LEWIS SEILER & DAN HAMBURG, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - Since 9/11, and
seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government
has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath
of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain people without
legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of
immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new
programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of
single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root
to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United
States. The government has also contracted with several companies to
build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles,
ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is
part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal
the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go
to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of
"new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention
facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house
perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, "Use of the
Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power
to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the
president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a
natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other
condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has
occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public
order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just
before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite
imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a
list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the
government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and
non-citizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security
Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of
government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a
"catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an
emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he
deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include
everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to
launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on
NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice has come up with a new way to expand the
domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the
lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report
upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist
ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combating it. . .
investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in
sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of
animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be
anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists,
environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights
supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf,
the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000
"terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make
contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own
citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power
under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use
the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8067
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government
has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath
of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain people without
legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of
immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new
programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of
single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root
to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United
States. The government has also contracted with several companies to
build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles,
ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is
part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal
the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go
to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of
"new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention
facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house
perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, "Use of the
Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power
to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the
president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a
natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other
condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has
occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public
order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just
before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite
imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a
list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the
government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and
non-citizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security
Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of
government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a
"catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an
emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he
deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include
everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to
launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on
NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice has come up with a new way to expand the
domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the
lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report
upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist
ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combating it. . .
investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in
sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of
animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be
anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists,
environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights
supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf,
the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000
"terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make
contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own
citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power
under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use
the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8067
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment