EXCLUSIVE!
The Jericho Report Part 1
The secret history of the plot to establish a U.S. dictatorship

"Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush's new executive orders [NSPD-51], which create a dictatorial police state in event of national emergency."
July 20, 2007, Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack .
Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."
July 24, 2007, Peter DeFazio, House Homeland Security Committee member

As I write this, one of the most important television dramas in recent history has been taken off the air, despite a viewer protest that is unprecedented in television history. It was first canceled after the first season on CBS-TV. Then, viewers sent in 20,000 lbs. of peanuts in protest - borrowing the idea from a line spoken in the last episode. Under more pressure than they had ever been under, CBS relented and the second season returned - but with only seven episodes.

Then it was canceled again - low viewer numbers, CBS claims.

The storyline focused on a terrorist attack in September (remind you of anything?). But this attack did not just kill 3,000+ people in the New York Trade Center. It killed millions in dozens of cities across the nation in a nuclear attack. It is the story of a small Kansas town called Jericho, how it was suddenly cut off from the world without any idea of what had happened, how it finally learned the horrible "truth", how it coped and how a few brave people paid the price of liberty.

More gripping, it is the story of a horrendous deception - an attack, not by terrorists, but by elements of the United States government, carried out by one of its own private mercenary subcontractors, Jennings & Rall's Ravenwood, much like the privately-contracted armies (Blackwater) that now roam Iraq, outnumbering even U.S. troops.

But the show is history now (although the SciFi Channel is re-broadcasting the first season and may pick up the second season, or even pick up production rights and revive the show) ... and the show is just another piece of fiction. Right?

Surely no one - except Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright - believes our own government could possibly be involved in a massive terrorist attack! Well, OK, more than 50% of New Yorkers believed it, according to opinion polls some years back, but what do they know? Oh, and that growing minority of Americans, now in high double-digit percentages.

But, seriously, only a "conspiracy nut" would believe that our government is lying to us. We all know the Warren Commission was the last word on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. And we all know we've been told the complete truth about 9-11, Watergate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, and - oh well, you get the idea.

Certainly we'd know it if our government, or a faction of it, was planning on suspending the elections, or if a certain Democrat presidential wannabe was said by a former close aide to not be above "blackmailing" certain super-delegates, or if, God forbid, there were some contrived national emergency - be it a terrorist attack or an economic collapse - that would lead President George W. Bush to declare martial law.

I mean, it would be all over the news, wouldn't it?

They'd tell us .... wouldn't they?

• We have presented evidence gathered from hundreds of independent sources that detail the level of corruption and collusion in Election 2008.
• We have presented evidence that the integrity of the voting process has been hijacked and is in the hands of a private organization with ties to organized crime and the highest levels of power in both the Democrat and Republican parties, manipulating the outcome of this year's elections.
• We present evidence that the War on Terror is non-existent, while the War on the Constitution is alive and well.
• We present evidence that various "Presidential Directives" (also known as Executive Orders) establish a government in which Congress and the Supreme Court are excluded, with only the President holding power, particularly National Security Presidential Directive #51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive #20, which is virtually the same as #51.

There are ten steps that invariably lead to the establishment of dictatorship, according to Naomi Wolfe in her small (176 pages) but intriguing book "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot":

1. invoke an external and internal threat
2. develop an "extra-constitutional" paramilitary force to "deal" with those threats
3. build secret prisons
4. conduct surveillance on ordinary citizens
5. arbitrarily detain and release them
6. infiltrate and harass citizens groups
7. target writers, entertainers, and other key individuals for their dissension
8. intimidate the press
9. cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage"
10. eventually subvert the rule of law.

The author is no "right-wing militia nut" - quite the contrary, she is a liberal feminist. Her book has been praised by both the right and the left as both sides of the political spectrum begin to realize "something is seriously wrong here."

This "Blueprint for Dictatorship" has been successfully used again and again, in country after country, over the past century or more.

Bush executive order threatens 5th Amendment?

President Bush

On Tuesday, July 17, 2007 President Bush issued an executive order that could be interpreted to outlaw anti-war protest.

This new executive order empowering the federal government to freeze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability and its government is so broad it could be applied to any domestic opponent of the Iraq war who has assets in the U.S., charges a former Reagan administration official.

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein charged the order violates the Fifth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Fein, associate deputy attorney general under Reagan, asserts it "empowers the president to destroy anyone he says plays a significant risk of undermining the rehabilitation or political reform in Iraq."

"The is a stunning assertion of executive power that creates a Sword of Damocles over anyone opposed to the war or otherwise who might come under the umbrage of the president," Fein told me.

Fein insists the executive order is "so sweeping and broad that it permits the president to threaten virtually anybody who opposes our policy in Iraq."

"It's significantly likely that someone could give money or other support to someone in Iraq who may then try to undermine [Prime Minister Nouri] Malaki, and then you're guilty," he said. "Or maybe you criticize Iraq and that creates political convulsions that threaten the new Iraqi constitution."

