http://www.oilempire.us/redalert.

html
GET THE PICS AFTER 'THEY' LET ME! CLICK ABOVE LINK

Red alert
FEMA camps, martial law and
indefinite detention without trial

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize
commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to
duty, institute martial law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans...
"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should
he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority
in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.
"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent
history records Hitler seizing control through the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in
the laws of the Weimar Republic."
-- Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) September 30, 1973
www.politechbot.com/p-00106.html

General Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge

of air defense on 9-11, was the first
commander of "Northern Command," the
domestic unified military command
established in October 2002. If the domestic
use of the U.S. military escalates into full-
scale martial law, the Northern Command
would essentially manage it. If 9/11 had
been an "intelligence failure," it is likely
that General Eberhart would have been
court-martialed instead of promoted.
www.counterpunch.com
March 16, 2006
Dachau's 73rd "Grand Anniversary" Celebrated
Feds Schedule $385 Million Concentration Camp To Be Built By Halliburton Subsidiary
By CLANCY SIGAL

The following article appeared in a Munich newspaper in 1933 to mark the "grand opening" of
Dachau, Germany's first concentration camp. This month marks the 73d anniversary:

Münchner Neueste Nachrichten,

Tuesday, March 21, 1933

A Concentration Camp for Political Prisoners in the Dachau Area

In a statement to the press, Himmler, Munich's Chief of Police announced:

On Wednesday the first concentration camp will be opened near Dachau. It has a capacity of
5000 people. Here, all communist and-so far as is necessary- Reichsbanner and Marxist officials,
who endanger the security of the state, will be assembled. In the long run, if government
administration is not to be very burdened, it is not possible to allow individual communist
officials to remain in court custody. On the other hand, it is also not possible to allow these
officials their freedom again. Each time we have attempted this, the result was that they again
tried to agitate and organize. We have taken these measures without concern for each pedantic
objection encountered, in the conviction that we act to calm the concerns of the nation's people,
and in accordance with their aims.

Himmler gave assurance that in each individual case, preventive custody will not be maintained
longer than necessary. It is obvious, however, that the astonishingly large quantity of material
evidence seized will take a long time to be examined. This police will only be delayed, if they are
continually asked when this or that person in preventive custody will be released. The
incorrectness of rumors frequently spread regarding the treatment of prisoners is shown by the
fact that for those prisoners who requested it, for example, Dr. Gerlich and Frhr. v. Aretin,
counseling by priests is supported and approved without hesitation.

Note: Himmler's reference to the 'Reichsbanner' is to a Social Democratic group, formed to oppose
Hitler's 1923 attempted putsch, that evolved into a fairly ordinary get-together society. The 'Dr
Gerlich' mentioned at the end (who was permitted to see a priest) was a devout Christian anti-Nazi
shot by the Gestapo at Dachau in 1934, his body burned. His widow refused his ashes.

Tom Ridge's Mea Culpa:

The Code Orange Terror Alerts were based on Fake Intelligence
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 12 May 2005
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/505A.html

Secret Police Concentration Camps www.hermes-press.com/gonzalez5.htm

In a revealing admission in June, 1997, the Director of Resource Management for the U.S. Army
confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor
program under development by the Department of the Army. The document states, "Enclosed for your
review and comment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization" and the
procedure to "establish civilian prison camps on installations."
Amid widespread rumors, Congressman Henry Gonzales clarified the question of the existence of
civilian detention camps. In an interview, Gonzalez stated, "The truth is yes -- you do have these stand
by provisions, and the plans are here...whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism...evoke
the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps."
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?
article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

News Analysis/Commentary, Peter Dale Scott,
New America Media, Jan 31, 2006

Editor's Note: A little-known $385 million contract for Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention
facilities for "an emergency influx of immigrants" is another step down the Bush administration's road
toward martial law, the writer says.

BERKELEY, Calif.--A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the
Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing
for "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." The release offered no details about where
Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

Iranian - Americans protest Ashkroft round-up (Los Angeles, CA)

Color Wheel of Fascism

www.falloutshelternews.com/ColorWheelFascism.html
a handy guide to terror alerts

Bush civil rights commissioner warns of detention camps

www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/kirs-j26.shtml

www.cryptome.org/garden-plot.htm
martial law plans are not new
("Homeland Security" is a term coined toward the end of the Clinton administration)

New Jersey says "red alert" means entire state must stay home --
MARTIAL LAW -- STATE OF SIEGE

www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm
Red alert? Stay home, await word
Sunday, March 16, 2003
By TOM BALDWIN
Gannett State Bureau TRENTON

