Bushs Push for Martial Law 1Oct08

8/14/2019 Bushs Push for Martial Law 1Oct08

1/24

BUSHS PUSH FOR MARTIAL LAW!!

TASKING OF US ARMY 3ID 1CB ON AMERICAN SOIL

UNDER NORTHCOM 1OCT08

AND THE FIGHT TO STOP ITS IMPLEMENTATION!!

EXCERPT FROM BUSH SIGNING STATEMENT:

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act,

which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress aprecondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandatingsuch consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisionsconcerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and thePresident to execute the laws.

Leahy Concerned about NorthComs New Army Unit

By Matthew Rothschild (I dont like this name whatsoever, and he thinks 911 Truth isnt so hesucks, but the article is fairly accurate!!) , October 7, 2008

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx100708.html

Senator Patrick Leahy is concerned about the Pentagons decision to designate an Army unit to

Northern Command.
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx100708.htmlhttp://www.progressive.org/mag/wx100708.html


2/24

On October 1, the Pentagon, for the first time ever, dedicated an Army force specifically to

NorthCom, which is in charge of securing not some foreign region but the United States of

America.

The unit it assigned is the 3rd Infantry, First Brigade Combat Team, which has spent three of the

last five years in Iraq. It was one of the first units to get to Baghdad, and it was active in retaking

and patrolling Fallujah. One of its specialties is counterinsurgency.

This marks a change for NorthCom, which was established on October 1, 2002. Its website still

says it has few permanently assigned forces, and that the command is assigned forces

whenever necessary to execute missions, as ordered by the President and the Secretary of

Defense.

Leahy asked for a briefing from his staff on this development and wants to monitor the

situation, an aide to Leahy said.

Leahy was instrumental in getting Congress to repeal the Insurrection Act Rider in the 2006

defense appropriations bill. That rider had given the President sweeping power to use military

troops in ways contrary to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. The rider authorized the

President to have troops patrol our streets in response to disasters, epidemics, and any condition

he might cite.

Leahy said last December that this rider made it easier for the President to take over the Guard

and to declare martial law. In a Senate statement on April 24, 2007, he cautioned againstinserting the military into domestic situations. As he put it: One of the distinguishing

characteristics of the United States is that we do not use the military to patrol our communities

and neighborhoods. A few months before that, he warned that we must ensure that the military

is not used in a way that offends and endangers some of our most cherished values and liberties.

The repeal of the rider was signed by Bush on January 28, though Amy Goodman reports thatBush attached a signing statement that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

The roles the 1st Brigade Combat Team will take on at NorthCom are a bit unclear.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control, said the Army Times

when it first reported on it. These duties would be in addition to dealing with potentially horrific

scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological,

nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Soldiers in the unit also will learn how to use the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has

field, 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control

equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals withoutkilling them, the article noted.

Cloutier even bragged to the Army Times: I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered.

The Army Times has since issued a correction, stating that the non-lethal crowd control

package is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S.


3/24

NorthComs own press release of September 30 says, This response force will not be called

upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance, or crowd control.

The unit will have its regular weapons, however. It will store other weapons in containers, and

will have access to tanks, as Amy Goodman has reported and the Pentagon has confirmed.

The Army is taking a strong interest in this deployment.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey personally observed the combat teams training exercise,

entitled Vibrant Response, which was held at Fort Stewart, Georgia, last month. According toNorthComs public affairs department, Gen. Casey pointed out that being part of the new force

requires a shift in thinking for soldiers who are accustomed to taking charge.

One soldier in the exercise said he learned that the troops should preposition containers and

equipment.

NorthComs website, in a section on frequently asked questions about Joint Task ForcesCivil

Support, cites DoD Directive 3025.1 as laying out the criteria for how the Pentagon willrespond in domestic situations.

That directive talks about military support in dealing with the actual or anticipated consequences

of civil emergencies. Those civil emergencies could be arising during peace, war, or transition

to war.

While it states that such support does not include military support to local law enforcement,

there is a provision in the directive for the military to take over functions of the civilian

government.

Military personnel shall not perform any function of civil government unless absolutely

necessary on a temporary basis under conditions of Immediate Response. Any commander who isdirected, or undertakes, to perform such functions shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil

responsibility at the earliest possible time, the document states.

Under this Immediate Response exception, local military commanders can even act withoutprior approval from their superiors. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil

emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible

officials of other DoD agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property

damage, it says. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from

higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD

Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be

provide by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil

authorities.