Said Fein: "The frightening thing about this executive order is that there is no opportunity to respond. There isn't even a requirement that when the president identifies you as a tainted person whose assets can't be used that you even have to be notified.

"These are (more) fundamental violations of any precept of the rule of law than has ever been witnessed in any previous conflict, and the Iraqi war is hardly the Civil War or World War II," said Fein.

"Bush executive order threatens 5th Amendment?" by Jerome Corsi, NewsMax.com, July 25, 2007

NSPD-51

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." ^[1]

The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings,^[2] although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007.^[3]

The directive specifies that, following such an emergency, an "Enduring Constitutional Government," comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government," coordinated by the President of the United States, will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress.^[4] Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have interpreted this as a break from Constitutional law in that the three branches of government are equal, with no single branch coordinating the others.^[5][6] The directive specifies that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency and does not specify who has the power to declare said emergency over.

The directive further stipulates that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of "National Continuity Coordinator" would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position was held by Frances Townsend until her resignation on November 19, 2007). The directive also specifies that a "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee," to be chaired by a senior director of the Homeland Security Council staff, and selected by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination."

The directive ends by describing a number of "annexes," of which Annex A is described as being not classified but which does not appear on the directive's Web page:

"(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

"(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders."

The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress. While similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, their texts have been kept secret; this is the first to be made public in part. It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies. The National Emergencies Act is not mentioned in the text of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

After receiving concerned communications from constituents, in July 2007 U.S. Representative and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio made an official request to examine the classified Continuity Annexes described above in a secure "bubbleroom" in the United States Capitol, but his request was denied by the White House, which cited "national security concerns."^[8] This was the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. He was quoted as saying, "We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America...I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."^[9] After this denial, DeFazio joined with two colleagues (Bennie Thompson, chairman of the committee; and Chris Carney, chairman of the Homeland Security oversight subcommittee) in a renewed effort to gain access to the documents.^[10]

References

1. ^ HSU, S. S. (2007) Bush Changes Continuity Plan: Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government. Washington Post. Washington.
2. ^ White House Revises Post-Disaster Protocol - CommonDreams.org
3. ^ White House Revises Post-Disaster Protocol - CommonDreams.org
4. ^ [1] by Jerome Corsi
5. ^ Daily Kos: National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
6. ^ [2] by Marjorie Cohn
7. ^ Executive Orders. The Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee (November 2007). Retrieved on 2008-03-01.
8. ^ "DeFazio asks, but he's denied access," by Jeff Kosseff, from The Oregonian, July 20, 2007
9. ^ "DeFazio asks, but he's denied access," by Jeff Kosseff, from The Oregonian, July 20, 2007
10. ^ "DeFazio chases secret terror-crisis plan", by Jeff Kosseff, from The Oregonian, July 28, 2007

External links

• National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, from White House website
• National Continuity Policy, Annex A, Categories of Departments and Agencies, from the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee website]
• Boston Globe article (June 2, 2007)
• Article about National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, from WorldNetDaily.com
• Article about National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive by Matthew Rothschild
• U.S. Government report to Congress on National Emergency Powers (2001), including history and development, and legislation to limit them.
• Who will rule the country after the next 9/11? - Slate.com
• NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency - Analysis by William H. White, NOTA.org

"National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive", The White House, May 4, 2007

Who will run the country after the next 9/11?

Oh, god. I'm reluctant to write this particular column. I've been scarred by this kind of story before. I've learned that it's difficult to write about the sources of paranoia without spreading paranoia.

But the subject, NSPD-51—that's National Security Presidential Directive 51—and the attendant explosion of blogospheric paranoia about it deserve attention. Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that NSPD-51 is a blueprint for a coup in the guise of plans for "continuity of government" in the event of a national emergency (such as a terrorist attack during an election campaign). Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that it will be used as a pretext for canceling the upcoming presidential election and preserving "continuity" of this administration in office.

Nonetheless, the specifics of the directive are a matter of legitimate concern that has not been given the urgent and sustained attention it deserves by Congress or the mainstream media.

And there's another paranoia-inducing element of the story: The existence of "classified continuity annexes" whose content has been kept secret even from the House Committee on Homeland Security. A troubling aspect of the story that, so far as I know, only one mainstream media reporter, Jeff Kosseff of the Portland Oregonian, has pursued.

Return with me to 1970, another moment of seething paranoia two years before Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, before Watergate was even a gleam in Gordon Liddy's eyes. A time of war and of an increasingly frustrated and suspicious anti-war movement. It was my first year as a reporter, and the whole episode started with a cab driver from Staten Island.