If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror,
you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the
state's anti-terror czar says.
"This state is on top of it," said Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism.
Caspersen, a former FBI agent, was briefing reporters, alongside Gov. James E. McGreevey, on
Thursday, when for the first time he disclosed the realities of how a red alert would shut the state
down.
A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate.
"Red means all noncritical functions cease," Caspersen said. "Noncritical would be almost all
businesses, except health-related."
A red alert means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack, according to federal guidelines from the
Department of Homeland Security.
"The state will restrict transportation and access to critical locations," says the state's new brochure on
dealing with terrorism.
"You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities and prepare to evacuate, if instructed.
Stay alert for emergency messages."
Caspersen went further than the brochure. "The government agencies would run at a very low
threshold," he said.
"The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways.
"You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if
you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm."

www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030330codered0330p6.asp
Code Red would trigger a virtual lockdown
Top terror alert could shut landmarks, ground planes, stop trains or trigger roadblocks
Sunday, March 30, 2003
By Michael Collins, Scripps Howard News Service

WASHINGTON -- National landmarks such as the Washington Monument, Ellis Island and the
Gateway Arch in St. Louis could be shut down.
Planes could be grounded, trains could stop running, and bridges and tunnels could be closed. U.S.
borders might be sealed off, and roadblocks might be set up on interstates and other major highways.
The United States is prepared to go into lockdown mode if the government should raise the nation's
terror alert to Code Red, the highest threat level for terrorism. Code Red means there is a severe risk of
terrorist attack, or that an attack is imminent or may already be under way.
"It essentially means you stop doing everything except protecting yourself," said Dave McIntyre,
deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security, a nonprofit research group in Arlington,
Va.
Homeland security officials have put Americans on notice to brace for the possibility of terrorist
attacks while the country is at war with Iraq. The threat level was raised to orange, the second highest,
just two days before the war began March 19.
"There are no plans, nor have their been any discussions, about elevating the threat level to Code
Red," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
To trigger such an alert, U.S. intelligence would have to be "very specific, credible, corroborated [and]
provide us with information such as time, date, location" of a possible attack, Johndroe said.
Still, federal, state and local officials across the country are going over emergency plans to be prepared
in the event that the terror level should be raised to red.
Homeland security officials have been vague about what protective measures might be taken under
Code Red.
But Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said such measures might be similar to those put in
place Sept. 11, 2001, which means planes could be grounded, borders closed, government buildings
shut down and road and rail traffic curtailed.
The specific response would depend on the nature of the threat.
It's doubtful that the entire country would be placed under a Code Red alert, McIntyre said. A more
realistic scenario is that a red alert would result from a specific threat to a particular region or industry.
If, for example, there were a terrorist threat against the trucking industry in the Southeast, truck traffic
might be temporarily halted in that region but be allowed to continue elsewhere, McIntyre said.
Code Red wouldn't mean automatic closure of the Washington Monument and other national
landmarks. But superintendents at national parks have been advised that shutting down the facilities is
an option at their discretion, said David Barna, a spokesman for the National Park Service.
Security was tightened at eight high-profile landmarks, including the Washington Monument, the
Liberty Bell pavilion and the Statue of Liberty, after Sept. 11 because they are symbols of democracy
and are thus potential terrorist targets, Barna said.
Visitors at those landmarks now face airport-security type measures, such as metal detectors, bag
searches and checks for explosive devices. Patrols also have been stepped up since the terror alert was
raised to orange.
But Barna said the landmarks would remain open if possible because they are places of solace that
should be available to the public in times of war.
A Code Red alert also serves as an advisory to state and local officials, who then must decide whether
to put in place protective measures. Emergency plans will vary with each community, but might
include calling up the National Guard, closing government buildings and shutting down key roads and
bridges.
Some schools have plans to lock down their facilities during Code Red and already have begun
advising parents not to rush to pick up their children.
Residents would be advised to stay away from gathering places, such as sporting events, and listen to
the radio or television for instructions. They should be prepared to leave if necessary, but should
remain in their homes or offices until they are instructed to leave, McIntyre said.
"The worst thing you can do is to flee without reason," which could create gridlock on the streets and
keep emergency vehicles from getting through, he said.
Emergency measures taken under Code Red would be expensive and aren't intended to remain in
effect for extended periods, McIntyre said

www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21474~1251515,00.html
WASHINGTON
Should war with Iraq erupt, Southern Californians could find themselves living in a world of restricted
travel, constrained trade, closed schools and public buildings, canceled events and hypersecurity.
your tax dollars at work

