MILITARY POLICE STATE

U.S. APPROVES USE OF MILITARY AGAINST CITIZENS
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112191540/http://www.thewinds.org/1997/02/military_role.html

"How could this happen in America?"

Why Police Are Treating Americans Like Military Threats
Why is the armed might of the state,
(necessary in waging war against foreign enemies)
being applied to domestic policing of local communities and peaceful protests?
November 22, 2011
AlterNet / By William Hogeland

"Is this still my country?"

In the past few days, those and similarly poignant Twitter posts have appealed to fundamental American values in objecting to the
notorious U.C. Davis event, where police pepper-sprayed seated protesters, and to cities generally cracking down on the Occupy
movement. The crackdowns have brought a military level of combativeness to what many Americans -- even those not in sympathy
with the protesters -- would normally see as a police, not a military matter.

Police, not military. The distinction may seem academic, even absurd, when police are bringing rifles, helmets, armor, and
helicopters to evict unarmed protesters. But it's an old and critical distinction in American law and ideology and in republican
thought as a whole. The 17th-century English liberty writers, on whose ideas much of America's founding ethos was based,
believed that turning the armed might of the state, (necessary in waging war against foreign enemies), to domestic policing of
local communities tends to concentrate power in top-down executive action and vitiate treasured things like judiciary process,
individual liberty, representative government, and free speech.

Constabulary and judiciary matters, high Whigs came to think, should never be handled by what they condemned as "standing
armies." It's true, on the other hand, that keeping public order, not just aiding in prosecutions, is a duty of local police. When
concerted crowd violence occurs against people and property, policing may be expected to be pretty violent too, and distinctions
between combat and policing sometimes naturally blur.

But where protest is peaceful -- maybe loud, maybe deliberately annoying, combative in its rhetoric, even possibly illegal, yet not
actually violent or dangerous -- treating it the way a state normally treats an outside military threat will give many Americans,
across a broad political spectrum, a gut problem.

We've seen military hardware and tactics used in the Occupy crackdowns. We've seen them in post-9/11 federal funding in the
states and municipalities for homeland security. We've seen them in the aptly named "war on drugs." And anyone who has watched
shows like "Cops" has seen -- and may by now take for granted -- techniques and technologies of military-style police raids on
homes, raids that in more upscale neighborhoods might amount to nothing more than knocking on a door and serving a warrant. A
Twitter post from Joy Reid, of the blog the Reid Report, put it this way last week: "Disconnect: liberals see a suddenly 'militarized,'
possibly federalized police force. Black people see 'the usual.'"

The police behavior at U.C. Davis -- manifestly not "rogue-cop," a trained, planned exercise -- reveals the cool military thinking
behind the operation. Pepper-spraying looked surgical, preemptive, even robotic. The strategic directive must have been to
conserve police effort and maintain police maneuverability at virtually any cost. Such efficiencies and capabilities would be
important in a riot; they're not important when hoping to evict unarmed, seated protesters. It's not as if officers have been
resorting to battle gear under otherwise unmanageable pressure or initiating violence only as a last resort. They've been arriving
in battle gear. They've been construing noncompliance as potential attack. They've moved preemptively to disable attack where
none existed, not just trying to evict but seemingly hoping to inspire fear, to punish and defeat.

The mood these operations convey is that failure to achieve police objectives must result in something awful for the body politic.
In reality, leaving citizens sitting around a park or campus a few more days, even possibly illegally, might be frustrating for police
and others; it's hardly the end of the world. Sometimes taking a few deep breaths is the only thing to do. But military training,
tactics, and weaponry seem to inspire the idea in civic strategists that failure to achieve an objective is tantamount to fatal defeat
by a hostile enemy. Intolerable. Not an option.

That mentality tends to place American governments at enmity with their dissident citizens -- and vice versa. The fact that much
militarizing of police, over the past twenty years, has federal sources raises endlessly complicated questions that reflect strangely
on the histories of American federalism and government suppression. A horrific theme of the Civil Rights Movement was police
violence, and many Americans have branded on their brains the watercannons, clubs, dogs, fists, and boots used against
nonviolent protesters in the 1950s; police involved were generally state and local. Then in 1957 federal troops -- the 101st
Airborne Paratroopers -- entered Little Rock, Arkansas, with fixed bayonets, to enforce federal law by ensuring the entry of African
American students to state school there; states-rights advocates talked about federal overreaching and police state, the end of
liberty. Then again, in the 1960s and '70s the federal government, via its law-enforcement arm the FBI, carried out a covert war --
involving assassination, it's fairly uncontroversial to say -- on the militant activist group the Black Panthers, who it's fairly
uncontroversial to say were not always peaceful protesters.

