Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

[Guest guest]

Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

By Nat Parry

February 21, 2006

 

Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey

Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target

for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists,

supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the

enemy.

" The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my

opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements, " Graham, R-S.C., told

Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

" I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in

Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think

you need a warrant to do that, " Graham added, volunteering to work

with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to

neutralize this alleged threat.

" Senator, " a smiling Gonzales responded, " the President already said

we'd be happy to listen to your ideas. "

In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many

Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways – ingratiating

himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some

credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have

at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.

But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may

already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed

insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be

considered helpful to the enemy.

Top U.S. officials have cited the need to challenge news that

undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists,

who are aided by " news informers " in the words of Defense Secretary

Donald Rumsfeld. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com " Upside-Down

Media " or below.]

Detention Centers

Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army

Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown &

Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere

in the United States, to deal with " an emergency influx of immigrants

into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, "

KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]

Later, the New York Times reported that " KBR would build the centers

for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of

immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for

new programs that require additional detention space. " [Feb. 4, 2006]

Like most news stories on the KBR contract, the Times focused on

concerns about Halliburton's reputation for bilking U.S. taxpayers by

overcharging for sub-par services.

" It's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust

Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars, " remarked Rep. Henry

Waxman, D-California.

Less attention centered on the phrase " rapid development of new

programs " and what kind of programs would require a major expansion

of detention centers, each capable of holding 5,000 people. Jamie

Zuieback, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

declined to elaborate on what these " new programs " might be.

Only a few independent journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott and

Maureen Farrell, have pursued what the Bush administration might

actually be thinking.

Scott speculated that the " detention centers could be used to detain

American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial

law. " He recalled that during the Reagan administration, National

Security Council aide Oliver North organized Rex-84 " readiness

exercise, " which contemplated the Federal Emergency Management Agency

rounding up and detaining 400,000 " refugees, " in the event

of " uncontrolled population movements " over the Mexican border into

the United States.

Farrell pointed out that because " another terror attack is all but

certain, it seems far more likely that the centers would be used for

post-911-type detentions of immigrants rather than a sudden deluge "

of immigrants flooding across the border.

Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, " Almost certainly

this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-

Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done

this on a smaller scale, with the `special registration' detentions

of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo. "

Labor Camps

There also was another little-noticed item posted at the U.S. Army

Web site, about the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This

program " provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian

inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army

installations. "

The Army document, first drafted in 1997, underwent a " rapid action

revision " on Jan. 14, 2005. The revision provides a " template for

developing agreements " between the Army and corrections facilities

for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.

On its face, the Army's labor program refers to inmates housed in

federal, state and local jails. The Army also cites various federal

laws that govern the use of civilian labor and provide for the

establishment of prison camps in the United States, including a

federal statute that authorizes the Attorney General to " establish,

equip, and maintain camps upon sites selected by him " and " make

available … the services of United States prisoners " to various

government departments, including the Department of Defense.

Though the timing of the document's posting – within the past few

weeks –may just be a coincidence, the reference to a " rapid action

revision " and the KBR contract's contemplation of " rapid development

of new programs " have raised eyebrows about why this sudden need for

urgency.

These developments also are drawing more attention now because of

earlier Bush administration policies to involve the Pentagon

in " counter-terrorism " operations inside the United States.

Pentagon Surveillance

Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against U.S. military

personnel engaging in domestic law enforcement, the Pentagon has

expanded its operations beyond previous boundaries, such as its role

in domestic surveillance activities.

The Washington Post has reported that since the Sept. 11, 2001,

terror attacks, the Defense Department has been creating new agencies

that gather and analyze intelligence within the United States.

[Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2005]

The White House also is moving to expand the power of the Pentagon's

Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), created three years ago to

consolidate counterintelligence operations. The White House proposal

would transform CIFA into an office that has authority to investigate

crimes such as treason, terrorist sabotage or economic espionage.

The Pentagon also has pushed legislation in Congress that would

create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI

and others to share information about U.S. citizens with the

Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. But some in the

Pentagon don't seem to think that new laws are even necessary.

In a 2001 Defense Department memo that surfaced in January 2006, the

U.S. Army's top intelligence officer wrote, " Contrary to popular

belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence

components collecting U.S. person information. "

Drawing a distinction between " collecting " information

and " receiving " information on U.S. citizens, the memo argued

that " MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone,

anytime. " [see CQ.com, Jan. 31, 2006]

This receipt of information presumably would include data from the

National Security Agency, which has been engaging in surveillance of

U.S. citizens without court-approved warrants in apparent violation

of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. Bush approved the program

of warrantless wiretaps shortly after 9/11.

There also may be an even more extensive surveillance program. Former

NSA employee Russell D. Tice told a congressional committee on Feb.

14 that such a top-secret surveillance program existed, but he said

he couldn't discuss the details without breaking classification laws.

