Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

[Guest guest]

S

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:30:22 -0000

Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

 

 

www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=2620

 

found at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/1722960.php

 

 

 

 

Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US

by repost Monday, Dec. 12, 2005 at 10:24 AM

 

 

" The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted for the

purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of

military rule. . . . 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!

 

 

By Patrick Martin – World Socialist Web Site

 

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—i.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—of the various eight federal agencies

that would be involved—to 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—who have not carried out a single operation inside the

United States since September 11, 2001—but 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—when Osama bin Laden was still working hand-in-

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

the 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—most 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.

 

In relation to bioterrorism, the Defense Science Board determined in

a 2000 study that the federal government had only 1 of the 57 drugs,

vaccines and diagnostic tools required to deal with such an attack.

According to a report in the Washington Post August 7, in the five

years since the Pentagon report, only one additional resource has

been developed, bringing the total to 2 out of 57. Drug companies

have simply refused to conduct the research required to find

antidotes to anthrax and other potential toxins, and the Bush

administration has done nothing to compel them.

 

As for the danger of nuclear or " dirty-bomb " attacks, the Bush

administration and the congressional Republican leadership recently

rammed through a measure loosening restrictions on exports of

radioactive substances, at the behest of a Canadian-based

manufacturer of medical supplies which conducted a well-financed

lobbying campaign.

 

Evidently, the administration and the corporate elite which it

represents do not take seriously their own warnings about the

imminent threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear, chemical or

biological weapons—at least not when it comes to security measures

that would impact corporate profits.

 

The anti-terrorism scare has a propaganda purpose: to manipulate the

American people and induce the public to accept drastic inroads

against democratic rights. As the Pentagon planning suggests, the

American working class faces the danger of some form of military-

police dictatorship in the United States.

 

 

 

www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=2620

 

found at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/1722960.php