Responding now to police efforts against demonstrators, liberals and leftists have begun raising anew the issue of inappropriate
police militarization and violence. Yet it's the libertarian right that has done much of the reporting and research on the issue in
recent decades (Democracy Now! is among left-liberal institutions that have also covered the issue for many years). The current
state of heightened awareness means there's a possibly interesting opportunity for people of varying backgrounds and politics to
begin a new conversation. That conversation would involve some very strange bedfellows -- and might spark new enmities. The
Salon columnist Joan Walsh's suggestion last weekend on Twitter that if police violence has federal sources, then President
Obama bears some responsibility set off a torrent of invective violent even by Twitter standards.

James Madison may offer some long-range perspective. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, arguing for forming a nation
instead of retaining the confederation of states, he said that force applied to citizens collectively rather than individually ceases to
be law enforcement and becomes war; groups so treated will seize the opportunity to dissolve all compacts by which they might
otherwise have been bound. Madison's argued against militarism in favor not of anarchy but of a higher kind of law and order.

And in 1794, Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, advising President Washington (to no avail) to eschew military adventure
against the so-called Whiskey Rebels, and to use prosecutions instead, argued passionately that the real strength of government
always lies not in coercion but in the affection of the people. Randolph was facing an actual insurrection, with threat of secession,
not a peaceful protest; there were federal crimes involved. Still he advised against a military operation. The loathing of military
suppression as a substitute for due process of law, going back to our first administration, runs deep in the American psyche.

But it's worth remembering that equally strong feelings have always run the other way. Long before events known as the Whiskey
Rebellion had risen to any kind of crisis, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was urging Washington to bring military
force against citizens somewhere in the country; otherwise, Hamilton believed, authority would always be in question. When
Washington did so, he ignored habeas corpus and nearly every individual right set out in the new Bill of Rights, federalizing
militias to bring overwhelming force to shock and awe innocent citizens of an entire region of the country. In his book Crisis and
Command, John Yoo, author of the notorious "torture memo," has defended the George W. Bush administration's tactics in dealing
with suspected terrorists by citing precedent -- not wrongly -- in Washington's behavior in the 1790s.

"Is this still my country?" That's been a question from day one, asked by Americans of widely diverging views in response to
government crackdowns on protest. Objecting to military violence against protesting citizens may be inherently American. The
urge to crack down can look inherently American too..

=========================================================================================
The Posse Comitatus Act
and Homeland Security

John R. Brinkerhoff
February 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As acting associate director for national preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1981 to 1983,
Colonel John R. Brinkerhoff, US Army Retired, was responsible for policy formulation and program oversight of the Civil Defense
Program, National Mobilization Preparedness Program, Continuity of Government, and the National Defense Stockpile. During that
time the United States had a program to Defend America against a massive nuclear attack as well as attacks by communist agents
and special forces troops. Colonel Brinkerhoff was also deputy executive secretary of the Emergency Mobilization Preparedness
Board (EMPB), the senior level inter-agency forum to coordinate all aspects of national preparedness. The EMPB was chaired by
the National Security Advisor and consisted of the deputy secretaries of the departments and the heads of several independent
agencies. During the EMPB era, a national plan was prepared and approved by President Reagan, and actions were taken to
implement it.

Prior to joining FEMA, Colonel Brinkerhoff was a career senior executive in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. His last position
before leaving OSD to joint FEMA was as acting deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs. He was also director of manpower
programming, director of intergovernmental affairs, and special assistant to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for reserve
affairs. Before joining the civil service, Mr. Brinkerhoff was an Army officer for 24 years. He retired in 1974 after 24 years of active
commissioned service in a variety of troop assignments in Korea, Germany, Vietnam, and the United States. While on active duty
he served two tours on the Army Staff and two tours in OSD. For the past seven years he has been an adjunct research staff
member of the Institute for Defense Analyses working on a variety of issues including Homeland Defense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
part of the Army or the 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.

-Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385

The quotation above is the much-discussed Posse Comitatus Act in its entirety. That is it! That is all there is to it. Seldom has so
much been derived from so little. Few articles written about the act and its implications cite the law as it is written, leading one to
believe that the authors have never taken the trouble to go to the U.S. Code and see for themselves or to look up the legislative
history of the act or to read the exceptions in the law. As a result, much of what has been said and written about the Posse
Comitatus Act is just plain nonsense.