Grand Central Station, New York City, February 2003

partial-martial law has already begun
Concentration Camps for Citizens - Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-turley14aug14.story
www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm

www.counterpunch.com/shivani0807.html
21st century police state

www.counterpunch.com/shivani0813.html
"What's next, concentration camps?"

www.counterpunch.org/valentine0824.html
Operation Phoenix and Homeland (in)Security

Phoenix program (vietnam war assassination program) vet runs part of Homeland Security agency

www.counterpunch.com/homeland1.html
more on Operation Phoenix - the model for Homeland inSecurity

Guantanamo - 'A Live Experiment

In Long-Term Interrogation'
Meanwhile 4,000 Miles Away In Guantanamo Bay, 660
Prisoners Have No Idea When They Will Be Freed
By Andrew Buncombe
The Independent - UK
11-19-2003

Indefinite Detention
There is a long list of outrages to our democratic rights in recent years - the "legalization" of indefinite
detention on the mere assertion of the president may be one of the most troubling yet.

Associated Press [US]

January 8th, 2003

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the government can hold U.S. citizens
as enemy combatants during wartime without the constitutional protections afforded Americans in
criminal prosecutions.
In overturning a lower court ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the
status of 21-year-old Yaser Esam Hamdi as a citizen did not change the fact he was captured in
Afghanistan while fighting alongside Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
"Judicial review does not disappear during wartime, but the review of battlefield captures in overseas
conflicts is a highly deferential one" to the government, the judges wrote.
Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the decision, calling it "an important victory for the president's
ability to protect the American people in times of war."
"Detention of enemy combatants prevents them from rejoining the enemy and continuing to fight
against America and its allies, and has long been upheld by our nation's courts, regardless of the
citizenship of the enemy combatant," Ashcroft said in a statement.
Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 after a prison uprising by suspected Taliban
and al-Qaida members. He was transported along with hundreds of other alleged enemy soldiers to a
prison at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It was discovered Hamdi had been born in Louisiana to Saudi parents, who later returned with their
son to Saudi Arabia.
He has been held in a naval brig in Norfolk, Va., since April.
Hamdi's case is seen by some as a major legal test case to determine the government's ability to hold
citizens without access to a lawyer or the courts. If Hamdi can be imprisoned in a military jail with
few of the constitutional protections afforded Americans facing criminal prosecution, critics say, then
other U.S. citizens could be similarly held.
A federal judge in Norfolk, Va., agreed, ruling in August that Hamdi should at least have a right to a
lawyer and a chance to see the government's evidence against him.
The circuit court agreed that the case raises serious questions about the rights of citizens but concluded
that, in wartime, the government's authority is supreme in deciding who may be held indefinitely.
Hamdi, the judges said, was "squarely within the zone of active combat" when captured and is being
lawfully detained. The courts, they added, have only limited authority to intervene in such national
security matters.
"Any effort to ascertain the facts concerning the petitioner's conduct while amongst the nation's
enemies would entail an unacceptable risk of obstructing war efforts authorized by Congress and
undertaken by the executive branch," the 54-page opinion said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=533&
e=3&cid=533&u=/ap/20030108/ap_on_go_ot/ afghan_american_prisoners
US prisoners from Afghanistan being flown to the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp (built
by Halliburton corporation, Dick Cheney's company)
photos leaked to the Art Bell show
note the total sensory deprivation (goggles, nose and mouth muzzle, ear muffs and lack of provisions
for bathroom functions (each prisoner has a towel under them to soak up urine)
Hi,
The following is a press release for the press conference organized in
support of Cpt. James Yee by Cecilia Chang of Justice for New
Americans here in San Francisco. This is the statement I will make on
behalf of the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force.
Marti HikenMilitary Law Task Force
National Lawyers Guild
318 Ortega Street
San Francisco, CA 94122
415-566-3732 * fax: 415-564-1945
Contact: Marti Hiken, co-chair MLTF
mlhiken@pacbell.net
November 12, 3003

My name is Marti Hiken. I'm co-chair of the NLG MLTF.

