Replies to post #31258 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[easymoney101]

How about that Pentagon plan for martial law?

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

August 19, 2005—Of course, few are putting it that way. But in an August 8, 2005, Washington Post article, its author Bradley Graham headlined it this way: "War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.—Domestic Effort is Big Shift for Military." What a flair for understatement.

Datelined from Colorado Springs, the Evangelical Christian, Northern Command headquarters, Graham writes, "The U.S. Military has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans." Well thanks, fellas, for the effort, but it's been nearly four years since 9/11.

Nevertheless, "the classified plans . . . outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian response teams." Huh? When, where, who?

And "the possible scenarios range from 'low end,' relatively modest crowd-control missions to 'high-end,' full-scale [and/or multiple] disaster management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers said."

Translated into everyday English, if there's a real or, dare I say, "false flag" op/disaster in the A (atomic), B (biological) or C (chemical) areas, a la 9/11, or like the Maryland-based, government "anthrax" attack, we could be in a national state of martial law, up to our ears. C'est la vie, n'est pas, or non?

The article says, "The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant [not] to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, the firefighters and other civilian reponse groups."

Bolstering is it? A largely supporting role? That may be. "But 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." Take charge? Take civil liberties away. Okay, and take what else?

Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of NORTHCOM, which coordinates military involvement in homeland security operations, said, "In my estimation in 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."

I'm sure you'll also be running parallel drills left and right. I know the military exercises code-named Vital Arch involve troops in lead roles and are zip-the-lips secret. But "other homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely publicized," you say. I haven't heard of one. Also, who knows if and when a real attack strikes how much of your ability to respond will be siphoned off or even caused by drills—giving you the power to take over a city, a state, even the nation. And what about the cops, firemen and EMS—I guess they're under your command as well?

In general, Admiral, it seems like a stretch of the law let alone your capability "to build a more credible homeland defense force . . ." As you say, "They come at a time when senior Pentagon officials are engaged in an internal, year-long review of force levels and weapons systems, attempting to balance the heightened requirement of homeland defense against the heavy demands of overseas deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere." Seems like you've got a lot on your plate as well as phrases in that sentence, sir.

Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe, NORTHCOM's chief operations officer, worries that the "'stress points' in some military capabilities probably would result if troops were called on to deal with multiple homeland attacks." Well, internal stress points certainly complicated things on 9/11, like United Airlines Flight 93 going down over southwest Pennsylvania. Ironically, many witnesses claimed it was shot down by a military looking plane accompanied by two F-16's. What's more, American Airlines Flight 77 somehow managed to squeeze itself into the Pentagon and vanish in an 18-foot wide hole (including fuselage, wings, baggage, body parts, et al). Yet some part of it [?] exited from an 8-foot wide hole three rings through. And we weren't even at war with Afghanistan then or illegally at war with Iraq. Nor had we lost thousands of men or experienced thousands more casualties. So how are you guys going to juggle all this?

Presenting the Plan

The Pentagon talks about two command plans. First (and don't be put off by the names) CONPLAN 2002, over 1,000 pages, is an "umbrella document." The CON is for concept, not what you may have thought, or maybe not. This draws together previous orders for homeland missions for air, sea and land ops, both for post-attack responses and prevention/deterrence actions to intercept threats before they reach the United States. Whew. Pity we couldn't do a whit of this on 9/11 just in old New York, D.C. or Pa. The second plan (aptly named CONPLAN 2005) is solely about managing the attacks' consequences as presented in the 15 scenarios. What if it's something not in the scenarios, like two jetliners whacking the Twin Towers for the first time? Do we still call 911? Or will the Pentagon make sure it's one of the 15 scenarios as only it can do?

Now CONPLAN 2002, we're told, has passed muster with the Pentagon's Joint Staff and will soon get passed up to Donald H. Rumsfeld for study and stamp of approval. You remember Rumsfeld, don't you? He's the one who in the October 12, 2002, interview with Parade Magazine was noted in regard to the Pentagon attack to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

Missile? What missile? Did he know something we didn't? Did he have any proof? He'd better or he'd be in a helluva lot of hot water. Missile. Jesus.