The Posse Comitatus Act is often cited as a major constraint on the use of the military services to participate in homeland security,
counterterrorism, civil disturbances, and similar domestic duties. It is widely believed that this law prohibits the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps from performing any kind of police work or assisting law enforcement agencies to enforce the law. This
belief, however, is not exactly correct.

What is correct is that new rules are needed to clearly set forth the boundaries for the use of federal military forces for homeland
security. The Posse Comitatus Act is inappropriate for modern times and needs to be replaced by a completely new law.

The law was enacted originally on 18 June 1878. It was amended in 1959 to make it applicable to Alaska. It was amended in 1994 to
remove an upper limit of $10,000 on the fine that was in the original act. As shall be noted later, in recent years Congress has
enacted other laws that specify when the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply.

The biggest error is the common assertion that the Posses Comitatus Act was enacted to prevent the military services (Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marine Corps) from acting as a national police force.

Colonel Richard Hart Sinnreich, in an otherwise admirable piece, opined thusly in an article in the 12 December 2001 Washington
Post:

The American aversion to a military gendarmerie was formalized after Reconstruction in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which
severely restricts the use of active military forces in domestic law enforcement.

Reconstruction was the 12 years from 1865 to 1877 when the U.S. Army occupied the defeated Southern states. Major Craig T.
Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve, in his Journal of Homeland Security article “The Myth of Posse Comitatus,” does a good job at
pointing out that the use of military personnel to enforce the law is in fact allowable, but makes a mistake when he says:

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the
borders of the United States.

Another gross misinterpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act was made on 13 December 2001 in the Washington Times, which
reported that Provost Marshal William J. Bolduc of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center reduced the police powers of the civilian
police force at that facility because they were bound by the Posse Comitatus Act. The story said:

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits members of the U.S. armed forces or employees of the U.S. military from enforcing laws
on civilians [emphasis added].

Sinnreich, Trebilcock, Bolduc, and most commentators who opine on this law are wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act was not, as they
assert and as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force. It was
enacted to prevent the Army from being abused by having its soldiers pressed into service as police officers (a posse) by local
law enforcement officials in the post-Reconstruction South.

The Story of the Posse Comitatus Act

The law was enacted as a result of the election of 1876, which was the event that ended the period of Reconstruction after the
Civil War. The law was enacted to overturn an 1854 opinion of the attorney general. The story is bound up with the conflict within
the United States about slavery and the Union.

The posse comitatus doctrine comes from English common law. Posse comitatus means, literally, the “force of the county”; the
posse comitatus is that body of men above the age of 15 whom the sheriff may summon or raise to repress a riot or for other
purposes. [1]

In 1854, Caleb Cushing, attorney general for President Franklin Pierce, blessed the posse comitatus doctrine and opined that
marshals could summon a posse comitatus and that both militia and regulars in organized bodies could be members of such a
posse. [2] This was done to improve the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Among other things, this meant that the
United States was responsible for expenses incurred by U.S. marshals in employing local police, state militia, or others in
apprehending and safeguarding fugitive slaves. The Cushing Doctrine meant that even though the armed forces might be
organized as military bodies under the command of their officers, they could still be pressed into service by U.S. marshals or local
sheriffs as a posse comitatus without the assent of the president. This doctrine was merely the opinion of the attorney general and
was not subjected to judicial or legislative review prior to its enunciation. The Cushing Doctrine encouraged the use of the Army
and Navy as police forces, and it was used widely in the West, where the Army was the only armed force available to assist local
officials to enforce the law along the turbulent frontier. It had little effect in the South during the period before the Civil War and
came into prominence there only during Reconstruction.

During Reconstruction, the Army exercised police and judicial functions, oversaw the local governments, and dealt with domestic
violence. In effect, the Army governed the 11 defeated Confederate States and was the enforcer of national reconstruction policy
during all or part of the period. Before the Civil War, the militia under state control was used to control local disorders throughout
the United States, but during Reconstruction, there was no effective militia in the defeated states, so the Army protected the
people (especially the newly emancipated slaves) and dealt with disturbances. [3] This use of the Army was validated by the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, which empowered U.S. marshals to summon and call to their aid the posse comitatus of the counties, or
portions of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia. As the former Confederate States were readmitted to the
Union, the status of the Army changed, but its role remained much the same.

After 1868, when all but three of the Southern states had reentered the union, the problem became one of how to obtain
assistance from the Army to enforce the law. [4] In response to a desperate plea from a U.S. marshal in Florida, the Attorney
General of the United States, William M. Evarts, cited the posse comitatus doctrine that gave U.S. marshals and county sheriffs the
right to command all necessary assistance from within their districts, including military personnel and civilians, to serve on the
posse comitatus to execute legal process. [5] Evarts' decision led to numerous requests by marshals and county sheriffs for
troops to use in enforcing the law, all without presidential approval. This met with some resistance from the Army, and the War
Department said that the obligation of individual officers and soldiers to obey the summons of a marshal or sheriff must be held
subordinate to the paramount duty as members of a permanent military body. The troops were to act only in organized units under
their own officers and would obey the orders of those officers. [6]

In 1871, President U. S. Grant sought to provide a basis for the use of troops other than posse comitatus. In accordance with
Grant's policy, the War Department issued general orders saying that the forces of the United States may be committed and shall
be employed to assist the civil authorities in making arrests of persons accused of crime, preventing the rescue of arrested
persons, and dispersing marauders and armed organizations. [7] By the end of Grant's second term, the South was ready and able
to end U.S. Government control over their states.

In the election of 1876, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, won a majority of the popular vote, but the Republican
candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, ended up with a majority of one vote in the Electoral College. The election was disputed and finally
determined by a deal in which Tilden would concede the election if Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction. Accordingly,
Reconstruction ended in 1877 with the inauguration of Hayes as the 19th president. Federal troops in the South were no longer
used to enforce the law, and the Southerners became masters in their own states for the first time since the end of the Civil War.

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 in a dispute over the use of federal troops by U.S. marshals in the South. Based
on precedent, Attorney General Charles Devens took the position that the U.S. Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized U.S. marshals to
raise a posse comitatus comprising every person in a district above 15 years of age, “including the military of all denominations,
militia, soldiers, marines, all of whom are alike bound to obey the commands of a Sheriff or Marshal.” However, Congress had
become disenchanted with the habit of U.S. marshals and sheriffs to press Army troops into their service without the approval of
the commander in chief. The Southerners in particular questioned this policy. Ironically, the posse comitatus doctrine had been
postulated in 1854 by Attorney General Cushing to help Southerners enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Now it was being used to
contest the Ku Klux Klan. On 27 May 1878, Representative J. Proctor Knott of Kentucky introduced an amendment to the Army
appropriations bill; the amendment eventually became the Posse Comitatus Act. In passing the act, the Congress voted to restrict
the ability of U.S. marshals and local sheriffs to conscript military personnel into their posses. They did not vote to preclude the
use of troops if authorized by the president or Congress.

Somehow, in the past 125 years, the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act has been stood on its head. Clearly the exposition above
demonstrates that the intent of the act was not to preclude the Army from enforcing the law but instead was designed to allow the
Army to do this only when directed to do so by the President or Congress. The official history of the use of the military services to
enforce the laws says:

Some of those who opposed it [the Posse Comitatus Act] in the Congress charged that [it] was taking away from the president
entirely the power to use troops to repress internal disorders except on request of a state governor or legislature, that President
Washington could not even had dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion under its terms. This interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act
has often been raised by those protesting against federal troops intervention in the many instances it has occurred since 1878.
And indeed the question of what the real meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act was has been the subject of some dispute ever
since its passage … however ... all that it really did was to repeal a doctrine whose only substantial foundation was an opinion by
an attorney general, and one that had never been tested in the courts. The president's power to use both regular and military
remained undisturbed by the Posse Comitatus Act, and by the law of 1861 and the Ku Klux Klan Act that had in fact been
substantially strengthened during the Civil War and Reconstruction Era. But the posse Comitatus Act did mean that troops could
not be used on any authority than that of the President and that he must issue a cease and desist proclamation before he did so.
Commanders in the field would no longer have any discretion but must wait for orders from Washington.

The immediate impact of the Posse Comitatus Act was not felt very much in the Southern states because President Hayes had
withdrawn the troops that had been occupying them. However, there was great impact in the West, where the Cushing Doctrine
had been used a great deal by marshals and local sheriffs to call on local military commanders for assistance. Having to wait for
presidential approval before troops could be used was disadvantageous given the turbulence common on the frontier. [8]

The Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act

Before speculating on why this act is so misunderstood, it is useful to spell out exactly what the act as it is written does and does
not do. The Posse Comitatus Act

Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947.

Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine
Corps should behave as if the act applied to them.

Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law
enforcement agency with police powers.

Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective
governors.

May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no
restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. [9] It is commonly believed, however, that National
Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is
followed today.

Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors.

Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have
jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military
dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal
police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law.

Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of
the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the
sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at
its facilities.

Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic
operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and
many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. [10] Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local
or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes.
In recent years, several laws have been enacted that grant specific exceptions to the application of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 831, provides that if nuclear material is involved in an emergency, the Secretary of Defense may
provide assistance to the Department of Justice, notwithstanding the Posse Comitatus Act.

Title 10 U.S. Code, Chapter 18, authorizes military support for civilian law enforcement agencies for counterdrug operations and in
emergencies involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. The Secretary of Defense may provide information,
allow the use of military equipment and facilities, train law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of military
equipment, and maintain such equipment. Support for law enforcement agencies may not impair military readiness, and military
personnel shall not participate in searches, seizures, arrests, or similar activities unless such participation is otherwise
authorized by law. (Military police personnel, for example, may enforce the law within their jurisdictions.)

If there were violations of the act, the culprits would not be members of the Army and Air Force who assisted local law
enforcement agencies but rather the local law enforcement officials who required the troops to assist in the enforcement of laws
or local military commanders who did so without obtaining Presidential authority. It is no wonder that there have never been any
prosecutions under the law.

=================================================================

FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm

Compound / Range 3
This is the site with the latest info & pictures concerning the "Camp Grayling Range 3 area" speculated by some to be a citizen
detention camp located on a Michigan military reservation.
Surely, this is a very real place...But, what is this place exactly, and does it serve as a sinister holding area for future
government dissidents through Rex '84, Operation Garden Plot, & FEMA programs?
Decide for yourself...

http://www.geocities.com/stealth_shadow2005/index.html

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Wed Aug 14 20:09:38 2002
68.98.68.169

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.
By Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at
George Washington University.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm

Los Angeles Times

Wednesday, 14 August, 2002

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he
deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political
embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him
to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip
them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring
them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and
reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas
Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become
clear and present threat to our liberties.

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner
circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether
this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser
Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges
and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are
virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi
and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units.
Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating
Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.

This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered
that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The
Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its
declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority
in "a time of war."

In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan
to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The
administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was
no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla
is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts
that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen
whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological
terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend
which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent
to Ashcroft's new camps.

Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such
camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the
order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American
citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking
smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority,
once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.

We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his
predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered
by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself,
neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.

For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent
values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal,
where security must precede liberty.

Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has
become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens
to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist
attacks.

His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would
induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer,
Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would
cut down every law in England to get after the devil.

More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was
down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws
all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to
coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do
you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions
as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before
we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take
a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."

Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can
no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot
join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already
lost what we are defending.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article,
go to LA Times Rights and Permissions: Homepage .

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
=====================================================================================

Internment Camps Map Posted 8/19/01
Sun Aug 19 02:01:46 2001

RECEIVED VIA MAIL 8/17/01

Dear APFN:

Sorry to sound mysterious, but with Echolon snooping I didn't want to
send a red flag.

My friend was a dispatcher for the truck lines for 35 years and no dummy.
When the bases were closed and her trucks sent in she knew by the material sent in
that they were being rehabed for internment centers. enclosed is the
map she kept track of them.

Also you are missing the underground city of Denver under the airport and the
crematorium below. there was a website that carried the article and pictures.

If you want, I'll try to dig them up.

Also unknown is the 350 special forces military men last seen going to
the Denver airport and remain missing. This was 3 years ago.

Yours in the knowing Christians.

Concentration camps in US by State index
http://www.rense.com/general17/statebystate.htm

Concentration camps in US
http://web.archive.org/web/20030325093911/http://gulagamerika.homestead.com/

MILITARY POLICE INTERNMENT/RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202213118/http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.40/toc.htm
Interament Camps Map Posted 8/19/01 PDF FORMAT:
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/camps.pdf

Concentration/Detention Camps
UN Equipment Said In Place Around US
http://www.rense.com/political/campsfound.htm

CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS UP FOR REVIEW
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/camp9-97.html

Concentration Camp Locations in Southern California
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/concentration.htm

U.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM

"The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they
would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention
centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed
down and to be turned into prisons"
Heres the full article
**************************************************

Web site of Concentration Camps made for you! One of the U.S. Plans for NWO "New world Order"
U.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS
FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM

There over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and
even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.

