• Welcome to Global Gulag Media Forum. Please login or sign up.

Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S. as Senate Declares War on Citizens

Started by Optimus, Dec 07, 2011, 08:50:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Topic originally posted by SUPREMEMASTER on Prison Planet Forum.

Exclusive: Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.


Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones
December 6, 2011

Infowars.com has received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled "Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements," the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to us by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary "emergency environment" camps located in five regions of the United States.

Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA

KBR's call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a "battlefield" and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

A number of civil liberties groups have come out in strong opposition to the legislation, most notably the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the nation's oldest and largest Asian American civil and human rights organization.

In a letter addressed to Congress, S. Floyd Mori, the national director of JACL, said the NDAA is the first time that Congress has scaled back on the protections provided by the Non-Detention Act of 1971. Mori said the legislation, if enacted and put into use, would be reminiscent of the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA.


KBR Instrumental in Establishing Camps in 2006

In 2006, KBR was awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security, allegedly to support its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency, Market Watch reported.

The contract was effective immediately and provided for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company explained.

The 45 regions indicated in the KBR document.

Army Releases Civilian Inmate Labor Program Document

Soon after KBR's announcement, a little-known Army document surfaced. Entitled the "Civilian Inmate Labor Program," the unclassified document describes in detail Army Regulation 210-35. The regulation, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid act revision" in January 2005 and now provides a policy for the creation of labor programs and prison camps on Army installations.

National Emergency Centers Act

In 2009, the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 was introduced in Congress. It mandates the establishment of "national emergency centers" to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster," according to the bill.

In addition to emergencies, the legislation is designed to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security," an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse, as Paul Joseph Watson noted in January of 2009.

Clergy Response Teams


Also in 2009, the Army National Guard began posting advertisements calling for Internment/Resettlement Specialists, a fact noted by Infowars.com, Prison Planet.com and other alternative media outlets but ignored by the establishment media.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive "scenario and drill" developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be "national security threats."

Oliver North Questioned - Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra


Rex 84 was devised by Col. Oliver North, who was with the NSC and appointed liaison to FEMA. John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of "national preparedness" programs for FEMA, and North designed the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million "American Negroes" in the event of a black militant uprising in the United States.

DHS Coordinating Occupy Arrests

Following a crackdown by police on Occupy Wall Street protesters around the nation, Oakland, California, mayor Jean Quan mentioned during an interview with the BBC that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. It was later discovered that the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal police agencies had coordinated the often violent response to the protests.

New York Rep. Peter King, who heads up the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, signaled a sense of urgency when he said the federal government has "to be careful not to allow this movement to get any legitimacy. I'm taking this seriously in that I'm old enough to remember what happened in the 1960′s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can't allow that to happen."

The federal government responded similarly in the 1960s and 70s when the FBI organized and unleashed its unconstitutional secret police under the covert banner of COINTELPRO.

In addition to the DHS characterizing Americans supporting states' rights and the Constitution as terrorists, the Defense Department's Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course in 2009 advised its personnel that political protest amounts to "low-level terrorism."

Elements of the Police State Coming Together

The KBR document is more evidence that the federal government has established internment camps and plans to fill them with dissidents and anti-government activists that have been demonized consistently by the establishment media.

The NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. The plan was initially envisioned by Rex 84 and in particular Operation Garden Plot, an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response.

The government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of its police state grid and overarching plan for the internment of political enemies.

We are quite literally one terror event away from the plan going live. As the DHS and the establishment media keep telling us, the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. The FBI has specialized in creating domestic terrorists – or rather patsies – and shifting the blame over to their political enemies.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


FEMA Camps Go Live; Ron Paul Fights Newt for Iowa & More: Infowars Nightly News


Aaron Dykes
Infowars News.com
December 6, 2011

In tonight's Tuesday, December 6, 2011 edition of the Infowars Nightly News, Alex takes on breaking news leaked from an insider about Halliburton subsidiary KBR. The documents reveal current on-going operations to staff the FEMA and U.S. Army camps it runs around the United States. According to our info, KBR is contracting services for temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, catering and other services required for temporary "emergency environment" camps located in five regions of the United States. Disturbingly, this comes immediately after the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including the controversial amendment to the bill which allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. All this at a time which economic conditions and mass demonstrations sweep the country and threaten potential unrest. Meanwhile, focus has fallen on President Obama's real reason for threatening to veto the NDAA legislation– experts say it would hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention and disrupt a tradition of executive fiat wherein presidents have long declared their own right to hold Americans.