Cpt. Yousef (James) Lee was stationed at The U.S. Naval Base
Guantanamo -- a 45 square mile piece of land on the southeastern side
of Cuba. There is a 17.4 mile fence, guarded by 120 Marines,
separating the base from Cuba. He was one of about 3500 troops,
sailors, Coast Guard and intelligence agents on the base working at
the Navy airstrip and harbor, and the prison.
The U.S. Southern Command established The Joint Task Force- Guantanamo
to command the base. It states that its mission is to support detainee
operation activities at the Holding Facility for Al Qaeda, Taliban or
other terrorist personnel that come under US control as a result of
the ongoing War on Terrorism, and also to serve as the Department of
Defense's focal point for interrogation operations in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Camp Delta, Guantanamo is a concentration camp. Except for Auschwitz's
mass slaughter of its prisoners, Guantanamo is run no differently from
Manzanar or the German equivalents during WWII. Like Auschwitz,
Guantanamo is housed on foreign soil but controlled by the invading
country.
Cpt. Yousef Lee was one of the few who had contact with the prisoners
at this concentration camp.
The US government has systematically denied the human rights of those
660 imprisoned there. Some of them are teenagers, some are older than
80 years old. Attempted suicides, torture and the development of new
torture and control techniques is occurring in the name of the
American people.
The government is step-by-step eliminating all contact from anyone
having contact with the prisoners. The Lynn Stewart case is an
indication that this government will attempt to disbar any attorney
who provides defense and support to the "terrorist" clients.
After lawyers, who else would have access to the prisoners that the
government would eliminate? Chaplains. Thus, Chaplain Yee is arrested
and confined.
Who is next next in line? Translators. Ahmad Al-Halabi and Ahmed Fathy
Mehalba. Both currently confined in military brigs. They also had the
opportunity to meet solo with some of the prisoners.
The Camp Delta prisoners are held incommunicado, no charges, no
counsel. By excluding attorneys, chaplains, translators, the media,
and human rights organizations, the prisoners are left to the
interrogators and prison guards.
As with any concentration camp, ultimately the fact that it exists
will come back to haunt us as a people. Yee should be set free
immediately -- Camp Delta should be shut down and the entire base at
Guantanamo returned to the Cuban people.

Previous Plans for Martial Law

Vietnam War Protests, Iran-Contra
Ignored by American Society, Now the Plans Have Metastasized

from www.prorev.com/fema.htm
In a July 1983 series in the San Francisco Examiner, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Knut Royce
reported that a presidential directive had been drafted by a few Carter administration personnel in
1979 to allow the military to take control of the government for 90 days in the event of an emergency.
A caveat on page one of the directive said, "Keeping the government functioning after a nuclear war is
a secret, costly project that detractors claim jeopardizes US traditions and saves a privileged few."
According to Royce there was a heated debate within the Carter administration as to just what
constituted an "emergency."
The issue arose again during the Iran-Contra affair, but even in the wake of all the copy on that
scandal, the public got little sense of how far some America's soldiers of fortune were willing to go to
achieve their ends. When the Iran-Contra hearings came close to the matter, chair Senator Inouye
backed swiftly away. Here is an excerpt from those hearings. Oliver North is at the witness table:

REP BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned, at one time, to work
on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
BRENDAN SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman?
SEN INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I
request that you not touch on that.
REP BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and
several others, that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the
event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about
it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get
his confirmation.
SEN INOUYE; May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If
we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session

With few exceptions, the media ignored what well could be the most startling revelation to have come
out of the Iran/Contra affair, namely that high officials of the US government were planning a possible
military/civilian coup. First among the exceptions was the Miami Herald, which on July 5, 1987, ran
the story to which Jack Brooks referred. The article, by Alfonzo Chardy, revealed Oliver North's
involvement in plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take over federal, state and
local functions during an ill-defined national emergency.
The Constitution does not directly address the question of what should happen in the midst of a major
national catastrophe. But neither does it give the slightest support to notions of turning matters over to
non-elected civilian or military officials with plenary powers. The best guide is to be found in
Amendment Ten which states that the powers of the federal government are those delegated to it by
the states and the people. The states and the people have not delegated the power of martial law. Thus
in a true crisis (such as a nuclear attack) the answer seems quite plain: the country would be run as a
loose confederation of fifty states until a legitimate federal government could be re-established. In the
interim, the highest constitutional officials in the land would be the governors.

note: the Federal Emergency Managment Agency is one of the core components of the new
Department of Homeland Security.

Bringing the War Home

by Ron Ridenhour with Arthur Lubow
From New Times, 28 November 1975, Vol.5, No.11, pp. 18, 20-24.
The Pentagon is training police and guardsmen to help the army crush any revolt in the streets of
America. It's part of a detailed secret plan that could end up crushing our liberties.
www.namebase.org/ppost14.html

http://www.rightwingslayer.blogspot.com
From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil
defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987
Iran-Contra scandal.They included executive orders providing for
suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law,
internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president
and FEMA.
A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA
director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial
law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr
Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black
militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million
American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps".
Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security
initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps
and martial law in the United States.
When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he
issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with broad powers in the event of a "crisis"
such as "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition
against a US military invasion abroad".
They were never used. The plan, which was modeled after a plan that
Reagan and Edwin Meese had developed in California to deal with black
activists, anti-war protesters and members of the student Free Speech
Movement, involved the cooperation of a number of agencies, including
the Immigration and Naturalization Service which took steps to establish
a network of detention centers capable of holding thousands of
undocumented aliens.
Foundations are in place for martial law in the US
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html
Oliver North's Private Network
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/Heart_North_CoverUp_BDF.html

www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911p10.html
Domestic Terrorism: General Ashcroft's
"Enemy Citizens," Martial Law and Internment Camps