Getting back to CONPLAN 0500, that's still undergoing rewrites, like any good script. Both CONPLANs tend to be shortened versions of an OPLAN, or "operations plan," which we're told specifies forces and timelines for movement into a time zone. I'll bet. Today New Jersey, tomorrow California.

We're also told the plans, like much about NORTHCOM, "mark a new venture by a U.S. military establishment still trying to find its comfort level with the idea of a greater homeland defense role after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks." Uh huh, got it.

Ranking military and civilian Pentagon policymakers understand, they say, that on one hand the armed forces have a lot to offer in numbers of troops, and also in their breadth of experience managing crises and responding to emergencies. On the other hand, they do worry too much involvement in homeland missions would cut the military's clout to deal with threats abroad. And I say it might also make America look like a fascist state, what with the U.S. boots filling your town and mine, coast to coast. We certainly wouldn't want that.

In fact, the Pentagon's new homeland defense strategy actually emphases in boldface type that "domestic security is primarily a civilian law enforcement function." Ah the Pentagon doth protest too much, though the caveat is that ground troops might be sent into action on U.S. soil to counter security threats and deal with major emergencies. And I guess they decide what such threats are and what constitutes major.

But have no fear. James Carafano, who deals with homeland security issues for the slightly-to-the-right-of-Ghengus Khan Heritage Foundation, says, "For the Pentagon to acknowledge that it would have to respond to catastrophic attack and needs a plan was a big step." Wow, that is large, James: really big thinking. Their motives must be pure. But just so you know, "since NORTHCOM's inception in October 2002, its headquarters staff has grown to about 640 members, making it larger than the Southern Command, which oversees operations in Latin America, but smaller than the regional commands for Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific." Well, at least there's some perspective. No one would want it that big, would we America? Nevertheless, "A brief tour late last month of NORTHCOM's operations center . . . found officers monitoring not only aircraft and ship traffic around the United States but also the Discovery space shuttle mission, the National Scott Jamboree in Virginia, several border surveillance operations and a few forest firefighting efforts." And tomorrow the world. And how?

Introducing the "Dual-Use" Approach

The command settled on using one big pool of troops trained for both the homeland und overseas assignments. And they'll be counting on the old National Guard, which has a growing network of 22-member civil support teams for all states while putting together a dozen or so 12-member regional response units. Sounds like they are spread a little thin, though I realize the NORTHCOM chief can call on active-duty troops as well. Would he call them back from Iraq or Afghanistan if need be, or call some more from high school and college classes? Congress did give the Guard a wider authority to perform homeland missions, including securing power plants and other important facilities. So, they could be very busy guys.

Also, Admiral Keating gained authority to send fighter jets out, even to dispatch Navy and Coast Guard ships for off-coast threats. Plus he has immediate access to four, count 'em, four active duty Army battalions based around the USA. Don't mess with him.

But, supposedly, even if they had to take the lead role in homeland ops, it would "probably" just be temporary. Sooner (preferably) or later, the leadership responsibility would pass back to civilian authorities. Or else, someone might get that old martial law feeling again.

Nasty Legal Questions

Now, those pesky civil liberties groups are waving fingers at all this, saying the military's widened participation in homeland defense could conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It definitely restricts the use of troops in homeland law enforcement. But then why did the Pentagon tell Congress they saw no need to change the law? Are they just going to ignore it?

The military lawyers say the use of ground troops would be likely justified under the president's authority in Article 2 of the Constitution, where he serves as commander in chief to protect the nation. What? Like starting an illegal unilateral war with Iraq was supposed to protect us from weapons of mass destruction? Does he have the credibility and judgment to do that—even though Col. John Gereski, a senior NORTHCOM lawyer cites Article 2 as a good starting place to hand Bush these powers?

What's more, there's another sticky wicket that Admiral Keating pointed out. National Guard officers put in command of task forces including active-duty and/or Guard units, which act under state control, are not covered under the Posse Comitatus restrictions. As Keating said, "It could be a challenge for the commander who's a Guardsman, if we end up in a fairly complex, dynamic scenario." He envisioned a situation in which Guard units might begin to round up people while regular forces could not. Well, they could toss a coin for who's really in control, and best two out of three flips for which people should be "rounded up." Let's be fair here. Works in the Superbowl.