The 2012 GOP primary is also going hot, with only weeks until the Iowa caucus initiates voting. Ron Paul, who has been consistently ignored by the media and polling agencies, has launched a new attack ad underlining the 'serial hypocrisy' of rival Newt Gingrich, a career globalist and two-faced politician who readily props up the establishment agenda. Polls currently show Newt leading Iowa, with Ron Paul in a solid second place. Alex also examines Gingrich's support for radical geoengineering projects, dovetailing with his highly publicized TV ad pitching bi-partisan climate change action alongside Nancy Pelosi.

Guest Patrick C. Dew joins Alex to discuss his statistical analysis of the media's bias against Ron Paul, citing in part the numbers compiled by the Pew Research Center earlier in the campaign which strongly suggest an intention obscuring of the Texas Congressman in his bid for presidency. Read a detailed PDF of that research here.

In the geo-political arena, China is preparing its Navy for war while Iran is reportedly positioning its long-range missiles for attack. In other news, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that everyone will be a research patient under plans to share all NHS health records with private healthcare firms. More than a year after the Gulf oil spill, BP has accused Halliburton of intentionally destroying records that held damaging evidence about the blast that initiated the massive oil leak.

Facing re-election in 2012, Obama has lost much of the support he enjoyed in 2008 from top Hollywood celebrities, while former President Bill Clinton has been accused of receiving $50,000 per month from the now-defunct MF Global for image & advisory work he did through a firm called Teneo.

While former MF Global CEO awaits testimony before Congress, Portugal has announced that it will seize some 5.6 billion euro from state employee pension funds to meet budget shortfalls. Alex will also discuss accusation from a long-time Internet software guru that Facebook IS used for mass surveillance.

In lighter news, Alex laughs off a hit piece aired on Comedy Central's Colbert Report ridiculing reports that Infowars and former Governor Jesse Ventura have done on underground bunkers reportedly connected to the otherwise creepy Denver International Airport.

Alex will also review the themes contained in Stanley Kubrick's dystopic masterpiece A Clockwork Orange, which predicts a future where society is broken, and youth gangs menace the population while the government is focused on rounding up political prisoners and re-programming common criminals in attempt to prevent crime.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


Alex Jones On Halliburton Detention Camps

Wednesday, December 7, 2011


Alex covers new evidence that confirms Halliburton is activating detention camps in the United States.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

Quote from: Jordan http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=223560.0
Must be willing to violate oath to Constitution and detain American citizens indefinitely. Chance to advance to Torture Specialist if special aptitude shown for obeying unlawful orders and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp"

Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.

Some of your duties as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist may include:

    * Assist with the supervision and management of confinement and detention operations
    * Provide external security to confinement/corrections facilities or detention/internment facilities
    * Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program
    * Prepare or review reports and records of prisoners/internees and programs


Job training for an Internment/Resettlement Specialist requires nine weeks of Basic Training, where you'll learn basic Soldiering skills, and eight weeks of Advanced Individual Training. Part of this time is spent in the classroom and part in a field environment. Some of the skills you'll learn are:

    * Military laws and jurisdictions
    * Level of Force Procedures
    * Unarmed Self-Defense Techniques
    * Police Deviance and Ethics Procedures
    * Interpersonal Communications Skills
    * Close confinement operations
    * Search and restraint procedures
    * Use of firearms
    * Custody and control procedures

back to top
Helpful Skills

Helpful attributes include:

    * An ability to think and react quickly
    * An ability to remain calm in stressful situations
    * An interest in law enforcement and crime prevention
    * Being physically fit

back to top
Advanced Responsibilities

Advanced level Internment/Resettlement Specialist provides guidance, supervises and trains other Soldiers within the same discipline. As an advanced level I/R Specialist, you may be involved in:

    * Supervise and establish all administrative, logistical and food support operations, confinement/correctional, custodial, treatment, and rehabilitative activities
    * Responsible for all personnel working in the confinement/correctional facility, including security, logistical, and administrative management of the prisoner/internee population
    * Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp
    * Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility

back to top
Related Civilian Jobs

The skills you'll learn as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist will help prepare you for a future with federal, state, county or city law enforcement agencies or the federal penal system. You might also be able to pursue a career as a security guard with industrial firms, airports or other businesses and institutions.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights

Asked to deny presidential authority to indefinitely detain Americans without charges or a trial, they declined, citing the threat of al-Qaeda.

