situation and for “prevention and deterrence actions aimed
at intercepting threats before they reach the United States.” A second
document, CONPLAN 0500, details the 15 scenarios and the actions
associated with them.
The Post reports: “CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon’s
Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld and top aides for further study and approval, the officers
said. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting” at Northcom
headquarters.
While Northcom was established only in October 2002, its headquarters
staff of 640 is already larger than that of the Southern Command,
which overseas US military operations throughout Latin America and the
Caribbean.
About 1,400 National Guard troops have been formed into a dozen
regional response units, while smaller quick-reaction forces have been
set up in each of the 50 states. Northcom also has the power to
mobilize four active-duty Army battalions, as well as Navy and Coast
Guard ships and air defense fighter jets.
The Pentagon is acutely conscious of the potential political backlash
as its role in future security operations becomes known. Graham
writes: “Military exercises code-named Vital Archer, which involve
troops in lead roles, are shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, other
homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely
publicized.”
Military lawyers have studied the legal implications of such
deployments, which risk coming into conflict with a longstanding
congressional prohibition on the use of the military for domestic
policing, known as posse comitatus. Involving the National Guard,
which is exempt from posse comitatus, could be one solution, Admiral
Keating told the Post. “He cited a potential situation in which Guard
units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not,”
Graham wrote.
Graham adds: “when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead
role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant
to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise,
probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to
civilian authorities.”
A remarkable phrase: “probably would be temporary.” In other words,
the military takeover might not be temporary, and could become
permanent!
In his article, Graham describes the Northern Command’s “Combined
Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law
enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian
agencies as the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service.” The article
continues: “A senior supervisor at the facility said the staff there
does no intelligence collection, only analysis. He also said the
military operates under long-standing rules intended to protect
civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to
intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal
activity.”
Again, despite the soothing reassurances about respecting civil
liberties, another phrase leaps out: “intelligence information on
political dissent.” What right do US intelligence agencies have to
collect information on political dissent? Political dissent is not
only perfectly legal, but essential to the functioning of a democracy.
The reality is that the military brass is intensely interested in
monitoring political dissent because its domestic operations will be
directed not against a relative handful of Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists—who have not carried out a single operation inside the
United States since September 11, 2001—but against the democratic
rights of the American people.
The plans of Northcom have their origins not in the terrible events of
9/11, but in longstanding concerns in corporate America about the
political stability of the United States. This is a society
increasingly polarized between the fabulously wealthy elite at the
top, and the vast majority of working people who face an increasingly
difficult struggle to survive. The nightmare of the American ruling
class is the emergence of a mass movement from below that challenges
its political and economic domination.
As long ago as 1984—when Osama bin Laden was still working
hand-in-hand with the CIA in the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan—the Reagan administration was drawing up similar
contingency plans for military rule. A Marine Corps officer detailed
to the National Security Council drafted plans for Operation Rex ’84,
a headquarters exercise that simulated rounding up 300,000 Central
American immigrants and likely political opponents of a US invasion of
Nicaragua or El Salvador and jailing them at mothballed military
bases. This officer later became well known to the public: Lt. Colonel
Oliver North, the organizer of the illegal network to arm the “contra”
terrorists in Nicaragua and a principal figure in the Iran-Contra
scandal.
As for the claims that these military plans are driven by genuine
concern over the threat of terrorist attacks, these are belied by the
actual conduct of the American ruling elite since 9/11. The Bush
administration has done everything possible to suppress any
investigation into the circumstances of the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon—most likely because its own negligence,
possibly deliberate, would be exposed.
While the Pentagon claims that its plans are a response to the danger
of nuclear, biological or chemical attacks, no serious practical
measures have been taken to forestall such attacks or minimize their
impact. The Bush administration and Congress have refused even to
restrict the movement of rail tank cars loaded with toxic chemicals
through the US capital, though even an accidental leak, let alone a
terrorist attack, would cause mass casualties.
In relation to bioterrorism, the Defense Science Board determined in a
2000 study that the federal government had only 1 of the 57 drugs,
vaccines and diagnostic tools required to deal with such an attack.
According to a report in the Washington Post August 7, in the five
years since the Pentagon report, only one additional resource has been
developed, bringing the total to 2 out of 57. Drug companies have
simply refused to conduct the research required to find antidotes to
anthrax and other potential toxins, and the Bush administration has
done nothing to compel them.
As for the danger of nuclear or “dirty-bomb” attacks, the Bush
administration and the congressional Republican leadership recently
rammed through a measure loosening restrictions on exports of
radioactive substances, at the behest of a Canadian-based manufacturer
of medical supplies which conducted a well-financed lobbying campaign.
Evidently, the administration and the corporate elite which it
represents do not take seriously their own warnings about the imminent
threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons—at least not when it comes to security measures that would
impact corporate profits.
The anti-terrorism scare has a propaganda purpose: to manipulate the
American people and induce the public to accept drastic inroads
against democratic rights. As the Pentagon planning suggests, the
American working class faces the danger of some form of
military-police dictatorship in the United States.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon devising Martial Law plans |
11 Aug 2005 02:16:03 PM |
|
|
*HIS* "ELECT" *WROTE*:
"IF" *THEY* "SHOULD" *DESTROY* "HIS" *ELECT* "OUT" *OF* "HERE" *KEEP*
"SPREADING" *THE* "TRUTHS" *I* "HAVE" *BEEN* "SHARING" *WITH* "YOU"
*ABOUT* "THESE" *CRIMINALS*!!!
I Bid "YOU" Peace...
"HIS" *ELECT*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Pentagon devising Martial Law plans |
11 Aug 2005 08:23:24 AM |
|
|
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, scribed:
Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US
By Patrick Martin
9 August 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post,
The German Intelligence Service, and NOW the Washington Post.
Can't ANYONE in government keep a secret any more??
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