Tice added that the " special access " surveillance program may be

violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. [uPI,

Feb. 14, 2006]

With this expanded surveillance, the government's list of terrorist

suspects is rapidly swelling.

The Washington Post reported on Feb. 15 that the National

Counterterrorism Center's central repository now holds the names of

325,000 terrorist suspects, a four-fold increase since the fall of

2003.

Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the

NSA's domestic surveillance program, an NCTC official told the

Post, " Our database includes names of known and suspected

international terrorists provided by all intelligence community

organizations, including NSA. "

Homeland Defense

As the administration scoops up more and more names, members of

Congress also have questioned the elasticity of Bush's definitions

for words like terrorist " affiliates, " used to justify wiretapping

Americans allegedly in contact with such people or entities.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the wiretap

program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, complained that the

House and Senate Intelligence Committees " have not been briefed on

the scope and nature of the program. "

Feinstein added that, therefore, the committees " have not been able

to explore what is a link or an affiliate to al-Qaeda or what

minimization procedures (for purging the names of innocent people)

are in place. "

The combination of the Bush administration's expansive reading of its

own power and its insistence on extraordinary secrecy has raised the

alarm of civil libertarians when contemplating how far the Pentagon

might go in involving itself in domestic matters.

A Defense Department document, entitled the " Strategy for Homeland

Defense and Civil Support, " has set out a military strategy against

terrorism that envisions an " active, layered defense " both inside and

outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges

to " transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense

missions in the … U.S. homeland. "

The Pentagon strategy paper calls for increased military

reconnaissance and surveillance to " defeat potential challengers

before they threaten the United States. " The plan " maximizes threat

awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us. "

But there are concerns over how the Pentagon judges " threats " and who

falls under the category " those who would harm us. " A Pentagon

official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity's TALON program

has amassed files on antiwar protesters.

In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-

page Pentagon document listing 1,500 " suspicious incidents " over a 10-

month period, including dozens of small antiwar demonstrations that

were classified as a " threat. "

The Defense Department also might be moving toward legitimizing the

use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy.

A secret Pentagon " Information Operations Roadmap, " approved by

Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for " full spectrum " information

operations and notes that " information intended for foreign

audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is

consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa. "

" PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much

larger audiences, including the American public, " the document

states. The Pentagon argues, however, that " the distinction between

foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [u.S.

government] intent rather than information dissemination practices. "

It calls for " boundaries " between information operations abroad and

the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits

on PSYOP campaigns.

Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between " collecting "

and " receiving " intelligence on U.S. citizens, the Information

Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not

intentionally " targeted, " any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the

American public is acceptable.

The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the

Internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the Web as

a potential military adversary. The " roadmap " speaks of " fighting the

net, " and implies that the Internet is the equivalent of " an enemy

weapons system. "

In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld

elaborated on the administration's perception that the battle over

information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as

Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War.

" Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic

communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that

the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that

most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually

taking place, " Rumsfeld said.

The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency

to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched " heavily

armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security

firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, (and had them) openly

patrolling the streets of New Orleans, " reported journalists Jeremy

Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005.

Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as " some of the

most feared professional killers in the world, " Scahill and Crespo

said Blackwater's presence in New Orleans " raises alarming questions

about why the government would allow men trained to kill with

impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here. "

U.S. Battlefield

In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already

exists in the United States and has been in place since shortly after

the 9/11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order No. 1 which

empowered him to detain any non-citizen as an international terrorist

or enemy combatant.

" The President decided that he was no longer running the country as a

civilian President, " wrote civil rights attorney Michael Ratner in

the book Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. " He issued a

military order giving himself the power to run the country as a

general. "

For any American citizen suspected of collaborating with terrorists,

Bush also revealed what's in store. In May 2002, the FBI arrested

U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago on suspicion that he might be an

al-Qaeda operative planning an attack.

Rather than bring criminal charges, Bush designated Padilla an " enemy

combatant " and had him imprisoned indefinitely without benefit of due

process. After three years, the administration finally brought

charges against Padilla, in order to avoid a Supreme Court showdown

the White House might have lost.

But since the Court was not able to rule on the Padilla case, the

administration's arguments have not been formally repudiated. Indeed,

despite filing charges against Padilla, the White House still asserts

the right to detain U.S. citizens without charges as enemy combatants.

This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United

States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.

" In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the Nation learned

all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is

part of the battlefield, " Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the

federal courts. [Washington Post, July 19, 2005]

Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his " plenary " – or

unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the

indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their

constitutional rights protect them from government actions.

As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of

sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on

Terror, " Can it be true that any President really has such powers

under our Constitution? If the answer is `yes,' then under the theory

by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on

their face be prohibited? "

In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might

legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by

the " rapid development of new programs, " which might require the

construction of a new network of detention camps.