As historian and frequent Slate contributor David Greenberg recounts it in his thoughtful book Nixon's Shadow, "the rumor [that Nixon had a secret plan to cancel the '72 presidential election] first appeared in print on April 5 in the Portland Oregonian, the Staten Island Advance and other Newhouse-owned newspapers. According to the item, the administration had asked the RAND Corporation ... to study whether 'rebellious factions using force or bomb threats would make it unsafe to conduct an election' and how the president might respond. Ron Rosenbaum, a reporter from the Village Voice, heard about the article from a Staten Island cab driver and investigated. He reported in The Voice on April 16 that RAND and the administration denied that any such study existed, but then playfully pointed out that they would surely deny it if it were true. Rosenbaum added that the country would just have to wait until 1972 to see."

(Of course, meanwhile—proving that reality can outrun paranoia—the Nixon administration was planning to subvert the election, anyway ...)

consider provision 2E of the directive:

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics mine.)

Do you see those five weasel words "as a matter of comity"? Just what elements of the legislative and judicial branches will be allowed to participate in "executing constitutional responsibilities" and "providing for orderly succession [and] appropriate transfer of leadership"?

In other words, who gets to call the shots? What does comity mean in this context? Informally, it means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another."

In other words, in the weasel-speak of NSPD-51, it implies that one or more branches of the government will have to cede power to another. And since everything is to be "coordinated by the president," I'm guessing that the members of the Supreme Court left alive and some congressional leaders left alive (How chosen? What party balance?) will in effect have to sit around a big conference table and do a lot of "ceding" to the executive.

Comity—that innocent-sounding word—could well turn out to be the excuse for junking those pesky checks and balances the Founding Fathers seemed so obsessed with. For an indeterminate period of time.

The document is also hazy on when our new continuity policies will be set in motion. The directive tells us that they'll kick in whenever the nation faces a "catastrophic emergency." But look how vaguely "catastrophic emergency" is first defined:

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

These are profoundly, potentially calamitously, broad terms. Who defines what is extraordinary? Who defines how severe severely is? Is there any procedure to challenge the junking of constitutional government?

Worse, "catastrophic emergency"—woefully vague to start out with—is later expanded to include even "localized acts of nature and accidents" as well as "technological or attack-related" emergencies.

In other words, even if you don't believe the most sinister paranoid coup theories, the document does nothing to allay one's fears that it could be used in a sinister way.

I wish I did, but I see nothing in the document to prevent even a "localized" forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window, institute a number of unspecified continuity policies, and run the country with the guidance of the "National Continuity Coordinator" and with the "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee" for as long as the president sees fit.

This order has been issued by executive fiat and has not been subjected to any public examination by the other two branches, which have behaved in a supine way that suggests how they'll behave when comity time arrives and urgent decisions on the fate of the nation and perhaps the world (nuclear retaliation being what it is) need to be made immediately.

The fact that Congress has not scrutinized and challenged the potential here for an emergency-situation power grab is scandalous, unacceptable.

I don't want to be alarmist, I have no evidence there's a coup brewing. But I think the American people and their congressional reps deserve some say in how they will be ruled when the ordinary rules go out the window in a national emergency. For one thing, what will happen to the Bill of Rights' guarantees of individual liberty and the courts that are supposed to enforce them?

"Who will run the country after the next 9/11?" by Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Oct. 19, 2007

NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'état by National Emergency

Note To The Reader:  This paper addresses the possibility of a coup d'état by national emergency before the end of Bush's last year in office, citing recent institutional actions that can be reasonably interpreted as being consistent with and preparatory to such an undertaking. These actions, all occurring since Bush's reelection, include among others:

1. Claiming by executive order emergency powers unauthorized by Congress;

2. Conducting nation-wide mass arrest exercises in 2005, 2006 and 2007;

3. Obtaining from Congress removal of legal impediments to the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial;

4. Obtaining from Congress the authority to use federal troops for domestic police duties, by nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878;

5. Obtaining from Congress the authority to use national guard units, without the consent of state's governor, in that or any other state;

6. Establishing programs to assist in the implementation of martial law using business community, academics, and clergy;

7. Authorizing by executive order seizing assets of anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"; and,

8. Contracting for the construction of high capacity detention centers throughout the country.

While these and other actions cited here have alternative explanation and those participating in them may be entirely unaware of the darker ends to which their work may be put, nevertheless each is troubling and collectively they demand serious assessment as a potential threat to both our constitutional republic and its democratic governance, especially in light of the Bush administration's record of unlawful behavior. The reader is therefore asked to give this careful consideration because the eternal vigilance necessary to protect our liberty is better served by reasonable suspicion than by enduring trust or inattention.

Introduction

       While a responsible president might deal with a real emergency using necessary measures within limited areas for an appropriate duration, the concern here is with the abuse of national emergency powers, by which a real or contrived emergency is used as pretext to exercise over-broad powers on a national scale for a duration that adversely affects constitutional governance, including national elections and due process.

National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) on May 9, 2007

        Can you think of anyone better than George W. Bush with whom to entrust the dictatorial powers hinted at in NSPD-51? Or perhaps you are unwilling to trust anyone with such powers, even Bush. That is not a option in NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51 (NSPD-51), signed by Bush and released without comment by the White House on May 9, 2007. To quote from NSPD-51: “This policy establishes ‘National Essential Functions,’ prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.” What one would expect, but for some of its very few details.

Bush: I am The Coordinator

        Under NSPD-51, during a national emergency only limited ‘National Essential Functions’ of government will continue, which may or may not include Congress and the courts. NSPD-51 assures us: “Enduring Constitutional Government means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches...” This “matter of comity,” which usually refers to the informal and voluntary recognition of jurisdiction among courts, is troublesomely ambiguous in this context. Is Bush claiming that he, rather than the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, determines which functions the three branches of the federal government shall perform as well as the checks and balances among them?  Does the president decide for himself, as he "coordinates", which laws and court orders to faithfully execute? If the emergency event does not critically disrupt federal government operations, does Bush's NSPD-51 envision still limiting government operations to ‘National Essential Functions’? Is this executive order lawful since it overrides the National Emergencies Act, creating a new position of National Continuity Coordinator without congressional authorization?

The Plan: Now You See It; Now You Don't

        NSPD-51 claims that it "provides guidance” to state and local governments, when in fact it does the opposite because it revoked the then existing Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including “all Annexes thereto.” And replaced them with NSPD-51, along with: “Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto.” But then the rabbit disappears as NSPD-51 soldiers on: “This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.” In other words, all the details are secret and even the non secret “Annex A” remains undisclosed by the White House.

        Having revoked without explanation the nation’s then existing emergency plan for continued national governance on May 9, 2007, Bush’s NSPD-51 calls for: “The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.” One assumes, during this lapse in emergency plans, no emergency was expected, or at least presented less risk than leaving that old Clinton plan in place. Since the national media, except one story each in the Washington Post and Boston Globe, have ignored NSPD-51, Bush has not bothered to explain any of this.

        Especially if such explanations might raise questions about what was so unacceptable in the existing plan that it needed to be revoked before finishing work on the new plan. Does this serve to rush the review of one of the most complex and sensitive plans in government in an attempt to slip something by the rest of us? Or, more ominously, does it remove some impediment to contemplated action? Whatever the motive, abruptly revoking the existing plan, while mandating a new plan within 90 days, indicates the same unfortunate mix of  high optimism and low competence that characterizes much of the Bush administration's planning record. Clearly Bush is confident he can do far better than Clinton, whose administration, including all executive departments, labored for years on that old plan. Both NSPD-51 and Presidential Decision Directive 67 contain secret material, so much of the old plan may even be in the new plan, who knows?

Congress in the Dark, As Usual

        Among those who do not know are members of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied the committee access to NSPD-51, about which  Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) complained in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. What we do know is those 90 days passed without a new plan approval being announced. Perhaps no plan gives the president exactly the maximum power and minimum accountability desired, with the Clinton plan revoked and Bush's plan whatever he says it is; or, perhaps the plan's approval was secret as well. Apparently, the "matter of comity" among the three branches of government, referred to in NSPD-51, does not include allowing NSPD-51 to be read by members of Congress, which the Congress, in a continuing pattern of timid inaction, has not challenged.

"Any incident, regardless of location ..."

        An almost entirely secret directive, NSPD-51 can be invoked when the president decides “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions” occurred. Bush alone will decide when he must assume this burden, though perhaps only upon prayerful contemplation during the time saved not having to consult Congress. In addition, because of a change to the Insurrection Act of 1807, enacted as part of the 439-page 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law in October 2006, Bush need no longer obtain a governor’s consent to take control of a state’s national guard units. This same bill overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limited the use of US military forces within the United States for law enforcement, concern about which ignored by corporate media. In addition, Bush issued an executive order on July 17, 2007 authorizing the government to seize the assets of anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" under provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Could this include critics of the Iraq war, whom Bush has repeatedly accused of undermining the war effort?

        Indicative of Bush's state of mind with regard to suspending a constitution and declaring emergency rule is his comment three weeks after Musharraf suspended the constitution, arrested thousands of political opponents, and fired of the Supreme Court in Pakistan: Bush, ". . . He’s also advanced democracy in Pakistan. . . . He hasn’t crossed the line. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that he will cross any lines." 

Whatever and Whenever The Decider Decides

        When might Bush declare a national emergency under NSPD-51? My own guess would be Spring 2008, after Bush is "forced" to attack Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and Iran then fails to cooperate, attacking US ships in the Gulf and Mediterranean instead of accepting our offers of assistance. Or this might come after a UN Security Council resolution authorizing boarding Iranian ships for inspection, thereby creating an opportunity for a casus belli the Bush administration has been transparently pressing to create. Even if Iran denied Bush his basic objective by refusing to be goaded into reacting beyond its own borders, the resulting global economic chaos and spontaneous popular reactions beyond Iran to such attacks could compel Bush to invoke NSPD-51, quite apart from whatever our new enemy might undertake.