Is it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? The U.S. Senate had a chance Wednesday to assert that no, a president does not possess that power -- that the United States Constitution guarantees due process.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to seize the opportunity. "We as a Congress are being asked, for the first time certainly since I have been in this body, to affirmatively authorize that an American citizen can be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That is a very big deal, because in 1971 we passed a law that said you cannot do this. This was after the internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II," she said. "What we are talking about here is the right of our government, as specifically authorized in a law by Congress, to say that a citizen of the United States can be arrested and essentially held without trial forever."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed.

"If we believe an American citizen is guilty or will be guilty of acts of terrorism, can we detain them indefinitely?" he said. "Can we ignore their constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely, without warning them of their right to remain silent, without advising them of their right to counsel, without giving them the basic protections of our Constitution? I don't believe that should be the standard."

In the end, however, Feinstein and Durbin lost the debate.

The U.S. Senate refused to affirm that American citizens arrested in the United States shouldn't be subject to indefinite military detention on the president's order. Senator Feinstein's amendment to that effect went down in defeat with 55 historic votes against it.

Here are the senators who lost, the ones who wanted to protect the rights of U.S. citizens to due process:

For the last two years, I've been railing against President Obama's civil-liberties abuses and the Democrats and liberals who are either complicit in them, or at best ignoring his Bush-like policies. What you see above is evidence that the Democratic Party in the Senate is better on civil liberties than the Republicans, only four of whom stood with due process and "innocent until proven guilty." Kudos to Sens. Kirk, Moran, Paul, Lee and Collins for breaking with their party.

That brings us to the senators who refused to affirm that American citizens should not be held indefinitely. They were led by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin, cosponsors of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a Republican, spoke against the Feinstein amendment on the Senate floor. "It has been the law of the United States for decades that an American citizen on our soil who collaborates with the enemy has committed an act of war and will be held under the law of war, not domestic criminal law," he said. "In World War II it was perfectly proper to hold an American citizen as an enemy combatant who helped the Nazis. But we believe, somehow, in 2011, that is no longer fair. That would be wrong. My God, what are we doing in 2011? Do you not think al-Qaeda is trying to recruit people here at home? Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield."

That quote is important, for Graham is saying that as long as terrorists are trying to recruit  on American soil, our homeland is a battlefield. That means a perpetual state of war. Here are the senators who refuse to affirm that American citizens retain the right to due process during this war that is supposedly being waged everywhere on earth and that has no foreseeable end in sight:

The Republicans listed ought to be condemned by "constitutional conservatives." Those are the Tea-Party-affiliated voters who, according to Yuval Levin of National Review, are "focused on restraining government" through "a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus." These conservatives, Levin says, insist on "constitutional forms that compel self-restraint and enable self-correction" out of "the humble desire for forms that might prevent large mistakes." They are "focused on recovering the U.S. Constitution, and especially its limits on government power," because in the view of the Framers, "there is no omniscience; there is only imperfect humanity." We therefore need "checks on all of our various excesses, and a system that forces us to think through important decisions as best we can." If a bloc of voters with those attitudes in fact exists, they've now got a list of senators to challenge in the next primaries they face.

As yet, there is no hint that there will be such a rebellion.

Then there are the Democrats who broke with their party to oppose due process: Begich, Blumenthal, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Manchin, Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Stabenow, and Whitehouse. If there is in fact a sizable progressive constituency that cares about civil liberties, will it challenge these senators?

As yet, there is no hint that there will be such a rebellion.

After Feinstein's amendment failed, the Senate quickly passed a face-saving measure on a 99 to 1 vote. It affirmed that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to affect existing authorities" about detention of U.S. citizens and resident aliens. In other words, the Senate is affirming the murky status quo, wherein presidents most certainly think they have the power to indefinitely detain, but have so far avoided a definitive, clarifying Supreme Court decision for fear they'd lose.

Many senators agree that the president is already so empowered.

In the floor debates, there was a lot of argument about what exactly Sandra Day O'Connor decided in her opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, one of the Supreme Court cases that guides detainee law. You can read the debate here -- it is a rich subject for a future item in this space.