The Pentagons decision to dedicate the First Brigade Combat Team to NorthCom has raised

alarms, especially in the context of the current economic crisis. In Bushs National Security

Presidential Directive 51, he lays out his authority in the event of a catastrophic emergency. In

such an emergency, the President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for

ensuring constitutional government and will coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments,

along with private sector owners of infrastructure.


4/24

NSPD 51 defines a catastrophic emergency as any incident, regardless of location, that results in

extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S.

population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.

Notice the use of the word or above. In our current circumstances, it might be more relevant to

read the definition this way: any incident . . . that results in extraordinary levels of . . . disruption

severely affecting the U.S. . . . economy.

President Bush could declare a catastrophic emergency today. And hed have the 3rd Infantry,

First Brigade Combat Team, well trained from its years patrolling Iraq, at his disposal here at

home.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Matthew Rothschild was on Democracy Now! on October 7 debating Army

Col. Michael Boatner, USNORTHCOM future operations division chief.

Addendum:

On the House floor, on October 1, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, 27th District, said thefollowing about the threats that were being issued over the bailout bill: The only way they can

pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified.

Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, the

sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and another

couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial

law in America if we voted no.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html

President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner NationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Actauthorizes funding for the defense of the United States and itsinterests abroad, for military construction, for national security-relatedenergy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.

Several provisions of the Act call for executive branchofficials to submit to the Congress recommendations for

legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which thePresident formulates recommendations to the Congress forlegislation. These provisions include sections 516(h),575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008,1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended bysection 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 asamended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of theRonald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by

White House News
http://www.whitehouse.gov/rss/news.xmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/rss/news.xml


5/24

section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with thePresident's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for theconsideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultationwith specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but notmandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate

powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or otherentities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227,1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of theAct, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005(Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe suchprovisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information thedisclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of theExecutive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit theSecretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, atreaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire to

maintain and operate that warship. If construed as mandatory rather than advisory, the provision wouldimpermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs andas Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe section 1211, which purports to require the executive branch toundertake certain consultations with foreign governments and follow certain steps in formulating andexecuting U.S. foreign policy, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities toconduct the Nation's foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

As is consistent with the principle of statutory construction of giving effect to each of two statutes addressingthe same subject whenever they can co-exist, the executive branch shall construe section 130d of title 10,as amended by section 1405 of the Act, which provides further protection against disclosure of certainhomeland security information in certain circumstances, as in addition to, and not in derogation of, thebroader protection against disclosure of information afforded by section 892 of the Homeland Security Act of

2002 and other law protecting broadly against disclosure of such information.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 17, 2006.

The Warner Act: A Martial Law Enabling Acthttp://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2007/02/warner-act-martial-law-enabling-act.html

I'm reposting an excellent article by Frank Morales that was written in October

2006 about the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. This act was

passed by Congress in October and signed by Bush the same day he signed the

Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Warner Act, however, was signed in a
http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2007/02/warner-act-martial-law-enabling-act.htmlhttp://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2007/02/warner-act-martial-law-enabling-act.html


6/24

private ceremony and hardly anyone has even heard about it. When I speak to

groups most of the time no one raises their hand when I ask if anyone knows

about this law.

In effect, the Warner Act enables martial law. It overrides the Posse Comitatus

Act that dates from the civil war and that prohibits the use of military forces in

domestic affairs. The Warner Act allows the President to take control over the

National Guard units over the objections of state governors and use the guard to

conduct roundups, mass detentions and anything else that might be justified by

him upon his declaration of a "public emergency." The legislation specifies that

should the President deem it necessary to declare a public emergency that he

must consult with a select group of Congress members to tell them why he is

doing this and what he is doing. In Bush's signing statement he declares in

essence that he reserves the right notto consult with anyone:

"The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which

purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition

to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as

is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of

the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws."

In other words, he can declare martial law and not tell anyone why he's doing it

or what he's doing. There is a word for this: dictatorship. Yet, in spite of this

outrageous law and his outrageous signing statement, the media have been silent

on this. We, the people, however, cannot be silent in the face of these moves

towards a fascist state.

"Bush Moves Towards Martial Law"

by Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which,

according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.htmlhttp://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.htmlhttp://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/


7/24

President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection

Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the

United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along

with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict

prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one

cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007"

(H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th,

2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public

emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-

based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local

authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he

signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two

laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad,

while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the

military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area

under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon

another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the

Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public

emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President

may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to

restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of

a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist

attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United

States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an

extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of

("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any

State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."