        On the other hand, under NSPD-51 any provocation of Bush could lead to him creating a pretext for declaring a national emergency. For example, Ralph Nader quotes Massachusetts Rep. John W. Olver (D), who has a PhD from MIT, when presented with the votes of 13 Town Meetings [real Town Meetings, not the media events staged for candidate performances] in Olver's congressional district calling for impeachment of Cheney and Bush, Olver responded that he opposed any impeachment move against Bush because "the current autocratic executive [Bush] would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and call off the 2008 elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment." Or, perhaps we have a national emergency for as yet unknown reasons, maybe in the late summer when likely replacement administrations are judged by Bush/Cheney to be unacceptable; and then, as the national emergency begins to unravel, we attack Iran. The essential assessment is that we have reached a point where the possibilities are vast and unpredictable precisely because its all up to Bush; he is The Decider.

Beyond Our National Experience

        This section briefly speculates about the consequences of the abuse of national emergency powers to appreciate better how recent events may be leading to it and why ending it, once invoked, would be unlikely.

        Should Bush declare a national emergency and begin exercising the many powers available to him in law, as well as the ever expanding "inherent" powers he claims by fiat, our nation could swiftly cross into a world increasingly difficult to predict, largely beyond our national experience, except perhaps for our revolution and civil war, subject to ad hoc, unchecked decision making, with genuine rule of law no longer an available guide. It would likely become increasingly difficult, in the absence of reliable information, to understand and deal with the originating crisis, however real or contrived. And to distinguish it from the difficulties arising from the declaration of a national emergency itself.

        However, this sort of thing has occurred in many countries, with much the same result likely here: a self-sustaining crisis, in which the chief rationales for continuing the national emergency are the effects of the national emergency themselves, compounded by errors in governance and crimes by those who seized power, sustained by supporters profiting from it and their fear for what would happen to them should they end it.

        In the short term, one can imagine Congress, demonstrating its usual wisdom and courage, expressing concern about the evidently substantial, though secret, number of American citizens "detained", surprise at the scope of firearm and asset seizures, discomfort with the pace of executions under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and outrage at being locked out of its capital offices due to a classified biological threat of undetermined duration, thus preventing Congress from voting to set benchmarks for Iran and to demand our readmission to NATO.

        On the other hand, Congress would likely find some comfort in the "delay" of the 2008 elections, given Bush's decision to allow all incumbents, including those temporarily detained, to remain in office, which many in Congress would praise for its "bipartisan comity", and urge us all to await the president's determination when it is safe for Congress and the Supreme Court to actually meet again. Just as many in corporate American would appreciate the need to "defer" collecting capital gains and corporate taxes and to "ease" enforcing regulations in the interests of helping the economy in a time of national crisis.

        In addition to inaction by the intimidated and support from the misled, this tyranny, as all tyrannies, will no doubt have its servile enablers, among them: careerists who see opportunity in national tragedy; pathological authoritarians who welcome roles in a police state; and, common criminals who know a Kleptocracy when they see one. Besides, how could anyone resist the perfectly Orwellian logic of declaring a dictatorship to insure "Constitutional Continuity" for the “homeland,” while setting aside the actual Constitution of the United States? Perhaps not The Federalist Society, with emergency appointments to newly vacant judgeships dancing in its members' heads, some may well continue to praise the glories of a "unitary executive", concocting judicial theories that explain how its all utterly necessary, perfectly logical, and manifestly constitutional, despite the fact that control of executive power is at very core of the history, architecture, and wording of our Constitution.

        The longer term prospect, if such a coup were to succeed at all, would likely include national decline and insurrection, with an even more unpredictable array of international consequences, starting with a widening war and global economic boycott.

Building Those Detention Centers, For One and All

        Whatever unknowable future an inappropriate declaration of national emergency might bring, clearly those contemplating such a declaration realize many are going to be profoundly unhappy with such a turn of events. And that may be why Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is already building detention centers around the nation to “support the rapid development of new programs” that could accommodate those incompatible with Constitutional Continuity, the dead-enders who actually protest or resist, plus the usual suspects who might think to object.

OPERATION FALCON: Practice Makes Perfect

        But how would all those potential incompatibles, certainly tens of thousands and likely far more, find their way to an appropriate detention center? After all, the Bush administration has managed to prosecute only a handful of businesses for hiring illegal aliens who number in the millions. Its clearly a matter of priorities. So, despite such distractions as hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department has been conducting mass arrest exercises code named Operation Falcon, (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally), whereby thousands of law enforcement officers from federal, state, county and local agencies arrested some 10,000 individuals within seven days, working from lists provided by the U.S. Marshall’s Service, all coordinated to commence across the country simultaneously. Since practice makes perfect, four mass arrest exercises have been conduced: Two national (Falcon I April 4-10, 2005 arresting 10,340; Falcon II April 17-23, 2006 arresting 9,037); and one “eastern half of the country” (Falcon III October 22-28, 2006 arresting 10,733).