But hey, the command is sensitive to legal issues, Gereski noted. Why they've got 14, count 'em, 14 lawyers on staff, compared to 10 or fewer at other commands. One lawyer, we're told, serves "full time at the command's Combined Intelligence and Fusion Center, which joins military analysts with law enforcement and counterintelligence specialists from such civilian agencies as the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service." Boy, that makes me feel safe, the Fusion Center. In fact, we're told, there's no intelligence collection at all there, only analysis. Well, I can relax now.

One senior supervisor noted "the military operation under long-standing rules [is] intended to protect civilian liberties. The rules, for instance, block military access to intelligence information on political dissent or purely criminal activity." I bet you all feel like a million bucks now, especially you bloggers, Internet writers and investigative reporters. Though keep in mind, the center's lawyer is called in every now and then to rule on the right or wrong-ness of some kinds of info sharing. Recently, he was called in twice in 10 days, but declined to give specifics. You know, loose lips sink ships. So button those lips. Because any day now, someone, somewhere, somehow, could decide to attack. And like the song says, "That could be the start of something new." Something like a Brave New World.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer residing in New York. Reach him at [e-mail].


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/081905Mazza/081905mazza.html

[teapeebubbles]

Thousands Of Troops Are Sick And Dying From Illegal DU Use And Military's Failure To Admit Responsibility
Greg Szymanski –

Arctic Beacon August 20, 2005

Army Major Doug Rokke has been shot at, run off the road, threatened, harassed, black- balled, intimidated, called a liar and treated like a “hated enemy” not by opposition forces in Iraq, but by ‘secret ops’ in the U.S. government, obviously acting on orders from top military brass.

And in May 2000 he was subjected to the biggest scare of his life when bullets rang through his son’s bedroom window while living in Jacksonville, Alabama, in what he calls “another near miss” by government hit men bound and determined to remove his presence from the planet.

Maj. Rokke, living in Rantoul, Illinois, and still active in the Army Reserves, has been a government target ever since going public in a May 1997 article in the Nation Magazine, criticizing the military for failing to clean-up depleted uranium used in Iraq during the first Gulf War.

Although Maj. Rokke’s accusations have been echoed by many others what makes his statements so electrifying – so damaging to the military - is that he was one of the Pentagon’s ‘top boys.’ In fact, he was not only one of the Pentagon’s elite, he was “the man” so to speak when it came to determining the causes and effects of depleted uranium (DU) used in the battle field.

Being so well-respected by the Pentagon brass, Maj. Rokke was the military expert assigned as director of the 1994 U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project in response to congressional inquiries and direct Department of Defense (DOD) orders.

The study was commissioned after it was found the military lacked adequate preparation to deal with the adverse health and environmental effects regarding the use of DU in the battle field. This highly efficient ‘killing tool,’ which amounts to nothing less than a radioactive nuclear assault, has been extensively used in U.S. weaponry in the first Gulf War as well as the present Iraqi conflict, even though it is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention and United Nation regulations.

In simple terms, Maj. Rokke was asked to evaluate the extent of DU used and asked to advise the military how to adequately comply with its own existing regulations of training, clean-up and medical care involving soldiers and civilians contaminated.

In his final report, Maj. Rokke, however, didn’t beat around the bush or provide a technical escape for evading regulations. He simply laid it on the table plain and simple, saying if the military intended to keep using DU, it needed to address the above problems, as regulations mandated, or simply cease and desist from its use.

And. in hindsight, it was probably the words “cease and desist” or Maj. Rokke’s simple ultimatum of “clean-up or don’t use” that initially ticked-off military brass, since behind the scenes the ‘big boys” never really intended to open up a can of worms caused by Maj. Rokke’s report.

But when the implacable army officer went public about the extent of the DU problems in 1997, letting the cat out of the bag about the military’s outright refusal to comply with existing regulations, the ‘big boys’ put their boxing gloves on and are still trying to punch Maj. Rokke into submission today.

