Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
Senator Patrick Leahy is concerned about the Pentagon’s decision to designate an Army unit to
Northern Command.
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 against
inserting 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 that
“Bush 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 without
killing 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.”
NorthCom’s 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.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey personally observed the combat team’s training exercise,
entitled “Vibrant Response,” which was held at Fort Stewart, Georgia, last month. According to
NorthCom’s 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.”
NorthCom’s website, in a section on frequently asked questions about Joint Task Forces—Civil
Support, cites “DoD Directive 3025.1” as laying out the criteria for how the Pentagon will
respond 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 is
directed, 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 without
prior 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 Pentagon’s decision to dedicate the First Brigade Combat Team to NorthCom has raised
alarms, especially in the context of the current economic crisis. In Bush’s 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.
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 he’d 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 the
following 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
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act
authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its White House News
interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related
energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.
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.
A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other
entities 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 the
Act, 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 such
provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the
disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the
Executive, 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 the
Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a
treaty 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 would
impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and
as Commander in Chief.
The executive branch shall construe section 1211, which purports to require the executive branch to
undertake certain consultations with foreign governments and follow certain steps in formulating and
executing U.S. foreign policy, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities to
conduct 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 addressing
the 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 certain
homeland security information in certain circumstances, as in addition to, and not in derogation of, the
broader 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
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 not to 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.
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which,
according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the
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."
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.
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
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.
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
by Tom Burghardt
Two national "civil disturbance" plans, Garden Plot and Cable Splicer
have been operational since the 1960s. Researcher Frank Morales has
detailed how,
The Bush administration put COG plans into operation for the first time
in U.S. history in the hours directly following the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. They have never been rescinded.
Since the late 1980s, Rumsfeld was a habitué of COG exercises along
with Vice President Dick Cheney. Indeed early COG drills had been
organized by the right-wing Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS). As investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn revealed
in his definitive political biography of the former Defense Secretary:
This highly secret program was known as Project 908, and among the
individuals earmarked to take power when disaster struck was Donald
Rumsfeld. ... There, for several days, he would be immured in artificial
caverns, staring at electronic displays streaming data of disaster and
confusion, sleeping on cots and subsisting on the most austere rations.
...
Insofar as the COG games gave the illusion of reality, they taught
Rumsfeld and his fellow players some dangerous lessons, particularly
when the fall of the Soviet Union induced some changes in the usual
scenarios. Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over
$200 million in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now
customarily replaced by terrorists. The terrorism envisaged however,
was almost always state-sponsored. ...
There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected
to run the "shadow government" had been drawn from across the
political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in
the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company,
the players' roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican
hawks. (Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic
Legacy, New York: Scribner, 2007, pp. 85-86, 88)
After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of
FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a
proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later
John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an
article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of
domestic security. (Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for
Vast New Detention Camps," Pacific News Service, February 8, 2006)
The DHS contract to KBR had been preceded by the April 2002
creation of the Pentagon's Northern Command (NORTHCOM),
specifically empowered by the Bush administration for domestic U.S.
military operations in direct violation of Posse Comitatus prohibitions
forbidding the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. At the
time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called NORTHCOM's launch "the
most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was
set up in 1946."
Sweeping indeed! Last month Army 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, helping
restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're
training for the same mission--with a twist--at home." According to
Army 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 of
Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or
manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. ...
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been
given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command
established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal
homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil
authorities. ...
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or
to deal 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. ...
The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever
nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander
Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control
equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or
dangerous individuals without killing them.
During the exercise, commanders and staff of the force will train,
rehearse and exercise--from academic classes to making decisions and
executing orders--all to help prepare them for the mission they will
assume on Oct. 1, said Vogler.
One goal of the exercise is to exercise with partners from the civilian
agencies they would support. To that end, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other interagency representatives
are participating to ensure integration with civilian consequence
managers who would lead a response, said Vogler.
"The overall federal response builds on the local and state response in
accordance with the incident command system and existing plans and
processes that are out there," said Vogler. "The response force would
supplement local efforts." ("Consequence Management Response Force
to join Army Northern Command," Army News Service, September 15,
2008)
The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Union
significantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on
CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Army
organizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potential
for interruption of normal operations. To emphasize that Army
continuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazards
threat spectrum, the name "ASRRS" has been replaced by the more
generic title "Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program." (p. 13)
Towards this end, the Rumsfeld-era document states that the Army's
new "mission-critical" functions will be restructured so that, "Army
COOP plans must ensure that the Army remains capable of continuing
mission-essential operations during any situation, including military
attack, terrorist activities, and natural or man-made disasters." (p. 13)
The Army, following various contingencies analyzed in the document
will "coordinate with mission-essential external organizations and
agencies." (p. 14)
So sensitive are the political ramifications of these plans that under the
heading, 3-12 Operational Security (OPSEC), the Army avers,
a. The success of COOP planning relies on denying access by
unauthorized parties to information on COOP plans, procedures,
capabilities and facilities.
Section I
Required Publications
Section II
CJCSM 3410.01
Continuity of Operations Plan for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (COOP-CJCS), 1 March 1999
DoDD 3020.26
DoD 3020.26P
DoDD 3020.36
DoDD 3025.15
Since that fatal and tragic day seven long years ago, we have been
told repeatedly by the government and their media sycophants that
9/11 was the day "when everything changed."
One fact is abundantly clear from the mass of conflicting evidence and
assertions made by proponents of various theories surrounding the
9/11 events: AR 500-3 demonstrates that from the very first moments
after being installed in office, the Bush regime was involved in a
"controlled demolition" of the U.S. Constitution.
Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San
Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action
Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police
State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed
by AK Press.