Here I want to close by looking at an argument made by some of the senators who don't think it is lawful for the president to indefinitely detain Americans captured on U.S. soil. It requires us to step back from the amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, and the bill itself, which passed the Senate by a depressing 93 to 7 vote with only Wyden, Paul, Coburn, Harkin, Lee, Sanders, and Merkley dissenting. We also need to step back from the Obama and Bush administrations, and the War on Terror too, until we're just citizens reading the plain text of the U.S. Constitution, which members of all three federal branches swear to uphold.

Sen. Kirk had some grounding words to say about the Constitution:

    I took the time, as we all should from time to time, serving in this body, to re-read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: 'In the trial of all crimes -- no exception -- there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.' Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction.

    They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    The following sentence is instructive: No person -- 'No person,' it says -- 'shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' I would say that pretty clearly, 'open court' is likely to be civilian court.

    Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be 'removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime' -- once again contemplating civilian, state court and not the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures' -- including, by the way, the seizure of the person -- 'shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

    Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birthright as an American citizen.

    Recall the Fifth Amendment, which says: 'No person' -- by the way, remember, 'no person'; there is not an exception here. 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment,' hear the words, 'of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War' -- meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those 'no persons' who shall be answerable for a 'capital' or 'infamous crime,' except on 'indictment of a Grand Jury.'

    The Sixth Amendment says: 'In all criminal prosecutions' -- not some, not by exception, in all criminal prosecutions -- 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed' ... I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States.

Does your senator agree with all that? If not, isn't it about time that you elected someone who does?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


NDAA Passed in House and Senate Marks the Beginning of Indefinite Detainment for US Citizens

Reminiscent of the Executive Order 9066 signed by President Roosevelt in the 1940′s, S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or NDAA) has become the malevolent, powerhouse predecessor to the similarly controversial S. 1253 bill which was introduced back on June 22nd. Since then, the NDAA was revised and resubmitted for review on November 15th, and seventeen days later it was passed in the Senate 93-7 on December 1st – the House having already passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1540, 322-96-13 on May 26th.

Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office wrote

    The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trail civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

According to the ACLU, the NDAA in its current form

(Relevant material begins on page 359)

    (1) Explicitly authorizes the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

    (2) Mandates military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

    (3) Transfers to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, and Amnesty International USA have likewise  joined the ACLU in voicing their oppositions to sections 1301 and 1302 of S. 1867.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the principle authors of the provisions in S. 1867, wrote the affront to the US Constitution in a closed-door committee meeting without any hearing before it was passed in the Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the floor of the Senate questioned McCain on whether or not "under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

Sen. McCain responded, "I think as long as that individual — no matter who they are — if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat. And I think that's a majority of American public opinion."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, explained that the bill will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield."

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill and its provisions are justified because "America is part of the battlefield."

There have been numerous attempts to amend the purposed bill(s)

On November 29th, the Senate voted 38-60 rejecting an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sec. 1031 and sec. 1032 which would have repealed the harmful, counterproductive provisions. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), which would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power. Despite his purposed amendment failing, Udall voted for the bill saying that

    Tonight, I cast my vote with extremely serious reservations, given my grave concerns about the provisions in this bill regarding military detention. Troubling questions have been raised by the Pentagon and the directors of national intelligence, the FBI and the CIA about how this new policy will impact our ability to track down, capture and bring terrorists to justice. I continue to oppose these provisions.

    After weighing all of the possible options, I decided to vote yes on the overall bill. As a member of the conference committee, I will continue to fight for a consensus that will protect our national security and the constitutional principles on which our nation was founded. The rest of this bill is vitally important to our military. I couldn't in good conscience vote against legislation that means so much to Colorado and our men and women in uniform fighting in two wars.

Before H.R. 1540 (the House equivalent of S. 1867) was passed, along with the provisions sanctioning unending, worldwide war, as well as unprecedented power granted to President Obama — including future presidents — to engage persons and states alike, at any time or for any reason without the need for congressional approval or presenting sufficient evidence of a threat to our national security, an attempt was made to strike aforementioned provisions.

The amendment was introduced by a collection of bipartisan Representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The House rejected the amendment 234-187.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), one of the house Republicans to oppose the measure when it was passed in May, said "It is destructive of our Constitution" and called it "one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime."

Although the bill says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States," Rep. Amash said the language is "carefully crafted to mislead the public."

"Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," he wrote.

"The President should not have the authority to determine whether the Constitution applies to you, no matter what the allegations," Amash said. "Please urge your Senators to oppose these outrageous provisions."