“They have been after me ever since I went public,” said Maj. Rokke in a telephone conversation this week from his country home in the heartland of Illinois. “I’ve been shot at, run off the road several times, harassed, threatened and whatever else they could think of doing to discredit me for what I was doing.

“They even shot bullets through my son’s bedroom window. These guys don’t play around and the first thing I was told when I went public was to keep my 45 loaded at all times.”

Even though Maj. Rokke’s obviously right and the military wrong, the cold and hard truth is that the big brass tried to crucify him for simply telling the truth. The cold hard truth is that even though the military admits using DU, it never has admitted to the legal causal connection between its use and its adverse effects on human and environmental health.

And critics contend that such outright contempt for its own regulations and the military’s failure to provide adequate medical care for those exposed to DU has left hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians sick or dying, including Maj. Rokke.

“It’s really very simple,” added Maj. Rokke. “I was asked to report on what they needed to do about the DU problem. Our team of experts then reported and provided our recommendations, plain and simple.

“But when I realized in 1997 we were being ignored and thousands of people, including myself, were sick and possibly slowly dying from DU exposure, I had to go public and blow the whistle.”

And Maj. Rokke said his warnings as well as warnings from many other experts were not only dismissed by the military, but also by every other bigwig on Capital Hill, including President Clinton, Senator John Kerry and every other member of Congress, all very much aware of his position since he even addressed the 2000 Fall Congressional Coalition Leadership at its quarterly breakfast in Washington D.C.

Adding that the DU problem is even worse today, Maj. Rokke pointed out the military continues to bombard the Iraq and Afghanistan with “increased levels’ of nuclear weaponry, leaving in its wake even higher levels of nuclear fallout then were present in Gulf War I.

And like President Clinton, his predecessor, President Bush has failed to address or even recognize the problem, leaving behind ‘hot zones’ in the Middle East while, at the same time, failing to care for radiation illnesses in returning troops.

“President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair must acknowledge and must accept responsibility for the willful use of illegal uranium munitions, their own ‘dirty bombs,’ resulting in adverse health and environmental effects,” wrote Maj. Rokke in recent open letter, criticizing the two major leaders of the Iraq occupation.

And being crystal clear about his demands in compliance with existing military regulations, he added:

“President Bush and Prime Minister Blair need to immediately order medical care for all DU casualties, order thorough environmental remediation, issue immediate orders for the cessation and retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and ban the further use of depleted radiation munitions.

“They arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care "all" exposed individuals [Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters.

“U.S. Army Medical Command 29 April 2004), and section 2-5 of AR 70-48. They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive contamination as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted

Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army,

Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996).

To further bolster Maj. Rokke’s accusations, all the following regulations are being violated, specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated Sept.16, 2002, requiring:

(1) "Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE" (radiological contaminated equipment).

(2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible."

(3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment" and;

(4) "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48.”

With the military’s blatant violations placed in the public eye due to Mj. Rokke’s courage to buck the system, other experts and scientists quickly came to Maj. Rokke’s side, offering startling information and detailed statistics showing the seriousness of the DU problem and the government’s failure to take responsibility even though it obviously caused the problem.

Radiation experts Leuren Moret and Marion Fulk, along with others like Dennis Kyne, Bob Jones and Mark Zeller, have provided documentation for an explosive video just released, written and produced by Joyce Riley and William Lewis, called “Beyond Treason,” providing an in depth look at DU used in the Gulf Wars and its likelihood of causing numerous civilian and military illnesses.

“It has been determined that the equivalent of more than 400,000 Nagasaki bombs has been released in the middle east since 1991,” said Moret, citing a report and subsequent speech at a 2000 depleted uranium conference given by Professor Yagasaki, a physicist and well-respected nuclear radiation expert.

Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the writers of Beyond Treason added more ammunition to Rokke’s accusations regarding the government’s failure to recognize the DU problem 15 years after it was first exposed:

“The ailing Gulf War heroes from all 27 coalition countries slowly die from of “unknown causes,” they wait for answers from their respective governments, but no satisfying or even credible answers have come forth from the military establishment. Records that span over a decade point to negligence and even culpability on the part of the U.S. Department of Defense and their ‘disposable army” mentality.