        The latest, Falcon IV (renamed Falcon 2007), continues narrowing the focus with regional exercises, such as Operation FALCON-Baltimore (February 2007, arresting 195)and Operation FALCON-Indianapolis (May 2007, arresting 283) as well as 27 other regional exercises  (from July 8, 2007 to September 16, 2007), arresting a total 6,406 "fugitives", including "235 for not registering as sex offenders" and "300 documented gang members" making for excellent press. In fact, the main focus of Falcon 2007 was gang members and sex offenders, neither of whom were prepared to match the federal public relations effort, which includes raw video footage (more raw footage) passed to corporate media that shows police raids with positive commentary, no questions asked and no critics heard. What has not changed is the operational profile: federally prepared arrest lists, distributed to local, state, and federal police agencies, who arrest as many as possible within a week's time, usually starting before dawn on Sunday morning.

        What can not be found among these data and reports is mention of any legitimate law enforcement purpose uniquely served by these coordinated, mass arrests, where little or no connection exists among the targets. According to the then Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “Operation FALCON is an excellent example of President Bush’s direction and the Justice Department’s dedication to deal both with the terrorist threat and traditional violent crime,” but failing to mention that none of the over 30,000 arrests was for a terror-related crime. While some arrested were serious criminals, most were of the non-responding warrantee, technical parole violator, and support payment delinquent sort, soon released. The important element here appears to be getting operational experience and, perhaps most critically, habituating state and local police agencies to conducting mass arrests from lists provided by the federal government. In the eastern regional Falcon III alone, 103 state agencies, 430 county sheriff's offices/departments and 482 police departments did just that according to the U.S. Marshals Service web site. At the current pace, perhaps Falcon 2007 was the last drill and then the real thing: Operation Falcon V (or Falcon 2008). Throughout history mass arrests are solely an instrument of political repression, just as they would be here.

Operation Falcon V: This is Not a Drill

        So its likely, when Bush addresses his fellow citizens after declaring the national emergency, many of his critics will be listening most attentively to detention camp loud speakers. As for how detainees will be treated, one can assume every effort will be made to maintain our current standards for indefinite detention without trial and torture assisted interrogation, where little slip-ups under the press of numbers and emergency conditions are likely to be of little consequence.

Mass Detention Logistics 

        An article by former congressman Dan Hamburg reports: "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." Given a national mass detention arrest rate of about 50,000 per week, it would still take federal and local authorities roughly 15 weeks to arrest them all. This estimate ignores two mutually offsetting factors: first, the law of diminishing returns resulting from the likely increasing difficulty in locating those to be arrested; second, the total arrests need only be a fraction of the potential arrestees to accomplish the primary objective quickly: wide-spread fear, thereby intimidating the general population.

Martial Law Preparations and Resistance

        In addition to mass arrest and detention preparations, the administration has taken steps to prepare for the implementation of martial law. For example, the FBI program InfraGuard, claiming to be "a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector" with "more than 23,000 representatives of private industry" has been reported to be discussing with elements of the business community their role "when" martial law is declared. Another program is "urban warfare training" that used US Army and Marine troops to conduct martial law like practice deployments in American communities. And a widely reported program to use clergy to secure the cooperation of the population in areas under martial law.

        These preparations address a highly unpredictable factor: Possible general resistance to mass detention and martial law, which could range from subtle passive inefficiencies, through institutional impediments such as political and legal objections, to manifest active interference. The sequence, frequency, and intensity of such resistance might well follow historic patterns, but could deviate into the unprecedented, given the potentially significant destabilizing effects of martial law, greatly complicating both mass detention logistics in particular and martial law operations in general. This would likely depend on whether the American people can be convinced to worry about some other threat more than the threat from the government itself. An effort burdened by the fact that for each arrest of apparently law abiding citizens or disruptions of daily life by martial law, it is likely that an equal or greater number would join the aggrieved, producing more opponents than it eliminates.

        This arises from the nature of mass detentions because they are based principally on "status offenses", arising from government declarations about an individual's status, such as "enemy combatant" or "potential terrorist" or "threat to national security" or "danger to public order", rather than from specific criminal acts. This contradicts the generally held American view that thoughts or beliefs, and expressions thereof, particularly criticisms of the government and its policies, should not be the basis for deprivations of life, liberty, and property. And large scale detentions of citizens for such status offenses would likely be perceived as a grave, unconstitutional threat to the fundamental liberty of the people, no matter what law Congress may have passed to allow it or inherent powers a president claims permit it. It is possible, given significant general opposition, that municipalities or states might themselves undertake direct resistance to such detentions to protect their citizens, especially if those so detained were held without trial, perceived to be at risk from mistreatment and torture, or subject to the judgments of military tribunals including execution. Clearly, large scale or institutional resistance, whatever its immediate outcome, would be further destabilizing.