8/24

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order"

means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local

governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state;

conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against

"disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced

vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters,

so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for

detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by

Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration

emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention

camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone

who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider

"Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that

"global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown &

Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure

division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract

to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the

event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five

year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing

capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) -

in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the

rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the

engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to

authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion

"supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military

maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the

president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic


9/24

divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly

consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S.

imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and

seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is

an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The

1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances

expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any

part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the

laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or

both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed

against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has

been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an

unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to

enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with

American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused

citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as

we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this

authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no

outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in

Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted

that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to

allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to

the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to

use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's

governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier


10/24

for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the

military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of

our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an

emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has

never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the

Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of

the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language

of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that

limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for

the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a

rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction

over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these

proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the

implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is

good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes

to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against

one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting

the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare

martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago

that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to

this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the

Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the

dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now

an accomplished fact.


11/24

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law

operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology

Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a

Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness

of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying

relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd

control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the

Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further

codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-

Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the

Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people

have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls

at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to

take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the

ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this

juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

Source:

(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional

Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster

Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14,

2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent

Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott,

"Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American


12/24

Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National

Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

Secret Bush Administration Plan to Suspend US Constitution

"Continuity of Government" (COG) Provisions activated in 2001

by Tom Burghardt

Global Research, October 6, 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10473

Ten months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved an updated version ofthe U.S. Army's secret operational Continuity of Government (COG)plans.

A draft document published by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks

entitled, "Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment of Armyand Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program,"dated 19 January 2001, spells out changes in Army doctrine.

Issued by Headquarters, Department of the Army and signed off bySecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Secretary of the Army,the document is affixed with a warning: "Destruction Notice: Destroyby any method that will prevent disclosure of contents orreconstruction of the document." The restricted document as publishedby Wikileaks states:

History. This regulation is a revision of the original regulation thatwas effective on 10 July 1989. Since that time, no changes have beenpublished to amend the original.

Summary. This regulation on the Army Continuity of Operations(COOP) Program has been revised to update Army COOP policy andextend the requirement for all-hazards COOP planning to all Army
http://www.globalresearch.ca/http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10473http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdfhttp://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileakshttp://www.globalresearch.ca/http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10473http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdfhttp://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks


13/24

organizations. Classified information contained in the 1989 version ofthis AR has been removed and placed in a classified HQDA OperationsPlan (OPLAN).

Applicability. This regulation applies to the Active Army, the U.S.

Army Reserve (USAR), and when federalized to the ArmyNational Guard(ARNG). In the event of conflict between thisregulation and approved OSD or JCS publications, the provisions of thelatter will apply. ("Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment ofArmy and Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP)Program," 19 January 2001, p. 3) [emphasis added]

"All-hazards COOP planning" is described as the means by which "theArmy remains capable of continuing mission-essential operationsduring any situation, including military attack, terrorist activities, andnatural or man-made disasters." While the Army stresses the updatesdescribed in AR 500-3 relate to chemical, biological, nuclear attacks,"natural disasters" and "technical or man-made disasters oraccidents," current Army doctrine is also heavily weighted towardscontingency planning for "civil disturbances."

Two national "civil disturbance" plans, Garden Plot and Cable Splicerhave been operational since the 1960s. Researcher Frank Morales hasdetailed how,

Under the heading of "civil disturbance planning," the U.S. military is

training troops and police to suppress democratic opposition inAmerica. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil DisturbancePlan 55-2, is code-named, "Operation Garden Plot". Originated in1968, the "operational plan" has been updated over the last threedecades, most recently in 1991, and was activated during the LosAngeles "riots" of 1992, and more than likely during the recent anti-WTO "Battle in Seattle." ...

Equipped with flexible "military operations in urban terrain" and"operations other than war" doctrine, lethal and "less-than-lethal"high-tech weaponry, US "armed forces" and "elite" militarized policeunits are being trained to eradicate "disorder", "disturbance" and "civildisobedience" in America. Further, it may very well be thatpolice/military "civil disturbance" planning is the animating force andthe overarching logic behind the incredible nationwide growth of policeparamilitary units, a growth which coincidentally mirrors rising levelsof police violence directed at the American people, particularly "non-white" poor and working people. (Frank Morales, "U.S. Military Civil


14/24

Disturbance Planning: The War at Home," in Police State America, ed.Tom Burghardt, Toronto/Montreal: Arm The Spirit/Solidarity, 2002, P.59)

AR 500-3 should be viewed in this context. Plans for Continuity of

Government have been in place since the 1950s. Originally conceivedduring the Cold War when fears of a nuclear strike envisaged byatomic war-gamers at the RAND Corporation, believed that animmobilization of government functions and a breakdown of civilianrule would follow a nuclear attack. But from their inception, COGplanning has been shrouded in secrecy.

In addition to constructing nuclear-proof underground facilities wherethe civilian leadership could escape a decapitation strike, other COGprovisions included a series of executive orders designating whichofficials would assume Cabinet-level posts and other Executive Branchpositions. Officials so designated would constitute a "shadowgovernment" should office holders be killed in an attack "or otherwiseincapacitated."

However, when these and other Pentagon "civil disturbance" planssurfaced in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra hearings, they wereroundly criticized by members of Congress, civil liberties groups andthe media before disappearing once again, down Orwell's "memoryhole." The inherent dangers implicit in such plans are that unelectedExecutive Branch officers could assume the Presidency and other

appointed offices subject neither to congressional scrutiny nor judicialoversight.

Exercising sweeping emergency powers buried within PresidentialDecision Directives (PDDs), unelected officials could suspend theConstitution, declare martial law and create an Executive Branchdictatorship that rests solely on the power of the U.S. military.

Most troubling, Executive Branch officials under secret rules of a COGregime could suppress and usurp the lawful powers of Congress andthe Judicial Branch (by force of arms if deemed necessary) as a meansof ensuring "cooperation" under a "unitary executive."

As we have seen, the "unitary executive" theory has been a salientfeature of Bushist rule since the December 2000judicial coup d'tat,when the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision handed a contestedelection to George W. Bush by stopping the vote count in Florida.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/elec-d14.shtmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/elec-d14.shtml


15/24

Since assuming office, the administration has ruthlessly wieldedexecutive power in order to achieve their antidemocratic agenda: fromthe looting of the economy through "deregulation," massive deficitspending and tax cuts for their corporate "clients," to waging apreemptive war of conquest in Iraq, the "unitary executive" has

systematically shredded America's constitutional system of checks andbalances.

The Bush administration put COG plans into operation for the first timein U.S. history in the hours directly following the September 11, 2001terrorist attacks. They have never been rescinded.

Their implementation involves a rotating staff of 75-150 seniorgovernment officials and others from every Cabinet department in two"secure, undisclosed locations" on the East Coast. However, keycongressional representatives have been kept out of the loop andHouse and Senate leaders have said they were not informed the"shadow government" had "gone live."

So secretive are Bush administration plans that Peter DeFazio (D-OR),a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, was deniedaccess in 2007 to the classified version of the COG plans contained intop secret Presidential Decision Directive annexes. This too, isunprecedented.

While the Bush administration admitted that COG was activated in

2001, their disclosure came only after The Washington Postbrokethe story based on confidential administration sources troubled by thescope of the program and its secretive implementation.

Since the late 1980s, Rumsfeld was a habitu of COG exercises alongwith Vice President Dick Cheney. Indeed early COG drills had beenorganized by the right-wing Center for Strategic and InternationalStudies (CSIS). As investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn revealedin his definitive political biography of the former Defense Secretary:

This highly secret program was known as Project 908, and among theindividuals earmarked to take power when disaster struck was DonaldRumsfeld. ... There, for several days, he would be immured in artificialcaverns, staring at electronic displays streaming data of disaster andconfusion, sleeping on cots and subsisting on the most austere rations....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20584-2002Feb28.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20584-2002Feb28.html


16/24


17/24

most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system wasset up in 1946."

Sweeping indeed! Last monthArmy Times reported that the Army's"3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35

of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helpingrestore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they'retraining for the same mission--with a twist--at home." According toArmy Times,

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component ofNorthern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural ormanmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. ...

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has beengiven a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint commandestablished in 2002 to provide command and control for federalhomeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civilauthorities. ...

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control orto deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoningand chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear orhigh-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. ...

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first evernonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commanderCol. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic controlequipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly ordangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they'refielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the firsttime that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded,and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to getit."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spikestrips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons;and, beanbag bullets. (Gina Cavallaro, "Brigade Homeland Tours StartOct. 1,"Army Times, September 8, 2008)
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/


18/24

While senior Pentagon brass have downplayed the significance ofdeploying a BCT that has taken part in aggressive occupation duties tosuppress the Iraqi people's resistance, Col. Lou Vogler, NORTHCOM'schief of future operations said in an interview that the military "willintegrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make

sure we're aware of any threats." An article published by theArmyNews Service disclosed,

During the exercise, commanders and staff of the force will train,rehearse and exercise--from academic classes to making decisions andexecuting orders--all to help prepare them for the mission they willassume on Oct. 1, said Vogler.