“The VA has determined that 250,000 troops are now permanently disabled, 15,000 troops are dead and over 425,000 are ill and slowly dying from what the Department of Defense still calls a mystery disease. How many more will have to die before action is taken?”

Although Maj. Rokke has been fighting to save the lives of thousands of afflicted veterans, he is also trying to save his own life as he was originally exposed to DU in 1990 and 1991 while deployed in Iraq and looking into the hazards of DU.
“First, I remember experiencing breathing problems, then a rash and then bleeding sores that never go away,” said Rokke, 56, adding DU exposure is slowly, day by day, turning him into an invalid. “The sad thing is that only several hundred military personnel have even been tested for DU exposure since the beginning when there are literally hundreds of thousands afflicted.

“In fact, it took the military more than two years to even tell me that I was ‘hot,’ withholding my urine tests and hiding the truth. One of the reasons I went public is because so many soldiers are dying from the same symptoms I have and the military simply still refuses to take medical responsibility and care for them.”

Recently, to keep the DU issue alive, Maj. Rokke published an article in the Nov. 27, 2004 edition of the popular Vanity Fair magazine, where he updated his concerns with new information about Gulf War II.

After the article appeared, he said the Pentagon and others in military circles immediately unleashed another attack on his character, accusing him of lying and even saying he never headed up the Pentagon’s DU program in the first place.

“I guess if I played their game, I would sitting somewhere with a cushy $100,000 a year job,” said Mj. Rokke. “But I decided to do what’s right no matter what the consequences. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a peace-nick. I am a military officer and a warrior. I would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons only, however, if it was a last. But I also feel the military should live up to its responsibilities and follow regulations, which is not the case now and why I am speaking out.”

Although declaring himself a warrior, Maj. Rokke tempered that statement, writing in September, 2002, what he called a “A Commitment To Peace.” In this short open letter, however, much is revealed about the inner-man, his obvious choice of peace versus war and his ultimate fears about the ramifications of the Iraqi invasion, which at the time of his writing was just on the horizon:

“As I sit here tonight unable to sleep, my mind is considering the ramifications of potential and ongoing military actions and economic sanctions. As a disabled warrior with combat experience in two wars, Vietnam and Desert Storm, I can only hope and pray that the outcomes of these actions do not leave another trail of adverse health and environmental problems.

“I have concluded that we must unite in a concerted effort to prevent additional suffering. Throughout the history of the world those who make a commitment to peace have endured isolation and retaliation when they challenged the individuals and governments seeking economic and political advantages. A vision of peace where all nations can live together for the common good is an ideal dream but may be unrealistic.

“War is the ultimate weapon a nation or leaders can use to control the allocation and use of food, water, terrain, shelter, and mineral resources. War occurs when nations or individuals fail to reach a satisfactory compromise on sharing of these limited resources.

Today we are reaching another crossroads in history where we must decide which road we follow. We can select peace or go to war. One means life the other means death! The prevalent modus operandi at this time of those seeking power and control is to threaten economic sanctions or military attacks in order to achieve their goals and objectives.

“This is unacceptable. We must act to with a unified and strong voice prevent nations and leaders from imposing their demands on others. At the same time we must make sure that those nations and leaders who pose a viable threat to peace are checkmated. But that does not mean that we result to military force.

“There are many options but only wise persons are willing to discuss and mutually select the option most beneficial to all. Today information control is used to prevent discussion and debate. If a person does not have adequate and validated information they will be unable to contribute to the resolution of serious problems. We must ensure the complete dissemination of information even if that information reveals illegal or disturbing actions by our own or any other nation.

“These ways to achieve peace will require a commitment of time, financial resources, knowledge, attitudes, life, liberty, and willingness to endure and retaliation by any person who wishes to contribute towards the resolution of local, state, national or international problems. The choice is ours. We can select a life as a mushroom or we can select to act. I select action for if peace is to be achieved then I must let peace begin with me.”
www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/31934.htm

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com