The discrepancies between the House and Senate versions now need to be resolved at next weeks conference committee before it reaches President Obama's desk and subject to the veto threat he issued earlier. However, due the overwhelming majority in favor of the bill in its current form which simultaneously authorizes the US military to indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere, it also authorizes $632 billion in funds for sustaining the "War on Terror" along with military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is for this reason that many of our Senators and Representatives have given the bill their votes; one would have to be naive to assume this was not the intent of Sen. McCain and Sen. Levin.

Some even doubt that President Obama will veto the bill even if it still contains the indefinite detention provisions.

Daphne Eviatar, an associate for the Human Rights First group, told Democracy Now that

    Obama has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it's difficult to veto a defense spending bill that is 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs.

The official purpose of S. 1867 was to, among other things, "prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes." To say the least, this is the biggest understatement in US history. Essentially, the House and Senate have codified indefinite detainment, without charges or due process of law, and without any recourse or oversight, against citizens of any country – including US citizens — under the facade of "national security" and wrapped in a big 'ol American flag.

Do the justifications not pang with familiarity?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) comments on the NDAA

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


Quote from: SUPREMEMASTER on Dec 07, 2011, 10:25:26 AM

Detention Camp Order Follows Preparations For Civil Unrest


KBR seeks sub-contractors to outfit "emergency environment" centers

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 7, 2011

The revelation that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit "emergency environment" camps located in five regions of the United States follows preparations over the last three years to deal with riots inside the United States that have already spread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

As Infowars reported last night, a document sent to us by a state government employee confirms that Kellogg Brown & Root Services are looking to activate camps built for FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers across the United States.

This follows the Senate's passage of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows American citizens to be snatched off the street and held in detention camps without trial.

In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S," or the rapid development of unspecified "new programs" that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Since 2006, the world has been beset by riots and civil unrest as a result of the fallout from the economic collapse. From the United Kingdom, to continental Europe, to the Middle East and North Africa, almost every corner of the globe has experienced social dislocation.

Now U.S. authorities are preparing for such eventualities on home soil, with major police departments like the NYPD staging "mobilization exercises" to train police to prepare for civil disorder in the United States.

Warnings and preparation for civil unrest coming to the United States have been voiced on a regular basis.

Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for "homeland patrols" with one of their roles including helping with "civil unrest and crowd control".

In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of "domestic security" from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom's militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

A report produced that same year by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed "strategic shock."

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell "purposeful domestic resistance".

The United States has continuity of government plans in place should martial law be declared by the President. However, the details of those plans have been so tightly guarded that even Congressman and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D – OR), who has the necessary security clearance, was denied access to view the material when he requested to do so back in July 2007.

Under the terms of the the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645, first introduced in January 2009 and still awaiting passage, emergency camps are to be made available to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security," an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

With many Americans now becoming "pre-revolutionary" as a result of their fury at the Obama administration and equally unpopular lawmakers in Washington, potential civil unrest could spring not just from a poverty-stricken underclass, but also the shrinking middle class.

Indeed, top elitist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned earlier this year that middle class unrest caused by economic disenfranchisement would soon hit America.

Perhaps that's why the Department of Homeland Security is increasingly focusing its anti-terror apparatus on white middle class Americans, portraying them as domestic terrorists in a series of PSA videos. In addition, 'Occupy' protesters are also now being characterized as terrorists.

The fact that detention camps have been constructed inside America and are now being staffed and readied for "emergency" situations can no longer be ignored or ridiculed as a conspiracy theory.

Kellogg Brown & Root need to be completely transparent and explain where the camps are located, what they contain, and during what type of "emergencies" are they planned to be used for.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


The government's power to arrest citizens
without due process is a new low

The Terrorists Have Won


by Jack Hunter

Since 9/11, Sen. Lindsey Graham has said repeatedly that we must fight the terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here." But last week, Graham threw this all out the window. We are now at war everywhere. Forever.

As you may know, many believe that Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge. Graham is one of them. According to him, Section 1031 gives the federal government the authority to detain American citizens, "and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."

Excuse me. The entire world is now a battlefield? Including the homeland?

Recently, there have been serious constitutional questions raised concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely unchartered legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?

This is a new and unprecedented government power that should scare the living hell out of every last American. The basic constitutional principle of protecting individual liberties through due process is not some negotiable piece of historical trivia, as Graham may think. It is the bedrock of Western law dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Accepting this legislation blindly — as the majority of both parties seem entirely comfortable with — is to surrender the most basic of American liberties. Said Sen. Rand Paul, who fought hard and mostly alone to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of this terrifying provision: "Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won."