"It's an opportunity for network building in an unprecedentedassignment of forces," said [Marine Corps Lt. Col.] Shores. "DODalways had allocated contingency sourced forces--but this isprecedent-setting network building with the forces that we ultimatelywill go out and execute with. It's an opportunity to get to know ourforces, to see them in execution, to mission-orient them and be thatmuch better--to be that much more responsive."

One goal of the exercise is to exercise with partners from the civilianagencies they would support. To that end, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) and other interagency representativesare participating to ensure integration with civilian consequencemanagers who would lead a response, said Vogler.

"The overall federal response builds on the local and state response inaccordance with the incident command system and existing plans andprocesses that are out there," said Vogler. "The response force wouldsupplement local efforts."("Consequence Management Response Forceto join Army Northern Command,"Army News Service, September 15,2008)

Vogler and Shores were discussing an exercise code-named VibrantResponse, that took place September 8-19 at Fort Stewart in Georgia.Three brigades form the core of NORTHCOM's ConsequenceManagement Response Force: the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd ArmyDivision; the 1st Medical Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82ndCombat Aviation Brigade, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. All three unitsparticipated in Vibrant Response.

As researcher and analyst Michel Chossudovsky comments:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/09/sec-080915-arnews02.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/09/sec-080915-arnews02.htmhttp://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10341http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/09/sec-080915-arnews02.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/09/sec-080915-arnews02.htmhttp://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10341


19/24

The BCT is an army combat unit designed to confront an enemy withina war theater.

With US forces overstretched in Iraq, why would the Pentagon decideto undertake this redeployment within the USA, barely one month

before the presidential elections?

The new mission of the 1st Brigade on US soil is to participate in"defense" efforts as well as provide "support to civilian authorities".

What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is thepresumption that North America could, in the case of a nationalemergency, constitute a "war theater" thereby justifying thedeployment of combat units.

The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressingcivil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement.

What we are dealing with is a militarization of civilian police activitiesin derogation of the Posse Comitatus Act. ("Pre-election Militarizationof the North American Homeland. US Combat Troops in Iraqrepatriated to 'help with civil unrest'," Global Research, September 26,2008)

One scenario envisaged by Chossudovsky is that "civil unrest resultingfrom from the financial meltdown is a distinct possibility, given the

broad impacts of financial collapse on lifelong savings, pension funds,homeownership, etc."

One might reasonably inquire, what "precedent-setting network" doesthe Army have in mind that would "ensure integration" with "civilianagencies" such as FEMA (a branch of Homeland Security)? As theWorld Socialist Web Sitereports:

It is noteworthy that the deployment of US combat troops "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies anddisasters"--in the words of the Army Times--coincides with the

eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disastersince the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of thegrowing preparations for the use of US military force within America'sborders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the dangerthat they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mili-s25.shtmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mili-s25.shtml


20/24

armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to thegrowing threat to political stability. (Bill Van Auken, "Army deployscombat unit in U.S. for possible civil unrest," World Socialist Web Site,25 September 2008)

As the 2001 COOP planning document describes, a host of on-goingArmy plans and exercises have been revised by the Bushadministration. In addition to Vibrant Response discussed above, theyinclude: Plan EXCALIBUR, a COG Army training exercise; ADOBE,described by investigative journalist William M. Arkin as a "FEMAcontinuity of government special access program designation." Arkindescribes special access programs or SAPs as,

Classified research and development, acquisition program, operation,intelligence activity, or plan that is so sensitive or critical that thevalue of the information warrants enhanced protection beyond thatnormally provided for access to Confidential, Secret, or Top Secretinformation. (William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. MilitaryPlans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World, Hanover, NH:Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 598)

The impetus for revising Army COOP was, according to AR 500-3primarily because,

The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Unionsignificantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on

CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Armyorganizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potentialfor interruption of normal operations. To emphasize that Armycontinuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazardsthreat spectrum, the name "ASRRS" has been replaced by the moregeneric title "Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program."(p. 13)

