Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Anonymous on February 25, 2006, 03:54:00 PM
-
Line up, children.....
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022306C.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022306C.shtml)
http://leenrage.blogspot.com/2006/02/wh ... s-for.html (http://leenrage.blogspot.com/2006/02/who-are-detainment-camps-for.html)
Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
By Nat Parry
Consortium News Tuesday 21 February 2006
Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations - Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.
"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.
"I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.
"Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."
In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways - ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.
But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.
Top US officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers" in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Detention Centers
Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]
Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." [Feb. 4, 2006]
Like most news stories on the KBR contract, the Times focused on concerns about Halliburton's reputation for bilking US taxpayers by overcharging for sub-par services.
"It's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," remarked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California.
Less attention centered on the phrase "rapid development of new programs" and what kind of programs would require a major expansion of detention centers, each capable of holding 5,000 people. Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to elaborate on what these "new programs" might be.
Only a few independent journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott and Maureen Farrell, have pursued what the Bush administration might actually be thinking.
Scott speculated that the "detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law." He recalled that during the Reagan administration, National Security Council aide Oliver North organized Rex-84 "readiness exercise," which contemplated the Federal Emergency Management Agency rounding up and detaining 400,000 "refugees," in the event of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.
Farrell pointed out that because "another terror attack is all but certain, it seems far more likely that the centers would be used for post-911-type detentions of immigrants rather than a sudden deluge" of immigrants flooding across the border.
Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."
Labor Camps
There also was another little-noticed item posted at the US Army Web site, about the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This program "provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations."
The Army document, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid action revision" on Jan. 14, 2005. The revision provides a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.
On its face, the Army's labor program refers to inmates housed in federal, state and local jails. The Army also cites various federal laws that govern the use of civilian labor and provide for the establishment of prison camps in the United States, including a federal statute that authorizes the Attorney General to "establish, equip, and maintain camps upon sites selected by him" and "make available ... the services of United States prisoners" to various government departments, including the Department of Defense.
Though the timing of the document's posting - within the past few weeks - may just be a coincidence, the reference to a "rapid action revision" and the KBR contract's contemplation of "rapid development of new programs" have raised eyebrows about why this sudden need for urgency.
These developments also are drawing more attention now because of earlier Bush administration policies to involve the Pentagon in "counter-terrorism" operations inside the United States.
Pentagon Surveillance
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against US military personnel engaging in domestic law enforcement, the Pentagon has expanded its operations beyond previous boundaries, such as its role in domestic surveillance activities.
The Washington Post has reported that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Defense Department has been creating new agencies that gather and analyze intelligence within the United States. [Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2005]
The White House also is moving to expand the power of the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), created three years ago to consolidate counterintelligence operations. The White House proposal would transform CIFA into an office that has authority to investigate crimes such as treason, terrorist sabotage or economic espionage.
The Pentagon also has pushed legislation in Congress that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information about US citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. But some in the Pentagon don't seem to think that new laws are even necessary.
In a 2001 Defense Department memo that surfaced in January 2006, the US Army's top intelligence officer wrote, "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting US person information."
Drawing a distinction between "collecting" information and "receiving" information on US citizens, the memo argued that "MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime." [See CQ.com, Jan. 31, 2005]
This receipt of information presumably would include data from the National Security Agency, which has been engaging in surveillance of US citizens without court-approved warrants in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. Bush approved the program of warrantless wiretaps shortly after 9/11.
There also may be an even more extensive surveillance program. Former NSA employee Russell D. Tice told a congressional committee on Feb. 14 that such a top-secret surveillance program existed, but he said he couldn't discuss the details without breaking classification laws.
Tice added that the "special access" surveillance program may be violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. [UPI, Feb. 14, 2006]
With this expanded surveillance, the government's list of terrorist suspects is rapidly swelling.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 15 that the National Counterterrorism Center's central repository now holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a four-fold increase since the fall of 2003.
Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the NSA's domestic surveillance program, an NCTC official told the Post, "Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA."
Homeland Defense
As the administration scoops up more and more names, members of Congress also have questioned the elasticity of Bush's definitions for words like terrorist "affiliates," used to justify wiretapping Americans allegedly in contact with such people or entities.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the wiretap program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, complained that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program."
Feinstein added that, therefore, the committees "have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to al-Qaeda or what minimization procedures (for purging the names of innocent people) are in place."
The combination of the Bush administration's expansive reading of its own power and its insistence on extraordinary secrecy has raised the alarm of civil libertarians when contemplating how far the Pentagon might go in involving itself in domestic matters.
A Defense Department document, entitled the "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an "active, layered defense" both inside and outside US territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to "transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the ... US homeland."
The Pentagon strategy paper calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to "defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States." The plan "maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us."
But there are concerns over how the Pentagon judges "threats" and who falls under the category "those who would harm us." A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity's TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters.
In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-page Pentagon document listing 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period, including dozens of small antiwar demonstrations that were classified as a "threat."
The Defense Department also might be moving toward legitimizing the use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy.
A secret Pentagon "Information Operations Roadmap," approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "full spectrum" information operations and notes that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa."
"PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," the document states. The Pentagon argues, however, that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [US government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."
It calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits on PSYOP campaigns.
Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between "collecting" and "receiving" intelligence on US citizens, the Information Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not intentionally "targeted," any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the American public is acceptable.
The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the Web as a potential military adversary. The "roadmap" speaks of "fighting the net," and implies that the Internet is the equivalent of "an enemy weapons system."
In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld elaborated on the administration's perception that the battle over information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War.
"Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place," Rumsfeld said.
The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched "heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, (and had them) openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans," reported journalists Jeremy Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005.
Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as "some of the most feared professional killers in the world," Scahill and Crespo said Blackwater's presence in New Orleans "raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here."
US Battlefield
In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already exists in the United States and has been in place since shortly after the 9/11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order No. 1 which empowered him to detain any non-citizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant.
"The President decided that he was no longer running the country as a civilian President," wrote civil rights attorney Michael Ratner in the book Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. "He issued a military order giving himself the power to run the country as a general."
For any American citizen suspected of collaborating with terrorists, Bush also revealed what's in store. In May 2002, the FBI arrested US citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago on suspicion that he might be an al-Qaeda operative planning an attack.
Rather than bring criminal charges, Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him imprisoned indefinitely without benefit of due process. After three years, the administration finally brought charges against Padilla, in order to avoid a Supreme Court showdown the White House might have lost.
But since the Court was not able to rule on the Padilla case, the administration's arguments have not been formally repudiated. Indeed, despite filing charges against Padilla, the White House still asserts the right to detain US citizens without charges as enemy combatants.
This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.
"In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the Nation learned all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield," Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the federal courts. [Washington Post, July 19, 2005]
Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions.
As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on Terror, "Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is 'yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"
In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by the "rapid development of new programs," which might require the construction of a new network of detention camps.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger)
Ireland drastically cut public "services" a few years back. I say we do the same, boycott taxes, barter, live cheap, enjoy the simple things; as the farmer plowed his field.
In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
--Martin Luther King
-
Speaking of farmers....
Folks need to investigate
NAIS- National Animal Idenitfication System
alleged to "protect our national food supply".
Have not researched it in detail, but heard a man on the radio this morning who layed out the phases and expressed frustration. He's considering getting out of the goat business.
Phase One
Every animal (dog/cat/goat/pig/horse/cow/chicken) must be registered at $20 per animal.
Fine of $1000/day for non compliance.
Phase Two
Every animal must be uniquely marked (branded, stamped, tatooed) so it can be identified.
Phase Three
Anytime an animal is moved (vet, show, etc) it must be reported, so that if an animal becomes sick it can be traced back to the owner.
http://www.dirtdoctor.com/view_question.php?id=1403 (http://www.dirtdoctor.com/view_question.php?id=1403)
Might google NAIS + your state
-
Plants too:
J. L. HUDSON, SEEDSMAN, STAR ROUTE 2, BOX 337, LA HONDA, CALIFORNIA 94020-9733 USA
HELP STOP THE 'WHITE LIST'
The government is proposing new, sweeping and highly restrictive policies regarding the importation, cultivation and movement of all living species, allegedly to prevent 'invasive species'. In 1999 the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was formed. At the inaugural meeting of the NlSC, co-chair Bruce Babbitt called for use of a 'white list', where exotic species are presumed guilty until proven innocent. A list of approved, tested 'noninvasive' species would be established, and importation, cultivation and movement of all species not on the approved list would be prohibited.
http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/WhiteList.htm (http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/WhiteList.htm)
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
-
http://www.peterdalescott.net (http://www.peterdalescott.net).