One of General Ashcroft's campaigns that has received a minimum of coverage in the press are efforts
to set up detention and internment camps in the United States as part of preparations for the possibility
of declaring martial law. This past summer, journalist Ritt Goldstein wrote two articles -- "Foundations
are in place for martial law in the US" and "Internment Camps and Authoritarian US Fast Becoming
Reality" [49] -- that detail how "democratic freedoms which have long defined American life are
under seige." http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/martialLaw.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/internment.html
This goes back to President Jimmy Carter's creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) through Executive Order 12148 in 1979. While FEMA's charter originally called for planning
and training activities concerning "natural disasters, nuclear war, the possibility of enemy attack on
U.S. territory, and incidents involving domestic civil unrest," it was with the advent of the Reagan era
in 1981 that FEMA's scope was augmented to be a "national emergency" entity, headed by a federal
"emergency czar".[50]
"The birth of FEMA's dark side originated in secret during the Reagan administration. FEMA's
domestic disaster management role was then broadened to allow it to practice for the imposition of
martial law and the internment of so-called aliens and radicals. During this period, a joint exercise was
held with the military to prepare for such a contingency, Rex-84. Concurrently, FEMA began
assembling files on those whom the Agency might target. . . . The exercise's purpose was to test
military capabilities in anticipation of `civil disturbances, major demonstrations', incidentally
illustrating the evolution of civil defense into civil control." [51]
After a period of abuse of power, culminating with the constitutional crisis later labeled Iran Contra
(which was never fully revealed in public as vital moments during congressional hearings were
conducted behind closed doors [52]), then Attorney General William French Smith concluded that
activities FEMA had been involved in were openly unconstitutional including compiling dossiers on
those it might seek to intern. "The FBI challenged FEMA's right to pursue domestic spying, resulting
in FEMA's turning over `12,000 political dossiers' to the Bureau." [53]
FEMA's involvement in martial law plans surfaced momentarily during the Iran Contra hearings.
What was arguably the most important question of those hearings never got a public answer. In July
2002, Southwestern University School of Law Professor Butler Shaffer pondered the question, "Will a
Police State Protect Your Liberty?":
"It requires no great genius or years of scholarly study to understand how the future is implicit in the
present. In July, 1987, the Miami Herald, along with some other newspapers, ran news stories about
secret plans, in the Reagan White House, to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, turn over
the functioning of the US government to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and have
military commanders running state and local governments, in the event of a national crisis. One of the
architects of this plan was the conservative godling, Lt. Col. Oliver North. There were even rumors, in
some circles, that government concentration camps were being readied for such a possibility.
"While news of such a plan failed to arouse the attention of most legislators, there was one --
Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas -- who, during the Iran-Contra hearings then being conducted,
sought to question North about such reports. Brooks was quickly cut off by the Committee chairman,
Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye. In the New York Times report of July 14, 1987, Inouye told Brooks:
`that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area,' to which Brooks responded: `I read
in Miami papers and several others that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency [NSC],
a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American Constitution.' Inouye
concluded: `May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon, at this stage. If we
wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.' In other words,
Sen. Inouye was determined to live up to the pronunciation of his name: `in no way' are we going to
let the public know what we have planned for them!" [54]
It is not publically known what process and command structures of FEMA's past are deceased,
dormant or active today. Goldstein cites an August 15th 2002 Los Angeles Times story recounting
``Ashcroft's announced desire to create "camps for US citizens he deems to be `enemy combatants'"
[and that] Ashcroft aides "have indicated that a `high-level committee' will recommend which citizens
are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps"''.[55] This is
described in conjunction with a July 15th NewsMax.com story that FEMA is pursuing a "crash effort"
to build "sprawling temporary cities to handle millions".
John Ashcroft resorts to euphemistic subterfuge when he pretends that he can simply rename a citizen
of the U.S. as an "enemy combatant". With Ashcroft's penchant for portraying 9-11 as an act of war, he
is now seeking to strip any American he wants to target of their constitutional rights and liberties by
labeling them "enemy combatant". In terms of Americans, General Ashcroft should call such person's
"enemy citizens" since such person is still protected by our constitutional system of law, even if
Ashcroft would rather deny them their rights.
Given General Ashcroft's zeal to create camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants"
(although FEMA's public claim is to handle millions of displaced persons in the event of a terrorist
attack), it is not unreasonable to expect such camps will be employed to intern Americans. What
would be Ashcroft's grounds for internment? Many people will go to the streets to challenge the
brazen and continued aggrandizement of power in the hands of the Chief Executive and his officers if
another alleged terrorist attack supplies them with more justification to identify and lock up enemy
citizens.
FEMA's activities during Reagan's terms included national training exercises in preparation for a
suspension of the constitution in case of massive domestic political turmoil. The Department of
Homeland Security intends to "build upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as