        The political calculus informing the decision to declare a national emergency would include the assumption that a state of crisis would itself provide substantial support, however temporary, among the populace for the nation's leadership, as it always does. However, the endemic level of distrust toward the current government, and Bush in particular, is such that resistance to starting a war with Iran or to staging a coup d'état by national emergency would likely spread once begun and be difficult to contain. This, however, is more relevant is assessing the likelihood of  either a wide refusal of orders or a general insurrection rather than in predicting Bush's appreciation of the situation before he acts.                   

No Need to Worry, Its Only Temporary

        What is certain, should a coup d'état by national emergency take place, is it will be denied even as it unfolds, and this is likely to be followed by assurances it will be temporary, lasting "not one day more than it needs to", followed by complaints about disappointing levels of cooperation (never mentioning any acts of resistance) being responsible for prolonging the state of emergency, threats of severe punishment and asset seizure for those related to or harboring fugitives wanted by the authorities, and finally appeals to turn in others if you want your own relatives released from detention or your property/assets returned.

        To sustain a permanent state of national emergency, Bush will likely take every opportunity to claim it is temporary. One can imagine him insisting he did it to protect the nation and to restore order, even as he attacks the nation's most vital institutions, arrests law abiding citizens, and causes increasing chaos. And an even more disciplined corporate media will ignore these blatant deviations from reality, except to repeat administration claims again and again.

Corporate Media: Dallas Uber Alles

        What is likely to be important in most corporate media, continuing its de facto censorship and warmongering,  is demonstrating our determination to carry on, starting with the most common advice to all good citizens: "keep shopping." While its likely every effort will be made to retain the trappings of the old republic, perhaps our national anthem with its "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" might be a bit much for a budding police state trying to keep its population fearful, so one can imagine an exciting national contest conducted by corporate media, as a public service, to select the proper anthem for our new world order. Perhaps "God Bless American", or, more radically, something stirring along the lines of "Deutschland Uber Alles", except with a touch of Texas twang as in "Dallas Uber Alles", in an arrangement using fewer trombones plus a weeping steel guitar. However, since this is such an important decision, our new anthem, with its companion homeland prayer and logo, should be selected by ‘We the People of the United States’ from among three finalists chosen by our First Lady, in our first-ever national referendum, proving yet again our commitment to democracy and putting all those new voting machines to use in November '08 after all.

Or, Resist Now

        Instead, you might send this, and/or like materials, to others including your congressional delegation as well as the press, to share your concerns and to warn about the potential danger Bush’s NSPD-51 presents, and to demand steps be taken to prevent an overbroad declaration of national emergency. Because prevention of national emergency declaration is far more likely and less costly than trying to undo one once declared, especially one under nation-wide martial law. Since the courts are hopelessly slow given the immediate danger, Congress must be made to do its duty. And we must do our duty and demand Congress end its reluctance to stand up to Bush's repeated, escalating, bullying contempt: if its unnecessary, it should be easy; if its not easy, it is all the more necessary.

        Many argue both parties are so corrupted by corporate money and self-service that Congress is worse than useless, passing the very laws that created this danger and failing in its oversight duties to standup to Bush on any matter of principle. Whatever Congress did, it did not elect and reelect Bush: we did, or at least let it be close enough to be gamed. Luckily one need not be a saint to come to the aide of our country in times of crisis, so even Congress can raise itself to resist tyranny, with your help and encouragement. And Bush and Cheney need to be confronted immediately, with the objective of using existing congressional power and establishing additional safeguards, formal and informal, to prevent a coup d'état by national emergency. Better to prevent what later some may claim was never going to happen, than to suffer betrayed good faith, with the appalling costs of undergoing and undoing this grave folly, which Bush appears to be edging toward, as relentlessly as he undertook the invasion of Iraq from the first days of his administration.

        This government has nothing to fear, except your courage to join in spirit those who stood upon Concord Bridge and fired a shot heard around the world, this time within the law to protect the law itself. Now is our time to act.

        I would suggest the following for consideration as demands to be made of our Congress by calling our representatives regularly until Congress acts to control Bush:

1. Restore Posse Comitatus Act by enacting US Senate Bill S.513 and US House bill H.R. 869;

2. Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and restore habeas corpus for all by enacting bill H.R.3835;

3. Hold impeachment hearings on Cheney; write to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to urge hearings be held on House Resolution 333 introduced by Rep. Kucinich in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on November 6, 2007; and, to House Speaker Pelosi to demand she end her "impeachment is off the table" dictum, a de facto suspension of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution;

4. Include in relevant appropriation bills wording such that no funds can be spent for a declared national emergency, except upon a vote of Congress to invoke, if congress is in session, and to continue such emergency only upon a continuing resolution by Congress every 30-days;

5. Congress should hold in contempt the head of any department or agency of the executive branch, including the White House, for failing to respond to subpoena; and withhold some or all funds and appointments from those departments, when such subpoena is found to be enforceable by the courts;

6. Establish an office of special prosecutor, to be appointed by and answerable to a federal district court, with independent funding directly from Congress, to investigate high crimes committed by any member of the executive branch while exercising their official duties, including issuing or obeying illegal orders resulting in torture, murder or kidnap or violating a treaty to which the US is a signatory, where such violation prescribes capital punishment or imprisonment of up to 10 or more years;

7. Amend the US Constitution to limit president's pardon authority, so no pardon may be issued by a president for: himself, vice-president, or any person working for the executive branch, except members of the armed forces, for crimes committed during the president's term in office; or, for any person under indictment, at trial, or appealing conviction for the offense to be pardoned; or, for any person under subpoena, impeachment or on trial by the Congress. Presidential pardons should be acts of merciful forgiveness and belated restoration, not obstructions of justice, license for ongoing criminality, nor payment for services or favors rendered.

        In addition to contacting Congress, each of us can act lawfully, as individuals and together with others, to halt this drift toward tyranny:

1. Inform yourself, such as learning about the Ten Steps to Shutting Down a Democratic Society.

2. Writing to editors, calling radio and TV stations to demand serious coverage of this issue;

3. Talking to your family, friends and co-workers;

4. Joining in public protests in support of democracy in America;

5. Supporting candidates, such as Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, who have acted to control Bush/Cheney and restore the rule of law;

6. Making defense of democratic governance a campaign issue by demanding other candidates for public office speak up;

7. Lobby members of Congress indirectly through their contributors;

8. Joining non-partisan organizations dedicated to stopping our government's worst abuses of power, such as the American Freedom Campaign and the American Freedom Agenda;

9. Since the so-called two party system is a one party system pretending to be two, register as an independent and evaluate candidates without regard to party affiliation;

10. Write-in "None of the Above" when no listed candidate for an office is worthy of support; and,

11. Study the issue of corporate power, including its control over our economy and government and corporate media censorship.     

Contacting Us:

    The author welcomes suggested updates, links, or other comments, which can be sent to comments. Please note that this is a nonpartisan effort, so we are open to link suggestions about sites of interest across the political spectrum wishing to preserve our democracy and secure the blessings of liberty. If you want to speak to the author, kindly send your request with contact information to contact author. If you wish to send anything by mail, please address it to:

        Concord Bridge Coalition
        PO Box 1497
        East Dennis, MA 02641-1497

In the media:

    The Expanding Police State (Excellent conference, with three talks)

    The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

    Kurt Vonnegut on current politics

    American: The Next Rome?

    Democracy Now!

    Bush's Impeachable Crimes, and the Growing Risks of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff

    Jerome Corsi on c-span.

    Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America

    Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" & "No Logo" interview

    Program about using clergy during martial law

Further reading:

    New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely by William H. White

    Martial Law, Concentration Camps, and Fascism: Are These Real Concerns To Americans?

    "Rule by fear or rule by law?" San Francisco Chronicle February 4, 2008 by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg

    The Kakistocracy Exposes Its Hand by Edwin Vieira

    Police State America - A Look Back and Ahead by Stephen Lendman

    Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline by PhilLeggiere

    Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006 by James Bovard

    Gangs of America - The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, by Ted Nace

    Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann

    Congressional Research Service Report - National Emergency Powers

    "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage

    "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein

    Review by Christopher C. Joyner of  "Extraordinary Justice: Military Tribunals in Historical and International Context"

    President Bush thinks of another way to end democracy by "Hume's Ghost"

    Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State by Mike Whitney

    Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

    Bush Makes Power Grab - And Response by chattanoogan.com

    The Bush Push to Militarize America by Jerome Corsi

    Bush Moves Toward Martial Law by Frank Morales

    Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters by Steve Watson

    The "Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

    The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf

    Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

    McWane, Representative Davis? Who's McWane? [Effective Lobbying] by ralphlopez

Research Issue:

        [→Unconfirmed Report: Part of the mass detention logistical solution may be government contracts "with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees", reported by former congressman Dan Hamburg; however, we have been unable to find either budgetary or physical evidence to support this allegation. We ask that any such evidence in the public domain be brought to our attention at: data]    

    This document is updated frequently, see the Most Up-To-Date Version available at its originating site.

Copyright © 2007-2008 William H. White  All rights are reserved; except, permission is granted for anyone to copy and distribute this document on the WEB. ~ The author asks that links in the text be retained.

"NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'état by National Emergency" by William H. White, Mar. 4, 2008