The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they
would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and
to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated
for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover
of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will
head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal
framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport
nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just
outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.

=====================================================================

A person named Terry Kings wrote an article on his discoveries of camps
located in southern California. His findings are as follows:
Over the last couple months several of us have investigated three soon-to-be prison camps in the Southern California area. We
had heard about these sites and wanted to see them for ourselves.

The first one we observed was in Palmdale, California. It is not operating as a prison at the moment but is masquerading as part of
a water facility. Now why would there be a facility of this nature out in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no prisoners? The
fences that run for miles around this large facility all point inward, and there are large mounds of dirt and dry moat surrounding
the central area so the inside area is not visible from the road. There are 3 large loading docks facing the entrance that can be
observed from the road. What are these massive docks going to be loading?

We observed white vans patrolling the area and one came out and greeted us with a friendly wave and followed us until we had
driven safely beyond the area. What would have happened had we decided to enter the open gate or ask questions?

This facility is across the street from the Palmdale Water Department. The area around the Water Department has fences
pointing outward, to keep people out of this dangerous area so as not to drown. Yet, across the street, the fences all point inward.
Why? To keep people in? What people? Who are going to be it's occupants?

There are also signs posted every 50 feet stating: State of California Trespassing Loitering Forbidden By Law Section 555
California Penal Code.

The sign at the entrance says: Pearblossom Operations and Maintenance Subcenter Receiving Department, 34534 116th Street
East. There is also a guard shack located at the entrance.

We didn't venture into this facility, but did circle around it to see if there was anything else visible from the road. We saw miles
of fences with the top points all directed inward. There is a railroad track that runs next to the perimeter of this fenced area.
The loading docks are large enough to hold railroad cars.

I wonder what they are planning for this facility? They could easily fit 100,000 people in this area. And who would the occupants
be?

Another site is located in Brand Park in Glendale. There are newly constructed fences (all outfitted with new wiring that point
inward). The fences surround a dry reservoir. There are also new buildings situated in the area. We questioned the idea that
there were four armed military personnel walking the park. Since when does a public park need armed guards?

A third site visited was in the San Fernando Valley, adjacent to the Water District. Again, the area around the actual Water
District had fences logically pointing out (to keep people out of the dangerous area). And the rest of the adjacent area which went
on for several miles was ringed with fences and barbed wire facing inward (to keep what or who in?) Also, interesting was the fact
that the addition to the tops of the fences were fairly new as to not even contain any sign of rust on them. Within the grounds
was a huge building that the guard said was a training range for policemen. There were newly constructed roads, new gray military
looking buildings, and a landing strip. For what? Police cars were constantly patrolling the several mile perimeter of the area.

From the parking lot of the Odyssey Restaurant a better view could be taken of the area that was hidden from site from the
highway. There was an area that contained about 100 black boxes that looked like railroad cars. We had heard that loads of
railroad cars have been manufactured in Oregon outfitted with shackles. Would these be of that nature? From our position it was
hard to determine.

In searching the Internet, I have discovered that there are about 600 of these prison sites around the country (and more literally
popping up overnight do they work all night). They are manned, but yet do not contain prisoners. Why do they need all these non-
operating prisons? What are they waiting for? We continuously hear that our current prisons are overcrowded and they are
releasing prisoners because of this situation. But what about all these facilities? What are they really for? Why are there armed
guards yet no one to protect themselves against? And what is going to be the kick-off point to put these facilities into operation?

What would bring about a situation that would call into effect the need for these new prison facilities? A man-made or natural
catastrophe? An earthquake, panic due to Y2K, a massive poisoning, a panic of such dimensions to cause nationwide panic?

Once a major disaster occurs (whether it is a real event or manufactured event does not matter) Martial Law is hurriedly put in
place and we are all in the hands of the government agencies (FEMA) who thus portray themselves as our protectors. Yet what
happens when we question those in authority and how they are taking away all of our freedoms? Will we be the ones detained in
these camp sites? And who are they going to round up? Those with guns? Those who ask questions? Those that want to know what's
really going on? Does that include any of us? The seekers of truth?

When first coming across this information I was in a state of total denial. How could this be? I believed our country was free, and
always felt a sense of comfort in knowing that as long as we didn't hurt others in observing our freedom we were left to ourselves.
Ideally we treated everyone with respect and honored their uniqueness and hoped that others did likewise.

It took an intensive year of searching into the hidden politics to discover that we are as free as we believe we are. If we are in
denial, we don't see the signs that are staring at us, but keep our minds turned off and busy with all the mundane affairs of daily
life.

We just don't care enough to find out the real truth, and settle for the hand-fed stories that come our way over the major media
sources television, radio, newspaper, and magazines. But it's too late to turn back to the days of blindfolds and hiding our heads in
the sand because the reality is becoming very clear. The time is fast approaching when we will be the ones asking "What happened
to our freedom? To our free speech? To our right to protect ourselves and our family? To think as an individual? To express
ourselves in whatever way we wish?"

Once we challenge that freedom we find out how free we really are. How many are willing to take up that challenge? Very few
indeed, otherwise we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation that we are in at the present time. We wouldn't have let things
progress and get out of the hands of the public and into the hands of those that seek to keep us under their control no matter
what it takes, and that includes the use of force and detainment for those that ask the wrong questions.

Will asking questions be outlawed next? Several instances have recently been reported where those that were asking questions that
came too near the untold truth (the cover up) were removed from the press conferences and from the public's ear. Also, those
that wanted to speak to the press were detained and either imprisoned, locked in a psychiatric hospital, slaughtered (through make-
believe suicides) or discredited.

Why are we all in denial over these possibilities? Didn't we hear about prison camps in Germany, and even in the United States
during World War II? Japanese individuals were rounded up and placed in determent camps during the duration of the War. Where
was their freedom?

You don't think it could happen to you? Obviously those rounded up and killed didn't think it could happen to them either. How could
decent people have witnessed such atrocities and still said nothing? Are we going to do the same here as they cart off one by one
those individuals who are taking a stand for the rights of the citizens as they expose the truth happening behind the scenes? Are
we all going to sit there and wonder what happened to this country of ours? Where did we go wrong? How could we let it happen?
Archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20001019053553/http://www.abovetopsecret.com/camps.html

==========================================================

The Coming American Holocaust? 9-22-98

Note - The following is an interview with 'Mr. Sea' regarding alleged New World Order plans for the U.S. and its citizens. This is
being posted as a point of information. We have seen video of the Indiana facility mentioned and it does appear to accurately fit
the description in this interview.

[NOTE: odds are you won't believe this source, so I have included an alternative source including admissions from the Director of
Resource Management for the U.S. Army and from Congressman Henry Gonzales (D,Texas). Read it and get very angry. - W.A.C.]

In the spring of 1997, Senior Editor, Professor Ian Stewart, met with "Mr. Sea" (real name known but withheld) to discuss what
he has learned first-hand about the coming persecution at the hands of the New World Order operatives.

With a seven-inch thick portfolio filled with photographs, news articles, correspondence, etc., Mr. Sea revealed disturbing
information about New World Order efforts to destroy and enslave America.

The following are some of Mr. Sea's comments. But first, let's take a look at the man who made the comments.

Mr. Sea, a committed Christian, is a former inspector for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense, with 31
years of federal service: 22 in the military, nine with the Department of Defense, including two years with the Air Staff. He's a
holder of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three awards of the Joint Service Medal, all
of the Vietnamese awards, as well as the Joint Meritorious Unit Medal.

When he retired a few years ago, he was awarded the Secretary of Defense Civilian Service Medal. He's been around the world
to 31 countries on four continents, and speaks five languages.

Mr. Sea spoke of the coming American Holocaust of the Government's plans for dealing with the non-New World Orderites. He
spoke of the infrastructure that has already been set up to incarcerate and execute Americans, and the locations of the facilities
that will be used for these purposes all with photographs, leaving little to the imagination.

"The infrastructure is set up. There are at least 130 concentration camps quietly modified facilities which have sprung up and
continue to spring up across the country, seemingly devoid of activity, yet requiring strange accoutrements such as barbed wire-
topped fencing (with the tops turned inward) and helicopter wind socks. Most have good logistical supportability, with major
highways and railroad transport facilities adjacent to the sites.

"These facilities, many in remote areas across our country, are set up to become concentration/detention camps, complete with gas
chambers, for resisters and dissidents. Generally speaking, they're set up for dissenters who will not go along with the New World
Order. The 'resisters' are gun owners who refuse to give up their weapons; the 'dissidents' are Christians, Patriots and
Constitutionalists. These camps are set up. I've seen many of them.

"On August 6, 1994, I toured the Amtrak Railcar Repair Facility at Beech Grove, Indianapolis, Indiana. There are at least ten
maintenance barns at this facility, covering 129 acres, with two separate fences with the tops leaning inward. The windows of
several buildings have been bricked up. Hence, you have three levels of security for Amtrak repair barns!

"There are three helicopter 25-knot aviation wind socks (which aren't the correct ones to use for chemical spills which require 10-
knot wind socks). There are high security NSA-style people turnstiles, and high intensity/security lighting for 24-hour operation.
The box car (gas chamber) building fence is marked with special 'RED/BLUE Zone' signs [visible in the photo ]. This corresponds to
the 'mission' of the RED/BLUE Lists which surfaced in June and July of 1996.

[NOTE: that is approx. when I became convinced that rumours of similar compounds here in Canada had a basis in fact.- W.A.C.]

"Under martial law, this will become a death camp. They're only going to handle category one and two (RED and BLUE) people
there. This box car facility will be used for execution.

"One of the barns is large enough to put four box cars into. There are powered vents on the top of the barn to vent the gas out of
the building after the box cars have been fumigated. All of the buildings have newly installed six-inch gas pipes and furnaces
installed in all 'railroad barns.'

"Since the photo [snipped] was taken in August 1994, FEMA has allocated $6 million to make the walls and roofs of the buildings
'airtight' (see article below). Under martial law, this facility could be immediately used as an SS-style 'termination' gas chamber.

"On January 27, 1995, The Indianapolis News ran an article titled, 'Amtrak Lays off 212 at Beech Grove: 170 Lose Jobs at
Maintenance Center Today.' Why perform $6 million worth of renovations, and then lay off 212 people? Because the people doing
the final executions will not be Americans. Thus, the 'slots' of the 212 will be filled with non-Americans.

"They'll hire foreigners for this 'cappo' task. Cappo ('chief' in Italian) was the title of the trustee prisoners who actually killed
many Jews for the SS butchers at Dachau, and at other Nazi crematoria across Europe.

"The news article also said, '...hopes the yard may be able to solicit work repairing private train cars, and perhaps subway cars
from Washington, DC, or other urban areas.' The repairing of private trains is a dead giveaway to death cars!

"The article went on to say, 'Late last year, Congress ordered Amtrak to spend at least $5.9 million patching holes in the roof
and fixing masonry on the walls of the giant machine sheds at Beech Grove.' These buildings have been 'sealed.' They're airtight.
The facility is constructed to allow gas to be blown into all the buildings via the newly installed, two-story, hot air heating
furnaces."
======================================================================
San Francisco Chronicle
Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg

Monday, February 4, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny
him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or
Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

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 noncitizen 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 (KBR) 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 (NDAA), "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 noncitizens 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 (Los Angeles County) 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 combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country
faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping 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.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

OBAMA DECEPTION ... THE MOVIE

OBAMA'S PRIVATE ARMY

A DAY IN THE PARK U.S.S.A.
alternate ending

U.S. APPROVES USE OF MILITARY AGAINST CITIZENS

GO GREEN NOW   * SOCIAL NETWORKS * PET PEOPLE * MOVIE MADNESS * MUSIC MAYHEM
MAIL BAG * TRAVEL TIME * RELIGION REALITY * SEARCH ENGINES * CHAT FORUMS
4 THE HEALTH of IT * SENIOR CITIZENS * GAMES PEOPLE PLAY * GROUP CONNECTIONS

Just 4 Students >>> TEACHERS LOUNGE * ELEMENTARY * MIDDLE SCHOOL * HIGH SCHOOL * COLLEGE DAZE

P .C .P . PeoplesCreditCardBailOutProgram * VOTESHOUNT2012 * SHOUNT HOME PAGE * N.W.O. HEAD QUARTERs
SURVIVAL SKILLZ * STRIKE 3 * ALEX JONES * SHOUNT SHOP * GET SOVEREIGN
WHAT are "they" SPRAYING on US * WHAT SHOUNTS ALL ABOUT * NEWs U.S.A. * WORLD NEWs
WALL STREET * SPORTs FREAK * GOVERNMENT AGENTCYs * THE OBAMA FILEs