And the terrorists have won. If a primary purpose of terrorism is to induce fear and Americans are willing to give up their most precious freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, how is this anything less than a monumental victory for our enemies?

Most who support this new power for the federal government — especially Graham — agree that what we call the "war on terror" is a war that will last forever. In this light, this new legislation poses a particular danger, or as Sen. Paul explains: "During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During the Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended ... Fortunately, those actions were reversed after the war."

Paul then notes: "The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome, given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored."

A state of permanent war inevitably means permanent loss of liberties. When "protecting our freedoms" is defined by gradually giving them up one by one, Americans are no longer protected or free. This was understood well by our Founding Fathers and a primary reason they wrote the Constitution their descendants are now so eager to discard. Benjamin Franklin believed that when you give up liberty for security you get neither. Meanwhile, James Madison wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

The great fear in allowing government officials to forego due process is not that it might hurt actual terrorists — for the record, I'm in favor of hurting actual terrorists, badly — but that it might hurt you, me, or any other innocent American in the future. To support giving government this sort of power, you must assume two things: one, government never makes mistakes, and two, government never abuses its power. I know few who believe either.

Let us gauge our decline in our rhetoric. In 1795, James Madison said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare," while last week Lindsey Graham boasted, "When they say 'I want to talk to a lawyer,' we tell them 'Shut up! You don't get a lawyer!"

This isn't protecting America. It's destroying it.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


Quote from: Optimus on Dec 07, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
Today is Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Webster Tarpley
          On this Wednesday, December 7 edition of the Alex Jones Show, journalist and author Webster Tarpley talks about his latest book on the myths of Pearl Harbor. Other books by Webster Tarpley include Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA and Surviving the Cataclysm: Your Guide through the Worst Financial Crisis in Human History.

Alex also talks with Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo in-studio. Acevedo was appointed Austin's top cop in 2007.

Alex also covers the latest news, including Infowars.com's breaking story on FEMA internment camps, and takes your calls.

Download the MP3 Audio Archive

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


They are definitely gearing up to take on the American people.

Quote from: Optimus on Dec 07, 2011, 11:25:03 AM
The Pentagon Is Offering Free Military Hardware To Every Police Department In The US

Robert Johnson | Dec. 5, 2011, 11:09 AM

The U.S. military has some of the most advanced killing equipment in the world that allows it to invade almost wherever it likes at will.

We produce so much military equipment that inventories of military robots, M-16 assault rifles, helicopters, armored vehicles, and grenade launchers eventually start to pile up and it turns out a lot of these weapons are going straight to American police forces to be used against US citizens.

Benjamin Carlson at The Daily reports on a little known endeavor called the "1033 Program" that gave more than $500 million of military gear to U.S. police forces in 2011 alone.

1033 was passed by Congress in 1997 to help law-enforcement fight terrorism and drugs, but despite a 40-year low in violent crime, police are snapping up hardware like never before. While this year's staggering take topped the charts, next year's orders are up 400 percent over the same period.

This upswing coincides with an increasingly military-like style of law enforcement most recently seen in the Occupy Wall Street crackdowns.

Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice told The Daily, "The trend toward militarization was well under way before 9/11, but it's the federal policy of making surplus military equipment available almost for free that has poured fuel on this fire."

From The Daily:

Thanks to it, cops in Cobb County, Ga. — one of the wealthiest and most educated counties in the U.S. — now have an amphibious tank. The sheriff of Richland County, S.C., proudly acquired a machine-gun-equipped armored personnel carrier that he nicknamed "The Peacemaker."

This comes on top of grants from the Department of Homeland Security that enable police departments to buy vehicles such as "BearCats" — 16,000-pound bulletproof trucks equipped with battering rams, gun ports, tear-gas dispensers and radiation detectors. To date, more than 500 of these tank-like vehicles have been sold by Lenco, its Massachusetts-based manufacturer, according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel.

"It's kind of had a corrupting influence on the culture of policing in America," Lynch says. "The dynamic is that you have some officer go to the chief and say, people in the next county have [military hardware], if we don't take it some other city will. Then they acquire the equipment, they create a paramilitary unit, and everything seems fine.

"But then one or two years pass. They say, look we've got this equipment, this training and we haven't been using it. That's where it starts to creep into routine policing."
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry