Is America Preparing for Martial Law?
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 10 April 2005
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO504B.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Homeland Security recently carried out an extensive
anti-terrorist exercise entitled TOPOFF 3 (April 4-8, 2005). The
"drill" was described by officials as "a multilayered approach to
improving North American security".
The stated objective of the TOPOFF 3 "Full Scale Exercise" was to
"prepare America" in the case of an actual bioterrorism attack by Al
Qaeda:
".. we deliberately built the scenario as a very complex WMD
bioterrorism attack in New Jersey, as well as a kind of a dual-header
in the state of Connecticut in terms of a vehicle-borne improvised
explosive device, and then a simultaneous chemical attack.
The system in TOPOFF 3 across the board was tested as never before,
and this was deliberate. We wanted to test the full range of our
incident management processes and protocols that spanned prevention,
intelligence and information-sharing, and then the more classic or
traditional response and recovery. But really for the first time in a
national-level exercise, we really got at a near simultaneous WMD
attack which is, of course, very, very stressful for the federal
folks, as well as our state, local and international partners. (DHS
spokeperson at Press Conference, * april, 2005, complete transcript at
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-9058.html )
"The War on Terrorism"
These exercises must be understood in the broader context of America's
National Security doctrine, which presents Al Qaeda as the main threat
to the American homeland.
The "war on terrorism" is the central building block of the
administration's foreign policy and domestic security agendas. In the
words of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff:
Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings
the battle to the enemy... But while one key to defense is offense, it
is not the entirety of our security picture. For we also need a
“defense in depth” as part of the strategic whole. That means even as
we pursue terrorists overseas, we work at home to prevent infiltration
by terrorists and their weapons; to protect our people and places if
infiltration occurs; and to respond and recover if an attack is
carried out. This is embodied in our strategy of building multiple
barriers to terrorist attacks.(Transcript of complete March 2005
speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff at
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=42&content=4392 empasis
added)
Illusive Outside enemy
Known and documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence
apparatus.
The purpose of the TOPOFF anti-terrorist exercises is not to "defend
America" against terrorists, but to build a consensus within federal,
State and municipal bodies, as well as within the business community
and civil society (hospitals, schools, etc.) that this illusive
outside enemy exists and that "the threat is real".
We are not dealing with a classical media disinformation campaign.
While the TOPOFF exercise has been casually mentioned in press
reports, it is not the object of a national debate.
With regard to TOPOFF, the consensus building process is "internal",
it does not pertain the public at large. it is largely addressed to
key decision-makers within these various governmental and
nongovernmental bodies. It includes more than 10,000 participants in
important decision-making positions (federal and State officials, law
enforcement, fire departments, hospitals, etc), who may be called to
act in the case of an emergency situation. These individuals in turn
have a mandate to spread the word within their respective
organizations, --i.e. with their coworkers and colleagues, as well as
with the people working under their direct supervision.
In other words, this consensus building process reaches out to tens of
thousands of people in positions of authority. The antiterrorist
agenda and exercises thus become a "talking point" within numerous
governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
In turn, the holding of these antiterrorist exercises supports the
National Security doctrine of "preemptive war", --i.e. that America
has to legitimate right to self defense by intervening in foreign
lands and that America must defend itself against terrorists. It also
sustains the myth of WMD in the hands of terrorists, being used
against America, when in fact the US is the largest producer of WMD,
with a defense budget of more than 400 billion dollars a year.
The objective is to sustain the war and national security agenda --and
of course the possibility of martial law-- within the governmental,
nongovernmental and corporate business sectors.
Ultimately, the objective is develop across the land, an unequivocal
acceptance by key officials (and of their coworkers and subordinates),
from the federal to the local level, for an emergency situation, where
civil liberties and the rights of citizens would be suspended:
Officials will not give a specific figure, but they say the exercise
involved several thousand fake deaths and thousands more injuries.
This time, the sick and dying were only acting. But officials are
aware that someday there could well be a real attack. They say the
more they learn about how to coordinate prevention and response
efforts, the better job they will be able to do to minimize casualties
if and when that happens. (
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-08-voa81.cfm
From TOPOFF 2 to the "Full Scale Exercise": TOPOFF 3
The previous "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2 was held two
years ago in May 2003. It was described as "the largest and most
comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever
conducted in the United States." It was carried out in a military
style exercise by federal, State and local level governments,
including Canadian participants. TOPOFF 2 established various
"scenarios" under a Red Code Alert.
In other words, it was conducted on the same assumptions as a military
exercise, in anticipation of an actual war situation, examining
various WMD terror attack scenarios and the institutional response of
State and local governments:
"It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would
react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in
two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario
depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a
simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle
and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area
locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play,
a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other
locations."
(For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary
Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary,
December 19, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693 )
The April 2005 so-called Full Scale Exercise`` TOPOFF 3 goes much
further than the May 2003 TOPFF 2.
TOPOFF 3 involved a larger number of individual participants.
Moreover, in addition to Canada which had been involved in TOPOFF 2 ,
the exercise also included the participation of Britain's Home Office.
The UK had labeled its exercise "Atlantic Blue", whereas Canada
designated its component of TOPOFF 3 as "Triple Play".
While there was mention of the Canadian exercise in the news, the
details of "Atlantic Blue" were not revealed, nor were they reviewed
in the British press. Britain's Home Office Minister Hazel Blears
admitted in March that "There will be no visible 'on the ground'
activity within the UK exercise". (quoted in the Sunday Express, 3
April 2005).
TOPOFF 3: Organizational Structure
More than 200 Federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and
international agencies and organizations and volunteer groups were
involved.
TOPOFF 3 was organized in terms of five separate "venues": 1.
Interagency, 2. Connecticut, 3. New Jersey: 4. United Kingdom, 5.
Canada:
The FSE offers agencies and jurisdictions a way to exercise a
coordinated national and international response to a large-scale,
multipoint terrorist attack. It allows participants to test plans and
skills in a real-time, realistic environment and gain the in-depth
knowledge that only experience can provide."
The TOPOFF 3 scenario will depict a complex terrorist campaign and
drive the exercise play through the homeland security system,
beginning in Connecticut and New Jersey, and leading to national and
international response.
Over the course of several days fire personnel will conduct search and
rescue, hospitals will treat the injured (played by role players),
subject-matter experts will analyze the effects of the attack on
public health, and top officials will deploy resources and make the
difficult decisions needed to save lives.
An internal Virtual News Network (VNN) and news website will provide
real-time reporting of the story like an actual TV network would. The
mock media will keep players up-to-date on unfolding events and enable
decision makers to face the challenge of dealing with the real world
media. Only participating agencies can view the VNN broadcast.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0588.xml
TEXT BOX: TOPOFF 3 FSE Exercises (4-8 April 2005)
Connecticut
Simulated chemical attack on the New London waterfront and a simulated
mustard gas attack.
New Jersey:
Simulated biological attack in Union and Middlesex Counties.
It involved "terrorists" spreading plague from an SUV in Union County,
eventually "killing" 8,694 and "sickening" some 40,000. (See
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050409/NEWS03/504090432/1007
The New Jersey Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force will dissect
how every state department performed during exercise. And the Homeland
Security Department will analyze the performance of the more than 200
agencies that participated in TopOff 3 and issue an "after action"
report in the next four to six months.
"This is not over until we fully capture all of the lessons learned,"
said Robert Stephan, director of the agency's Incident Management
Group. "This phase is perhaps the more significant phase, showing us
where we did well and where we need to make improvement."
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-9/111302486385150.xml
Canada
Coordinated by Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness and the RCMP, eighteen Canadian federal departments, as
well as the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, took part in
the mock terror attack.
"Officials circulate word the ocean-going ship Castlemaine, en route
to Halifax, carries a container holding chemicals for creating a
weapon of mass destruction - possibly like the deadly substance
already released in the United States and Britain. A meeting is
hastily called to devise a plan." (
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=3295af24-3ceb-4aae-b6cc-12a76bd32e17
)
Scenario of a Code Red alert
The TOPOFF exercise prepares the Nation for an emergency under a Code
Red alert. More specifically, it sets the stage within the various
governmental bodies and organizations. The exercise moulds the
behavior of public officials
According to official statements, an "actual terrorist attack" of the
type envisaged under TOPOFF 3 would inevitably lead to a Code Red
Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary)
suspension of the normal functions of civilian government. This
scenario had already been envisaged by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge
in a CBS News Interview back in December 2003:
"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country,"
meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken
over by an Emergency Administration.
The scenario is also detailed at the Homeland department's Ready.Gov
website at http://www.ready.gov/
Text Box
The Department of Homeland Security's "Ready.Gov Instructions"
"Terrorists are working to obtain biological, chemical, nuclear and
radiological weapons, and the threat of an attack is very real. Here
at the Department of Homeland Security, throughout the federal
government, and at organizations across America we are working hard to
strengthen our Nation's security. Whenever possible, we want to stop
terrorist attacks before they happen. All Americans should begin a
process of learning about potential threats so we are better prepared
to react during an attack. While there is no way to predict what will
happen, or what your personal circumstances will be, there are simple
things you can do now to prepare yourself and your loved ones."
Source: Ready.Gov America, Overview:
http://www.ready.gov/overview.html
Emergency Scenario
A Code Red alert, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) , would create conditions for the ("temporary" we are told)
suspension of the normal functions of civilian government. According
to FEMA, code red would:
Increase or redirect personnel to address critical emergency needs;
Assign emergency response personnel and pre-position and mobilize
specially trained teams or resources; Monitor, redirect, or constrain
transportation systems; and Close public and government facilities not
critical for continuity of essential operations, especially public
safety. (FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf )
Several functions of civilian administration would be suspended,
others would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military. More
generally, the procedure would disrupt government offices, businesses,
schools, public services, transportation, etc.
"Continuity in Government" (COG)
A secret "Shadow government" under the classified "Continuity of
Operations Plan" was installed on September 11, 2001.(See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer
).
Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret
Shadow government would become functional in the case of a code red
alert, leading to the redeployment of key staff to secret locations.
Code red alert would suspend civil liberties, including public
gatherings and/ or citizens' protests against the war or against the
Administration's decision to declare martial law.
The emergency authorities would also have the authority to exert tight
censorship over the media and would no doubt paralyze the alternative
news media on the internet.
In turn, code red alert would trigger the "civilian" Homeland
Emergency response system, including the DHS' Ready.Gov instructions,
the Big Brother Citizen Corps, not to mention the USAonWatch and the
Department of Justice Neighborhood Watch Program which have a new post
9/11 mandate to "identify and report suspicious activity in
neighborhoods" across America. The DOJ Neighborhood Watch is involved
in " Terrorism Awareness Education" (www.USAonWatch.org ).
Under the Citizen Corps, which is a component of the USA Freedom
Corps, citizens across America are invited to participate in what
could potentially develop into a civilian militia:
Americans are responding to the evil and horror of the terrorist
attacks of September 11 with a renewed commitment to doing good … As
part of that initiative, we created Citizen Corps to help coordinate
volunteer activities that will make our communities safer, stronger,
and better prepared to respond to any emergency situation.
… We are asking cities and counties across the country to create
Citizen Corps Councils of their own design, bringing together first
responders, volunteer organizations, law enforcement agencies, and
community-serving institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and houses
of worship. Some Citizen Corps Councils will feature local activities
that reflect new and existing national programs such as Neighborhood
Watch, Community Emergency Response Teams, Volunteers in Police
Service, and the Medical Reserve Corps. Some will include local
programs that involve partnerships with law enforcement agencies,
hospitals, first responders, and schools. What all Citizen Corps
Councils will have in common is that our local leaders will be working
to expand opportunities for their community members to engage in
volunteer service that will support emergency preparation, prevention,
and response. (Citizen Corps, Guide for Local Officials, President
Bush's introductory remarks,
http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf )
The Role of the Military
What would be the involvement of the Military in a code red emergency
situation?
In theory, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 adopted in the wake of the
US civil war, prevents the military from intervening in civilian
police and judicial functions. This law is central to the functioning
of constitutional government.
While the Posse Comitatus Act is still on the books, in practice the
legislation is no longer effective in preventing the militarization of
civilian institutions.(See Frank Morales at
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html ).
Legislation inherited from the Clinton administration, not to mention
the post 9/11 Patriot Acts I and II, "blurs the line between military
and civilian roles". It allows the military to intervene in judicial
and law enforcement activities even in the absence of an emergency
situation.
In 1996, legislation was passed which allowed the military to
intervene in the case of a national emergency (e.g.. a terrorist
attack). In 1999, Clinton's Defense Authorization Act (DAA) extended
those powers (under the 1996 legislation) by creating an "exception"
to the Posse Comitatus Act, which permits the military to be involved
in civilian affairs "regardless of whether there is an emergency".
(See ACLU at
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=8683&c=24
)
"The new proposed exception to the Posse Comitatus Act would further
expand a controversial measure adopted by Congress in 1996 that
permitted military involvement in "emergencies" involving chemical and
biological weapons crimes.
Under that new measure, which was proposed by the Defense Department,
the military would be authorized to deal with crimes involving any
chemical or biological weapons -- or any other weapon of mass
destruction -- regardless of whether there is an "emergency." In
addition, the new proposal would lift requirements that the military
be reimbursed for the cost of its intervention, thus likely increasing
the number of requests for military assistance.
"Under this new provision," Nojeim said, "the mere threat of an act of
terrorism would justify calling in military units. That represents a
loophole large enough to drive a battalion of army tanks through."
The defense authorization bill would also require the Pentagon to
develop a plan to assign military personnel to assist Customs and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to "respond to threats to
national security posed by entry into the U.S. of terrorists or drug
traffickers."
"the mere threat of an act of terrorism would justify calling in
military units. That represents a loophole large enough to drive a
battalion of army tanks through." (ibid)
In other words, the Clinton era legislation had already laid the legal
and ideological foundations of the "war on terrorism".
Despite this 1999 "exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act", which
effectively invalidates it, both the Pentagon and Homeland Security,
have been actively lobbying Congress for the outright repeal of the
1878 legislation:
"new rules are needed to clearly set forth the boundaries for the use
of federal military forces for homeland security. The Posse Comitatus
Act is inappropriate for modern times and needs to be replaced by a
completely new law ...
It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it
with a new law. ... The Posse Comitatus Act is an artifact of a
different conflict-between freedom and slavery or between North and
South, if you prefer. Today's conflict is also in a sense between
freedom and slavery, but this time it is between civilization and
terrorism. New problems often need new solutions, and a new set of
rules is needed for this issue.
President Bush and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law
that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using
military forces for homeland security and for enforcing the laws of
the United States.
(John R. Brinkerhoff, former associate director for national
preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm
)
The Posse Comitatus Act, is viewed by military analysts as a "Legal
Impediment to Transformation":
"[The Posse Comitatus Act constitutes] a formidable obstacle to our
nation's flexibility and adaptability at a time when we face an
unpredictable enemy with the proven capability of causing unforeseen
catastrophic events. The difficulty in correctly interpreting and
applying the Act causes widespread confusion at the tactical,
operational, and strategic levels of our military. Given that future
events may call for the use of the military to assist civil
authorities, a review of the efficacy of the PCA is in order. ( Donald
J. Currier, The Posse Comitatus Act: A Harmless Relic from the
Post-Reconstruction Era or a Legal Impediment to Transformation?
Authors; Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle
Barracks, Pa, September 2003)
The ongoing militarization of civilian justice and law enforcement is
a bi-partisan project. Senator Joseph Biden (a Democrat), former
Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been
waging, since the mid-1990s, in consultation with his Republican
counterparts, a battle for the outright repeal of the Posse Comitatus
Act.
The Patriot Legislation
In turn, the Bush administration PATRIOT Acts have set the groundwork
of the evolving Homeland Security State. In minute detail, they go
much further in setting the stage for the militarisation of civilian
institutions.
The various provisions are very detailed and precise. The USA PATRIOT
ACT of 2001 entitled "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" as well as the "Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003," ("PATRIOT Act II") create the
conditions for the militarization of justice and police functions:
The "PATRIOT Act" is a repressive "coordination" of the entities of
force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military. It
broadens, centralizes and combines the surveillance, arrest and
harassment capabilities of the police and intelligence apparatus.
Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed
against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon
Inc. declaring war on America.
The "domestic war on terrorism" hinges upon the Pentagon's doctrine of
homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being
enacted in the name of internal security. So called "homeland
security", originally set within the Pentagon's "operations other than
war", is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on
America. Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating
military "doctrine" seeks to justify new roles and missions for the
Pentagon within America. Vast "legal" authority and funds to spy on
the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being
lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement
"community."
All this is taking place amidst an increasingly perfected "fusion" of
the police and military functions both within the US and abroad, where
the phenomena is referred to as "peacekeeping", or the "policization
of the military". Here in America, all distinction between the
military and police functions is about to be forever expunged with the
looming repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.
In other words, the "New World Law and Order" based on the repeal of
the Posse Comitatus Act, requires a system of domestic and global
counterinsurgency led by the Pentagon.
(Frank Morales, Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on
America, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR312A.html In 2003,
Frank Morales was granted A Project Censored Award of Sonoma
University, Cal.
Even under a functioning civilian government, the PATRIOT Acts have
already instated several features of martial law. The extent to which
they may be applied is at the discretion of the military authorities.
The 2003 Patriot Act II goes much further in extending and enlarging
the "Big Brother functions" of control and surveillance of people. It
vastly expands the surveillance and counterinsurgency powers,
providing government access to personal bank accounts, information on
home computers, telephone wire tapping, credit card accounts, etc.
(for further details, see Ratical.org at
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA2.html#DSEAanalysis
The Role of Northern Command (Northcom)
Northern Command (Northcom) (based at Peterson Air Force Base,
Colorado) was set up in April 2002 specifically in the context of "the
pre-emptive war on terrorism".
The creation of Northcom is consistent with the de facto repeal of the
Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the position of a "Homeland Defense
Command" leader "in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil", had
already been envisaged in early 1999 by Clinton's Defense Secretary
William Cohen. (
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Posse_Comitatus_Law.html
).
Following the Bush Administration's decision to create Northcom, the
White House instructed Justice Department lawyers "to review the Posse
Comitatus law in light of new security requirements in the war on
terrorism." The 1878 Act was said to "greatly restrict the military's
ability to participate in domestic law enforcement". (National
Journal, Government Record, 22 July 2002)
The role of Northern Command defined in the Pentagon's "Joint Doctrine
for Homeland Security (JP-26)", constitutes a blueprint on how to
defend the Homeland.
Martial law could be triggered even in the case of a bogus terror
alert based on fabricated intelligence. Even in the case where it is
known and documented to senior military officials that the "outside
enemy" is fabricated, a martial law situation, characterized by
detailed command military/ security provisions, would become
operational almost immediately.
Northcom has a mandate to "defend the homeland" against this illusive
"outside enemy", (Al Qaeda) which is said to be threatening the
security of America. According to Frank Morales, "the scenario of a
military take-over of America is unfolding." And Northern Command is
the core military entity in this takeover and militarisation of
civilian institutions.
Northcom's "Command Mission" encompasses a number of "non-military
functions" including "crisis management" and "domestic civil support".
Under Northcom jurisdiction, the latter would imply a process of
"military support to federal, state and local authorities in the event
of a terror attack". The latter would include:
the preparation for, prevention of, deterrence of, preemption of,
defense against, and response to threats and aggression directed
towards U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and
infrastructure; as well as crisis management, consequence management,
and other domestic civil support." (See
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm )
Northcom is described as having "a Creeping Civilian Mission". (David
Isenberg, Asian Times, 5 December 2003). Since its inception, it has
been building capabilities in domestic intelligence and law
enforcement. It is in permanent liaison with the DHS and the Justice
Department. It has several hundred FBI and CIA officers stationed at
its headquarters in Colorado. (National Journal, 1 May 2004). It is in
permanent liaison, through an advanced communications system, with
municipalities and domestic civilian law enforcement agencies around
the country. (Ibid). It also has links to Canadian military and
government authorities through the so-called "binaitonal planning
group". (See Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military
Agenda? November 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html )
Meanwhile the CIA, which has a unit operating out of Northcom, has
extended its mandate to issues of "domestic intelligence".
In the case of a Code Red Alert, a national emergency would be
declared. Northern Command would deploy its forces on air, land and
sea. Several functions of civilian government would be transferred to
Northcom headquarters, which already has several structures, which
enables it to oversee and supervise civilian institutions.
In other words, Northcom's "command structure" would be activated in
the case of a code red terror alert. But Northcom does not require, in
accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act
(DAA), a terror alert, a terror attack or a war-like situation to
intervene in the country's civilian affairs.
The jurisdiction of the Northern Command now extends from Mexico to
Alaska. Under ("bi-national") agreements signed with Canada and
Mexico, Northern Command can intervene and deploy its forces and
military arsenal on land, air and sea in Canada (extending into its
Northern territories), throughout Mexico and in parts of the
Caribbean. (See
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm )
Taken together, the existing legislation grants the military extensive
rights to intervene in an "emergency situation", without the prior
formal approval of the Commander in Chief.
America's Big Brother Data Banks
To prepare for new "law enforcement" missions for the military within
America, overseen by the Northern Command, the Center for Law and
Military Operations, based in Charlottesville, Virginia has published
a "useful" Handbook entitled "Domestic Operational Law for Judge
Advocates." According to Frank Morales, the Handbook:
"attempts to solidify, from a legal standpoint, Pentagon penetration
of America and it's 'operations other than war,' essentially providing
the U.S. corporate elite with lawful justification for its class war
against the American people, specifically those that resist the "new
world law and order" agenda." (Frank Morales, Homeland Defense and the
Militarisation of America, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html )
According to Morales: "the 'war on terrorism' is the cover for the war
on dissent." which requires setting up comprehensive procedures and
data banks for the surveillance of individual citizens.
In this context, In the wake of September 11, the Bush Administration
established its proposed Big Brother data bank: "the Total Information
Awareness Program (TIAP).
TIAP was operated by the Information Awareness Office (IAO), which had
a mandate "to gather as much information as possible about everyone,
in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States
government." This would include medical records, credit card and
banking information, educational and employment data, records
concerning travel and the use of internet, email, telephone and fax.
TIAP was operated in the offices of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), a division of the Pentagon in Northern
Virginia. (See Washington Post, 11 Nov 2002 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40942-2002Nov11 )
Ironically, when it was first set up, it was headed by a man with
criminal record, former National Security Adviser ret. Admiral John
Poindexter.
Pointexter, who had been indicted on criminal charges for his role in
the Iran Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, subsequently
resigned as TIAP Director and the program was "officially"
discontinued.
(See Pointedexter's PowerPoint presentation at
http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech2002/presentations/iao_pdf/slides/poindexteriao.pdf
)
While the IAO no longer exists in name, the initiative of creating a
giant data bank was by no means abandoned. Several US government
bodies including Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI, respectively
oversee giant "Big Brother" data banks, which are fully operational.
They also collaborate in the controversial Multistate Anti-Terrorism
Information Exchange ( MATRIX). The latter is defined as "a
crime-fighting database" used by law enforcement agencies, the US
Justice Department and Homeland Security.
The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, sets the framework for
establishing a centralized "Information Sharing Network" which will
coordinate data from "all available sources". The proposed network
would bring together the data banks of various government agencies
under a single governmental umbrella. (Deseret Morning News, 29,
2004). Needless to say, this integration of Big Brother data banks
also includes tax records, immigration data as well as confidential
information on travelers.
Similar procedures have been implemented in Canada. The federal
government in Ottawa is collaborating with the US, leading to the
eventual merger of tax and immigration data banks between the two
countries.
(Text of the C-7 Public Safety Act at
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-7/C-7_3/C-7TOCE.html
see also http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=37&Ses=3&ls=c7
and
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1074294906470
America at a Critical Crossroads
Unquestionably America is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis
in its history.
The coded terror alerts and "terror events", which have been announced
by DHS are part of a disinformation campaign carried out by the CIA,
the Pentagon, the State Department and Homeland Security.
US intelligence is not only involved in creating phony terror
warnings, it is indirectly also behind the terror groups, providing
them with covert support.( See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )
Meanwhile, the militarization of civilian institutions is not only
contemplated, it has become a talking point on network TV; it is
openly debated as a "solution" to "protecting American democracy"
which is said to be threatened by Islamic terrorists.
The implications of a code red alert are rarely the object of serious
debate.
The terror exercises under TOPOFF serve to condition public officials
and key decision makers. In turn through media disinformation,
citizens are being prepared and gradually conditioned for the
unthinkable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email this article to a friend
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink
address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's
copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact:
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you
wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use"
you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries:
.
|
