Is America Preparing for Martial Law?** Can't recall ever setting `high
priority' on anything I've ever sent before but I think what's below
deserves the rating. **
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
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.
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: crgeditor@yahoo.com
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: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 2005.
|