one of its key components." [56] Goldstein stresses that FEMA's 1980s downfall (of pursuing openly
unconstitutional goals) "was a direct outgrowth of its pursuit of proactive methods, its attempt to
legitimize the assumption of extraordinary powers under the very cloak of `counterterrorism'."
"At present, the final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national
crisis plan, remains beyond public knowledge. But given the `War On Terror's' scope, even if a formal
crisis is not declared, speculation exists that a de facto drift into an effective deployment of FEMA's
crisis powers could occur. And this February, the former FEMA executive, John Brinkerhoff, who
reportedly drafted the martial law/internment portions of the national crisis plan, revealed it was
`approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it.'" [57]
"A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's
deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be
similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat `a national uprising by black militants'. It
provided for the detention `of at least 21 million American Negroes' in `assembly centres or relocation
camps'." [58]
General Ashcroft clearly is up to the task he believes he faces. Given last December's performance,
when he aggressively bullied the Senate Judiciary Committee with extreme doublespeak such as "To
those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics
only aid terrorists" and "terrorists are taught how to use America's freedoms as a weapon against us", it
would be more accurate to charge the General with applying newspeak tactics to promote his idea of
freedoms as a weapon against the people of this nation-state.
It is not clear how far the General's zealotry will carry him and us. Nat Hentoff, writing on September
4th about "General Ashcroft's Detention Camps, Time to Call for His Resignation" notes the status of
two American citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, currently "locked up in military brigs as
`enemy combatants.'"
"In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off
Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man
from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the
government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the
judiciary has no right to even interfere. . . .
"Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times
editorial -- written before those plans were revealed -- said: `The Bush administration seems to
believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can
imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two
centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is
defending in the struggle against terrorism.'
"Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of
Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the
constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic
leadership." [59]
As with the bedrock of law in the international arena, we are now witnessing the Bush II repudiation
of two centuries of the domestic span of constitutional law undermining the basis of freedoms we
presume to be cast in concrete and impermeable to the wiles of such aggrandizement of power. This
nullification is being justified behind the all-encompassing façade of a holy "war" against, not a
another national entity, but an ambiguous idea that means different things to different people. The
supine leadership of Congress is in collusion with this renunciation of constitutional law proceeding
apace, given that Congress is not exercising its constitutionally mandated powers of oversight over the
Department of Justice.
Last month Mr. Hentoff wrote about retired California Congressman Don Edwards as "the
Congressman from the Constitution". On August 10th Edwards received the American Bar
Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for his "unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its
values throughout his career."
"He served in the House from 1962 to 1995; for 23 years, Don was chair of the House Subcommittee
on Civil and Constitutional Rights-which has oversight of the FBI. Himself a former FBI agent, Don
set unprecedentedly high standards for containing the FBI within the bounds of the Constitution, very
much including the Bill of Rights. . . .
"In the 1970s, Edwards -- along with Senator Frank Church and his committee -- exposed the FBI's
pervasive abuses of civil liberties in J. Edgar Hoover's Cointelpro (counter-intelligence program),
which monitored, infiltrated, and disrupted entirely lawful civil rights and anti-war organizations.
"Edwards . . . worked with Gerald Ford's attorney general Edward Levi in formulating FBI
investigative guidelines faithful to the Constitution. It is these guidelines that John Ashcroft has
contemptuously discarded in order to allow the FBI to go back to the hunting fields of Cointelpro.
"Characteristically, Edwards, though respected even by his opponents in Congress, refused a repeated
request that he join the Intelligence Committee. He said that the people's business should be done in
public, and through his influence in the House he blocked various expansions of unreviewable
intelligence-authorization powers.
"Recently, I asked Don Edwards what he thought of the Bush-Ashcroft conception of the Bill of
Rights. `The Bill of Rights,' he said, `is under assault. For example, locking people up-citizens or
noncitizens-without being charged and without access to a lawyer is wrong. Under our system of
justice, you must have a lawyer if you're imprisoned.
"`Also,' he added vigorously, `Congress is not exercising its oversight powers over the Department of
Justice, including the FBI. Committees should be hauling in Justice Department officials to justify
what they're doing.'" [60]
So far General Ashcroft and Bush II have felt justified in locking up two citizens of the United States
without access to a lawyer and claiming the judiciary has no right to interfere. Aides to Ashcroft "have
indicated that a `high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their
constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps." We find ourselves living our own
contemporary Scoundrel Time and must draw inspiration from Lillian Hellman and her accounts of
how people stood up to and challenged the unconstitutional authority of an earlier pack of scoundrels:
ruthless, ambitious politicians who engaged in their own assault on our constitutional laws and
principles.

by Adam Cohen, New York Times [US]

September 22nd, 2002
rehnquist When America is at war, according to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, people have to get
used to having less freedom.
There is a limit to what courts will do to help those deprived of rights, he says, because judges have a
natural "reluctance" to rule "against the government on an issue of national security during wartime."
In fact, there is "some truth," he concludes, to the Latin maxim "inter arma silent leges" — in time of
war, the law is silent.
With all of the war talk today — the so-called war on terror and the prospect of a real one in Iraq — it
may sound as if the chief justice is laying the groundwork for a drastic rollback in civil liberties. But
these reflections come from a history book, "All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime," that
he wrote four years ago. When it came out, "All the Laws but One" seemed like an academic exercise.
But with several major terrorism cases headed to the Supreme Court, court watchers are starting to
pick it up as a possible guidebook.
If Mr. Rehnquist the jurist sees the world as Mr. Rehnquist the historian does, there is cause for
concern.
The Supreme Court term that begins next month could prove momentous. It will be the justices' first
chance to rule on the impact on civil liberties from the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath. The court
could resolve several key questions: whether American citizens can be held indefinitely without access
to lawyers simply because they have been labeled "enemy combatants," whether terrorism suspects
can be held in secret detention and whether their deportation hearings can be closed to the public.
"All the Laws but One," which discusses civil liberties during the Civil War and World Wars I and II,
does not answer those questions. But its central message is that in wartime, the balance between order
and freedom tips toward order. In recounting the history, Justice Rehnquist gives all the arguments for
order, and far too few for freedom. The people whose liberties are taken away are virtually invisible.
Justice Rehnquist's selective blindness is most evident in his discussion of the worst denial of civil
liberties in American history, the internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry at the start of
World War II. He lavishes pages of detail on the military reasons for the roundup. Against that, he
offers a single sentence about the hardship imposed on those put in the camps. His account is as
dubious as it is brief: he writes that there was "no physical brutality," but historians report that some
prisoners were beaten and shot.
Justice Rehnquist endorses only part of the Japanese internments, but he seems far more accepting
than many scholars who regard the entire episode as a disaster. It would be harder for the reader to
accept his conclusions if he had included details about the men, women and children who were
rounded up, and the economic, physical and emotional toll imposed on them.
It is much the same with the book's discussion of President Abraham Lincoln's decision, during the
Civil War, to suspend habeas corpus — the right of someone taken into custody to challenge his
imprisonment before a judge. It offers considerable detail about the wartime problems confronting
Lincoln, but only a vague sense of how many innocent people may have been kept in prison as a
result. Justice Rehnquist readily accepts Lincoln's famous formulation: that if he had preserved habeas
corpus, it would have meant allowing "all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government
itself go to pieces, lest that one" — habeas corpus — "be violated." It is this quotation, of course, that
gives the book its title.
Justice Rehnquist's eagerness to see things from the viewpoint of those charged with keeping order —
and his relative lack of concern about their victims — could have important implications for the cases
the court hears this term. If the justices think only of terrorism and the threat to national security, they
may be inclined to uphold whatever restrictions the Bush administration imposes. The more they
actually consider the people being held in secret, or denied the right to see a lawyer, the more likely
they are to appreciate the costs of those policies.
Another problem with "All the Laws but One" is its contention that presidents cannot be reined in
during wartime, so it is pointless to try. Justice Rehnquist quotes, with approval, Francis Biddle,
President Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general, who said, "The Constitution has not greatly bothered
any wartime president." The opposite case can be made. When President Harry Truman tried to seize
the nation's steel mills during the Korean War — arguing that an impending strike threatened national
security — he backed down when the Supreme Court objected. Other presidents would probably be
just as compliant.
But the most disturbing aspect of Justice Rehnquist's book is the lack of outrage, or even
disappointment, he evinces when rights are sacrificed. The greatest American patriots have been
eloquent about the danger of letting freedom lapse even briefly. Benjamin Franklin said, "They that
can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There are times when Justice Rehnquist sees the wisdom of standing up to wartime fervor — he is
particularly good about the importance of freedom of speech and assembly. But too often, giving up
essential liberty for temporary safety seems an easy call for him.
Shortly after "All the Laws but One" came out, in an interview on C-Span, Justice Rehnquist was
asked what he thought of writing books. "It's very nice," he responded, "to be able to write something
you don't have to get four other people to agree with you [on] before it can become authoritative."
This may be the term when we see which of these views he can get four justices to agree with him on.
His colleagues should be cautious. If we keep sacrificing "one" law to save "all the laws," there will
eventually be no laws left to save.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/22SUN3.html

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_xymphora_archive.html
More on AshKroft's Kamps:
1. Apparently, some think that the original article on the camps has been completely debunked. The
point is that there are at most 20 prison cells in question, and that fact, while unfortunate, is not
enough to get upset about. The camps issue is thought to be a red herring, and the real issue is still the
indefinite detention of 'enemy combatants', especially when the determination of whether one is an
'enemy combatant' is made solely by the Bush Administration. It seems to me that this is true, but it is
also important not to forget the issue of the camps. The actual physical construction of the camps is
irrelevant. FEMA (the agency that can predict the future) and no doubt other organizations already
have suitable camps, constructed for legitimate and semi-legitimate reasons. Once the precedent is set
using Padilla and Hamdi (it is possible that the Padilla case is worse than the Hamdi case), and the
mechanism is set up to allow the Administration to process 'enemy combatants' in bulk (and anyone
who followed the Eichmann trial knows how important the institutional mechanics of repression are to
this type of person), it would therefore be easy to 'scale' the 20 cells into 200, 2000, or 20,000. The
critical point is the fact that the precedent of Padilla and Hamdi has been set, and as hardly anyone
complained about it, it can be used against anyone, even an American citizen arrested in the United
States.
2. The whole system being proposed by Ashcroft is actually the equivalent of pulling yourself up by
your own bootstraps. His theory is that once he has determined that you are an 'enemy combatant',
then all normal Constitutional protections immediately evaporate. However, presumably the
protections can't evaporate before he makes that determination, i. e., in that legal millisecond before he
makes his determination the courts still must be able to examine the Constitutional validity of the
making of the determination, and in examining this, presumably have the right to consider all the facts
of the case. The judge in the Hamdi case is alive to these issues. The whole 'enemy combatants' issue
appears to be a rather transparent method to avoid human rights protections using the circular
argument that the Constitution doesn't apply because it doesn't apply to 'enemy combatants', coupled
with the dubious notion that you can become an 'enemy combatant' by your alleged involvement in the
never-ending and ill-defined 'war on terror'.
3. The most interesting questions about Padilla have never been asked. He was detained in early May,
but his detention only came to light with Ashcroft's announcement in early June. Since the
Administration felt absolutely no qualms about Padilla's detention, and almost didn't bother to mention
it until it needed a big distraction from the Coleen Rowley testimony, the whole issue of how many
other detainees like Jose Padilla there are remains completely open. The camps may already be full!
4. Jonathan Turley, who seems to hold a monopoly in writing about these issues, points out that
Ashcroft now wants to turbo-charge the secret court which interprets and enforces the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act to make its draconian powers apply to American citizens. This would
presumably grant the government practically unlimited powers of investigation in order to obtain the
information required to label the 'enemy combatants', as well as on anyone else the Administration
would like to investigate without regard to that nasty Constitution (somewhere in hell, Richard Nixon
must be laughing).
5. There is an interesting pattern here in the Administration's use of the media. We constantly hear
about 'leaks' from the Bush Administration, and sometimes (e. g., Rumsfeld) even hear complaints
about the 'leaks'. The 'leaks' and general use of the media appear to be the work of a master
manipulator (Rove?):

* the Padilla case was clearly set out for the American people, and the full implications of his
treatment explained, allowing for his case to be used as a precedent for the indefinite detention without
trial or legal representation for any American citizen labelled an 'enemy combatant';
* the constant flow of warnings about imminent terror attacks, to continue the charade of the 'war on
terror';
* all the 'leaks' involving plans on Iraq, which may be a combination of trial balloons and
misdirection, especially if the real goal of the Administration is also to capture Saudi oil fields;
* all the obvious media manipulation concerning the anthrax attacks and Steven Hatfill, a patsy who is
apparently to be used to distract public attention from the real issues of the case (with apparently
another patsy in the wings to take over once the Hatfill investigation peters out).
But hey, if you don't want to worry about the AshKroft Kamps, then don't worry about the AshKroft
Kamps. As long as you're white and quiet and don't criticize the government, you'll probably be fine.