Detainee at fence
The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on
Jan. 24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract
by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps. Two
weeks later, on Feb. 6, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate
over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds (an increase
of 32 percent over 2006). This $400 million allocation is more than a
four-fold increase over the FY 2006 budget, which provided only $90
million for the same purpose.
Both the contract and the budget allocation are in partial
fulfillment of an ambitious 10-year Homeland Security strategic plan,
code-named ENDGAME, authorized in 2003. According to a 49-page
Homeland Security document on the plan, ENDGAME expands "a mission
first articulated in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798." Its goal
is the capability to "remove all removable aliens," including
"illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts,
asylum-seekers (required to be retained by law) or potential
terrorists."
There is no question that the Bush administration is under
considerable political pressure to increase the detentions of illegal
immigrants, especially from across the Mexican border. Confrontations
along the border are increasingly violent, often involving the drug
traffic.
But the problem of illegal immigration cannot be separated from other
Bush administration policies: principally the retreat from
traditional American programs designed to combat poverty in Latin
America. In Florida last week, Democratic Party leader Howard Dean
attacked the new federal budget for its almost 30 percent cut in
development aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.
In truth, both parties have virtually abandoned the John F. Kennedy
vision of an Alliance for Progress in Latin America. Kennedy's hope
was that, by raising the standard of living of Latin America's poor,
there would be less pressure on them to emigrate to the United States.
That vision foundered when successive administrations, both
Democratic and Republican, contributed to the overthrow of
democratically elected governments in Brazil, Chile and elsewhere,
replacing them with oppressive dictatorships.
Since about 1970, the policies of the U.S.-dominated International
Monetary Fund have also aggravated the problem of poverty in the rest
of the world, especially Latin America. U.S. programs abroad, like
programs at home, are now designed principally around the concept of
security -- above all for oil installations and pipelines.
In consequence, the United States is being redefined as a vast gated
community, hoping to isolate itself by force from its poverty-
stricken neighbors. Inside the U.S. fortress sit 2.1 million
prisoners, a greater percentage of the population than in any other
nation. ENDGAME's crash program is designed to house additional
detainees who have not been convicted of crimes.
Significantly, both the KBR contract and the ENDGAME plan are open-
ended. The contract calls for a response to "an emergency influx of
immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in
the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." "New
programs" is of course a term with no precise limitation. So, in the
current administration, is ENDGAME's goal of removing "potential
terrorists."
It is relevant that in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced
his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be "enemy
combatants." On Feb. 17 of this year, in a speech to the Council on
Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the
harm being done to the country's security, not just by the enemy, but
also by what he called "news informers" who needed to be combated in
"a contest of wills." Two days earlier, citing speeches critical of
Bush by Al Gore, John Kerry, and Howard Dean, conservative columnist
Ben Shapiro called for "legislation to prosecute such sedition."
Since 9/11 the Bush administration has implemented a number of inter-
related programs, which had been planned for secretly in the 1980s
under President Reagan. These so-called "Continuity of Government" or
COG proposals included vastly expanded detention capabilities,
warrantless eavesdropping and detention, and preparations for greater
use of martial law.
Prominent among the secret planners of this program in the 1980s were
then-Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was
in private business as CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.
The principal desk officer for the program was Oliver North, until he
was forced to resign in 1986 over Iran-Contra.
When planes crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001,
Vice President Cheney's response, after consulting President Bush,
was to implement a classified "Continuity of Government" plan for the
first time, according to the 9/11 Commission report. As the
Washington Post later explained, the order "dispatched a shadow
government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work
secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-
standing plans."
What these managers in this shadow government worked on has never
been reported. But it is significant that the group that prepared
ENDGAME was, as the Homeland Security document puts it, "chartered in
September 2001." For ENDGAME's goal of a capacious detention
capability is remarkably similar to Oliver North's controversial
Rex-84 "readiness exercise" for COG in 1984. This called for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain
400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled
population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.
North's exercise, which reportedly contemplated possible suspension
of the United States Constitution, led to questions being asked
during the Iran-Contra Hearings. One concern then was that North's
plans for expanded internment and detention facilities would not be
confined to "refugees" alone.
