Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:13:56 -0700 (PDT)

Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

 

 

 

 

Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

By Patrick Martin

9 August 2005

 

 

 

According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the

Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within

the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be

used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions

or the entire country.

 

The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of

the military¡¯s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado

Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but ¡°officers

who drafted the plans¡± gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham,

who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air

Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted

for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect

of military rule.

 

 

 

According to Graham, ¡°the new plans provide for what several senior

officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to

take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with

mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.¡±

 

The Post account declares, ¡°The war plans represent a historic shift

for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in

domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law

enforcement.¡±

 

 

 

A total of 15 potential crisis scenarios are outlined, ranging from

¡°low-end,¡± which Graham describes as ¡°relatively modest

crowd-control missions,¡± to ¡°high-end,¡± after as many as three

simultaneous catastrophic mass-casualty events, such as a nuclear,

biological or chemical weapons attack.

 

In each case, the military would deploy a quick-reaction force of as

many as 3,000 troops per attack¡ªi.e., 9,000 total in the worst-case

scenario. More troops could be made available as needed.

 

 

 

The Post quotes a statement by Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of

Northcom: ¡°In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a

chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of

Defense is best positioned¡ªof the various eight federal agencies that

would be involved¡ªto take the lead.¡±

 

The newspaper describes an unresolved debate among the military

planners on how to integrate the new domestic mission with ongoing US

deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign conflicts. One

major document of over 1,000 pages, designated CONPLAN 2002, provides

a general overview of air, sea and land operations in both a

post-attack situation and for ¡°prevention and deterrence actions

aimed at intercepting threats before they reach the United States.¡± A

second document, CONPLAN 0500, details the 15 scenarios and the

actions associated with them.

 

 

 

The Post reports: ¡°CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the

Pentagon¡¯s Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary

Donald H. Rumsfeld and top aides for further study and approval, the

officers said. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting¡± at

Northcom headquarters.

 

While Northcom was established only in October 2002, its headquarters

staff of 640 is already larger than that of the Southern Command,

which overseas US military operations throughout Latin America and the

Caribbean.

 

 

 

About 1,400 National Guard troops have been formed into a dozen

regional response units, while smaller quick-reaction forces have been

set up in each of the 50 states. Northcom also has the power to

mobilize four active-duty Army battalions, as well as Navy and Coast

Guard ships and air defense fighter jets.

 

The Pentagon is acutely conscious of the potential political backlash

as its role in future security operations becomes known. Graham

writes: ¡°Military exercises code-named Vital Archer, which involve

troops in lead roles, are shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, other

homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely

publicized.¡±

 

 

 

Military lawyers have studied the legal implications of such

deployments, which risk coming into conflict with a longstanding

congressional prohibition on the use of the military for domestic

policing, known as posse comitatus. Involving the National Guard,

which is exempt from posse comitatus, could be one solution, Admiral

Keating told the Post. ¡°He cited a potential situation in which Guard

units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not,¡±

Graham wrote.

 

Graham adds: ¡°when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead

role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant

to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise,

probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to

civilian authorities.¡±

 

 

 

A remarkable phrase: ¡°probably would be temporary.¡± In other words,

the military takeover might not be temporary, and could become permanent!

 

In his article, Graham describes the Northern Command¡¯s ¡°Combined

Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law

enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian

agencies as the FBI, the CIA and the Secret Service.¡± The article

continues: ¡°A senior supervisor at the facility said the staff there

does no intelligence collection, only analysis. He also said the

military operates under long-standing rules intended to protect

civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to

intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal

activity.¡±

 

 

 

Again, despite the soothing reassurances about respecting civil

liberties, another phrase leaps out: ¡°intelligence information on

political dissent.¡± What right do US intelligence agencies have to

collect information on political dissent? Political dissent is not

only perfectly legal, but essential to the functioning of a democracy.

 

 

 

 

The reality is that the military brass is intensely interested in

monitoring political dissent because its domestic operations will be

directed not against a relative handful of Islamic fundamentalist

terrorists¡ªwho have not carried out a single operation inside the

United States since September 11, 2001¡ªbut against the democratic

rights of the American people.

 

 

 

The plans of Northcom have their origins not in the terrible events of

9/11, but in longstanding concerns in corporate America about the

political stability of the United States. This is a society

increasingly polarized between the fabulously wealthy elite at the

top, and the vast majority of working people who face an increasingly

difficult struggle to survive. The nightmare of the American ruling

class is the emergence of a mass movement from below that challenges

its political and economic domination.

 

As long ago as 1984¡ªwhen Osama bin Laden was still working

hand-in-hand with the CIA in the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in

Afghanistan¡ªthe Reagan administration was drawing up similar

contingency plans for military rule. A Marine Corps officer detailed

to the National Security Council drafted plans for Operation Rex ¡¯84,

a headquarters exercise that simulated rounding up 300,000 Central

American immigrants and likely political opponents of a US invasion of

Nicaragua or El Salvador and jailing them at mothballed military

bases. This officer later became well known to the public: Lt. Colonel

Oliver North, the organizer of the illegal network to arm the

¡°contra¡± terrorists in Nicaragua and a principal figure in the

Iran-Contra scandal.

 

 

 

As for the claims that these military plans are driven by genuine

concern over the threat of terrorist attacks, these are belied by the

actual conduct of the American ruling elite since 9/11. The Bush

administration has done everything possible to suppress any

investigation into the circumstances of the attacks on the World Trade

Center and the Pentagon¡ªmost likely because its own negligence,

possibly deliberate, would be exposed.

 

 

 

While the Pentagon claims that its plans are a response to the danger

of nuclear, biological or chemical attacks, no serious practical

measures have been taken to forestall such attacks or minimize their

impact. The Bush administration and Congress have refused even to

restrict the movement of rail tank cars loaded with toxic chemicals

through the US capital, though even an accidental leak, let alone a

terrorist attack, would cause mass casualties.

 

More- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/mart-a09.shtml