Towards this end, the Rumsfeld-era document states that the Army'snew "mission-critical" functions will be restructured so that, "ArmyCOOP plans must ensure that the Army remains capable of continuingmission-essential operations during any situation, including militaryattack, terrorist activities, and natural or man-made disasters." (p. 13)The Army, following various contingencies analyzed in the documentwill "coordinate with mission-essential external organizations andagencies." (p. 14)

So sensitive are the political ramifications of these plans that under theheading, 3-12 Operational Security (OPSEC), the Army avers,


21/24

a. The success of COOP planning relies on denying access byunauthorized parties to information on COOP plans, procedures,capabilities and facilities.

b. Overhead imagery, signals intelligence, human sources, and

exploitation of open literature during peacetime are threat capabilitiesused to gain knowledge of Army emergency plans, command andcontrol systems, and facilities.

c. See Appendix B, Security Classification Guide, for guidance on thelevel of classification of COOP-related information. (COOP, op. cit., p.20)

Appendix A of AR 500-3 lists relevant references for changes includedin the COOP planning document. These include:

Section I

Required Publications

HQDA Operations Plan EXCALIBUR, 30 April 1999 (Being Revised)

HQDA Continuity of Operations Plan (cited in para 1-4.f)

Section II

Related Publications a related publication is merely a source ofadditional information. The user does not have to read it tounderstand this publication.

Executive Order 12656

National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP), 18 November

1988

DoD Directive (Dodd) 2000.12

DoD Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Program, 13 April 1999

CJCSM 3410.01


22/24

Continuity of Operations Plan for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff (COOP-CJCS), 1 March 1999

Executive Order 12787

Prescribing the Order of Succession of Officers to Act as Secretary ofDefense, 31 December 1991

DoDD 3020.26

Continuity of Operations (COOP) Policy and Planning, 26 May 1995

DoD 3020.26P

Continuity of Operations Plan, 21 June 2000 (Classified SECRET)

DoDD 3020.36

Assignment of National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP)Responsibilities to DoD Components, 2 November 1988

DoDD 3025.15

Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA), 18 February 1997

The Federal Response Plan, April 1999

Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 67, (Top Secret) EnduringConstitutional Government (ECG) and Continuity of Government

(COG) Operations, Oct 21, 1998

Federal Preparedness Circular 65, Federal Executive BranchContinuity of Operations, (COOP), July 26, 1999

As Peter Dale Scott reported in CounterPunch, apparently members ofCongress are considered "unauthorized parties" to be denied access"to information on COOP plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities."
http://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.htmlhttp://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.html


23/24

Congressman DeFazio had been denied access to the classifiedannexes of National Security and Homeland Security PresidentialDirective (NSPD 51/HSPD 20) Scott wrote,

NSPD 51 contains "classified Continuity Annexes" which shall "be

protected from unauthorized disclosure." Congressman DeFazio twicerequested to see these Annexes, the second time in a letter cosignedby House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompsonand Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney. It wasthese requests that the White House denied. ...

DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less thanreassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannotenforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, thenthe systems of checks and balances established by the U.S.Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustratingDeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably alreadysuperseded the Constitution as a higher authority. (Peter Dale Scott,"The Showdown," CounterPunch, March 31, 2008)

With the stunning revelations published by Wikileaks, it is abundantlyclear that top Bush administration officials were busily revisingContinuity of Government plans, including "civil disturbance"contingencies for suspending the Constitution and imposing martial

law, long before the 9/11 attacks.

Since that fatal and tragic day seven long years ago, we have beentold repeatedly by the government and their media sycophants that9/11 was the day "when everything changed."

We now know thanks to Wikileaks, that as with the invasion andoccupation of Iraq, the unprecedented and lawless surveillance ofAmericans, the illegal detention and torture of prisoners of war, thatBush administration assertions are no more than a pack of murderouslies.

One fact is abundantly clear from the mass of conflicting evidence andassertions made by proponents of various theories surrounding the9/11 events: AR 500-3 demonstrates that from the very first momentsafter being installed in office, the Bush regime was involved in a"controlled demolition" of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html


24/24

Tom Burghardtis a researcher and activist based in the SanFrancisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert ActionQuarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of PoliceState America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributedbyAK Press.

Tom Burghardt is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articlesby Tom Burghardt
http://www.akpress.org/2002/items/policestateamericahttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Tom&authorName=Burghardthttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Tom&authorName=Burghardthttp://www.akpress.org/2002/items/policestateamericahttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Tom&authorName=Burghardthttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Tom&authorName=Burghardt

Bushs Push for Martial Law 1Oct08

Documents

Transcript of Bushs Push for Martial Law 1Oct08