Oliver North represented a minority element in the Reagan
administration, which soon distanced itself from both the man and his
proposals. But that minority associated with COG planning, which
included Dick Cheney, appear to be in control of the U.S. government
today.
____________________________________________________________
LPPa Discussion mailing list - http://lppa.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion_lppa.org (http://lppa.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion_lppa.org)The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
--William Osler
-
That code name "ENDGAME" is fucking disturbing. Do you think they might be referencing their biblical prophetic beliefs?
-
Cornucopia Institute Opposes Virginia Poultry Proposal
Legislation Could Ban Small Scale/Humane Production
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
Joel Salatin, 540-885-3590
The Cornucopia Institute has announced their support for family farmers in their opposition to a legislative proposal in the state of Virginia
that could eliminate the ability of the state's residents to raise chickens and other fowl in the outdoors for eventual sale to consumers. The stated purpose of the controversial legislation, HR 982, is to control live bird markets-of
which there are none in Virginia-but the Institute believes that it's real purpose is to
stop independent poultry producers from raising their flocks outdoors because federal officials are worried about an avian flu epidemic.
"This legislation is extremely troubling as consumers are increasingly hungry for organic and sustainable eggs and poultry that come from healthy birds raised outdoors," said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia
Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic farming watchdog group. "The bill's language is too vague and would allow the state's Agricultural Commissioner to arbitrarily regulate and control small- to medium-sized poultry flocks, not just
live bird markets, which currently don't even exist in Virginia."
Passage of the legislation by Virginia would make the state eligible for federal funding that could be used to hunt down outdoor poultry producers and lead to the shutdown of their operations.
"Nothing would make the huge poultry confinement operators happier than to squelch an increasingly popular competitor that consumers are flocking
to," Kastel added. "Consumers have discovered that the purveyors of organic and direct-market eggs and poultry raised in healthy, outdoor conditions offer a superior-tasting product, and that scares the huge confinement operations."
Kastel noted that it was no coincidence that the bill was being pushed by the Del-Mar-Va Poultry industry, a giant industrial poultry cooperative,
and by the state's Agribusiness Council and the Farm Bureau. Organic and sustainable farming advocates are concerned that this legislative initiative in Virginia is just the first in a battle that will spread to statehouses around the
nation.
Joel Salatin, a Virginia poultry farmer, is skeptical of the hype surrounding avian flu and domestic outdoor bird operations. "This has been an issue in Southeast Asia," said Salatin, "because of the extraordinarily unsanitary conditions their fowl are raised in." Pointing to China, Salatin explains that
"because of theft, families typically confine 200 birds in an 8' x 8' cage with no bedding provided. The birds are living on six to eight inches of raw fecal build-up and locked in unhygienic squalor."
These conditions in foreign lands stand in marked contrast to the way organic and sustainable growers raise poultry in the United States. Salatin calls his birds "pastured poultry" because his thousands of chickens and turkeys are
moved on a daily basis to fresh pasture paddocks and allowed to exhibit their natural, instinctive behaviors. Salatin, who has raised poultry for 50
years, strongly criticizes regulators and health experts for failing to grasp this different agricultural style: "Nobody-not the World Health
Organization, the European Union, or the USDA-has been willing to articulate the difference between
clean outdoor housing and unhygienic outdoor housing."
"Virginians should reject this ill-framed poultry proposal and allow its consumers and citizens freedom of choice in the food they want," Salatin added.
If federal experts are truly concerned about an avian flu outbreak in poultry flocks, Kastel suggests they look elsewhere. "Historically," Kastel observed, "Avian flu outbreaks have been concentrated in large, confinement, industrial-scale poultry facilities, where management is
theoretically practicing stringent bio-security measures."
Even before the latest flu scare, poultry industry lobbyists were advocating the change of organic poultry standards at the National Organic Standards Board by seeking removal of the federal requirement that organic birds have access to the outdoors. "Trade lobbyists were trying to gut federal law so that their clients can use their confinement practices," noted Kastel. "Should the
Virginia proposal pass, we think these same powerful forces will use it as a model for other states and try to achieve through the backdoor-and
under cover of the avian flu scare-what they've been unable to get from the National Organic
Standards Board."
Consumers and farmers interested in more information on this issue, and contact information for sending messages to the Virginia legislature, can visit Cornucopia's Web page at http://www.cornucopia.org (http://www.cornucopia.org).