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.
This article appeared on
page B - 7
of the
San Francisco Chronicle
