CHAPTER XXI
Big Brother - Towards the Homeland Security State

Defense of the Homeland is an integral part of the Administration's “preemptive war doctrine, presented to Americans as “one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy”.1

Self-defense is the cornerstone of the National Security doctrine. The latter includes offensive military actions in foreign lands as well as anti-terrorist operations in the American Homeland directed against both “foreign” and “domestic” adversaries.

In the words of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff:

While one key to defense is offense, … we also need a ‘defense in depth’ as part of the strategic whole. That means even as we pursue terrorists overseas, we work at home to prevent infiltration by terrorists and their weapons; to protect our people and places if infiltration occurs; and to respond and recover if an attack is carried out. This is embodied in our strategy of building multiple barriers to terrorist attacks.2

The “Universal Adversary”

The “enemy” is no longer limited to “foreign Islamic terrorists” and “Rogue States” as defined in earlier post 9/11 national security statements, it also includes terrorist threats from within the US, emanating from so-called “domestic conspirators”.

A July 2004 Report of the Homeland Security Council (HSC) entitled Planning Scenarios describes in minute detail, the Bush administration’s “preparations” in the case of a terrorist attack by an enemy called the “Universal Adversary” (UA).3

“The perpetrator” is identified in the “Planning Scenarios” as an abstract entity used for the purposes of simulation. Yet upon more careful examination, this Universal Adversary is by no means illusory.

It includes the following categories of potential “conspirators”:

• “foreign [Islamic] terrorists”

• “domestic radical groups”, [antiwar and civil rights groups]

• “state sponsored adversaries” [“Rogue States”, “unstable nations”]

• “disgruntled employees” [labor and union activists]

According to the Planning Scenarios Report:

Because the attacks could be caused by foreign terrorists; domestic radical groups; state sponsored adversaries; or in some cases, disgruntled employees, the perpetrator has been named, the Universal Adversary (UA). The focus of the scenarios is on response capabilities and needs, not threat-based prevention activities.4

The “domestic radical groups” and labor activists, who question the legitimacy of the US-led war and civil rights agendas, are now conveniently lumped together with foreign Islamic terrorists, suggesting that the PATRIOT anti-terror laws together with the Big Brother law enforcement apparatus are eventually intended to be used against potential domestic “adversaries”.

While the Universal Adversary is “make-believe”, the simulations constitute a dress rehearsal of a real life emergency situation which is intended to curb all forms of political and social dissent in America: “The scenarios have been developed in a way that allows them to be adapted to local conditions throughout the country.”5

Fifteen Distinct Scenarios

The scenarios cover the entire array of potential threats. Foreign terrorists are described as working hand in glove with domestic “conspirators”. Fifteen distinct “threat scenarios” are contemplated, including, inter alia, a nuclear detonation (with a small 10-Kiloton improvised nuclear device, anthrax attacks, a biological disease outbreak including a pandemic influenza, not to mention a biological plague outbreak. Various forms of chemical weapons attacks are also envisaged including the use of toxic industrial chemicals, and nerve gas. Radiological attacks through the emission of a radioactive aerosol are also envisaged.6

What is revealing in these “doomsday scripts” is that they bear no resemblance to the weaponry used by clandestine “terrorists” operating in an urban area. In fact, in several cases, they correspond to weapons systems which are part of the US arsenal of WMD, used in US sponsored military operations. The description of the nuclear device bears a canny resemblance to America’s tactical nuclear weapon (“mini nuke”), which also has a 10-kiloton yield, equivalent to two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.7 That Homeland Security should actually envisage a make believe scenario of large scale nuclear attacks by “domestic radical groups”’ and/or “foreign terrorists” borders on the absurd.

With regard to the nerve gas attack scenario, in a cruel irony, it is the same type of nerve gas (as well as mustard gas) used by the US military against civilians in Fallujah in 2004-2005.

Martial Law

The possibility of an emergency situation triggered by a Code Red Alert has been announced time and again since September 11 2001, with a view to preparing public opinion across America for martial law, if and when it occurs. (See Chapter XX.) What the US public, however, is not fully aware of, is that a Code Red Alert would create conditions for the (“temporary”) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Code Red would:

Increase or redirect personnel to address critical emergency needs; Assign emergency response personnel and pre-position and mobilize specially trained teams or resources; Monitor, redirect, or constrain transportation systems; and Close public and government facilities not critical for continuity of essential operations, especially public safety.8

Northern Command (NorthCom) would intervene. Several functions of civilian administration would be suspended, others would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.

Secret Shadow Government

On September 11, 2001, a secret “Shadow government” under the classified “Continuity of Operations Plan” (COOP) was installed.9

Known internally as “Continuity of Government” or COG, the secret Shadow government—initially set up during the Cold War— would become operational in the case of a Code Red Alert, leading to the redeployment of key staff to secret locations.

Federal agencies are required to establish “plans and procedures” as well as “alternate facilities” in the case of a national emergency. Moreover, the Continuity in Government Council (set up in Fall 2002) envisages concrete provisions relating to issues of “succession”, in the case of a terrorist attack resulting in the death of the President or members of Congress.10

Code Red Alert would suspend civil liberties, including public gatherings and/or citizens’ protests against the war or against the Administration’s decision to declare martial law. Arrests could be directed against domestic “radical groups” and labor activists”, as defined in the 2005 National Security Council Emergency Scenarios document.11

The emergency authorities would also have the authority to exert tight censorship over the media and would no doubt paralyze the alternative news media on the Internet.

Big Brother Citizens’ Corps

In turn, Code Red Alert would trigger the “civilian” Homeland Emergency response system, which includes the DHS’ Ready.Gov instructions, the Big Brother Citizen Corps, not to mention the USAonWatch and the Department of Justice Neighborhood Watch Program. The latter have a new post 9/11 mandate to “identify and report suspicious activity in neighborhoods” across America. Moreover, the DoJ Neighborhood Watch is involved in “ Terrorism Awareness Education”.12

Under the Citizen Corps, which is a component of the USA Freedom Corps, citizens are encouraged to participate in what could potentially develop into a civilian militia:

Americans are responding to the evil and horror of the terrorist attacks of September 11 with a renewed commitment to doing good. … As part of that initiative, we created Citizen Corps to help coordinate volunteer activities that will make our communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to any emergency situation. …

We are asking cities and counties across the country to create Citizen Corps Councils of their own design, bringing together first responders, volunteer organizations, law enforcement agencies, and community-serving institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. Some Citizen Corps Councils will feature local activities that reflect new and existing national programs such as Neighborhood Watch, Community Emergency Response Teams, Volunteers in Police Service, and the Medical Reserve Corps. Some will include local programs that involve partnerships with law enforcement agencies, hospitals, first responders, and schools.

What all Citizen Corps Councils will have in common is that our local leaders will be working to expand opportunities for their community members to engage in volunteer service that will support emergency preparation, prevention, and response.13

The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist “Drills”

Preparations for Martial Law have been conducted in the form of large scale anti-terrorist exercises. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, in May 2003, the Department of Homeland Security conducted a major “drill” entitled “Top Officials Exercise 2” (TOPOFF 2). Described as “the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the US”, TOPOFF 2 was based on Code Red assumptions involving a simulated terrorist attack.14

The “national response capability” in TOPOFF 2 was organized as a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants.

Various attack scenarios by presumed “foreign terrorists” using “weapons of mass destruction were envisaged.15

TOPOFF 2 was conducted using the assumptions of a military exercise pertaining to a theater war:

It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations.16

Two years later, in April 2005, during Bush’s second term, The Department of Homeland Security carried out larger and more comprehensive anti-terrorist exercise entitled TOPOFF 3, involving more than 10,000 “top officials”from 275 government and private sector organizations. Both Britain and Canada took part in the “drill”, which was described as “a multilayered approach to improving North American security”.17

The stated objective of the TOPOFF 3 “Full Scale Exercise” was to “prepare America” in the case of an actual bio-terrorism attack. The assumptions regarding the “Universal Adversary” (contained in the July 2004 Planned Scenarios document) and the roles of roles of both “foreign” and “domestic” conspirators, was embodied into the TOPOFF 3 exercises:

We deliberately built the scenario as a very complex WMD bio-terrorism attack in New Jersey, as well as a kind of a dual-header in the state of Connecticut in terms of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, and then a simultaneous chemical attack.

The system in TOPOFF 3 across the board was tested as never before, and this was deliberate. We wanted to test the full range of our incident management processes and protocols that spanned prevention, intelligence and information-sharing, and then the more classic or traditional response and recovery.

But really for the first time in a national-level exercise, we really got at a near simultaneous WMD attack which is, of course, very, very stressful for the federal folks, as well as our state, local and international partners.18

Building an Anti-Terrorist Consensus within the US State System

The objective of the anti-terrorist “drills” is not to “defend America” against Islamic terrorists. The drills contribute to building a broad consensus among “top officials”, within federal, State and municipal bodies, as well as within the business community and civil society organizations (hospitals, schools, etc.) that the outside enemy exists and that “the threat is real”. The exercises are applied to sensitize and “educate” key decision-makers. The simulated data, the various categories of “conspirators”, the types of deadly weapons envisaged in the drills are part of a knowledge base.

The nature of the adversaries and the dangers of the attacks (ranging from nuclear detonations to nerve agents and anthrax) become “talking points” among key decision makers involved in the anti-terrorist drills. The conspirators including the “domestic radical groups” and “disgruntled employees” are described as being in possession of “weapons of mass destruction”.

In the drills, precise data sources are simulated and used to identify potential conspirators. The data sources “replicate actual terrorist networks down to names, photos, and drivers license numbers.” The drills create a carefully designed “reality model” which shapes the behavior and understanding of key decision makers.

In this process, the “reality model” script of threats and conspirators replaces the real world.

“We are moving forward in applying lessons learned to anticipate and address all possible attack scenarios,” an FBI. spokeswoman said, asking not to be named because her department was not the lead author of the document. “With enhanced law enforcement and intelligence community partnerships, we are able to better detect terrorist plots and dismantle terrorist organizations.”19

These fabricated realities penetrate the inner-consciousness of key decision makers. The reality model script molds the behavior of public officials; it builds a “knowledge” and “understanding”, namely a shared ignorance regarding the war on terrorism and the “adversaries” who oppose the administration’s war and homeland security agendas.

A world of fiction becomes reality. The drills “enable exercise players to simulate intelligence gathering and analysis”, in preparation of an actual emergency situation which, according to the scenarios’ assumptions, would lead to mass arrests of presumed terror suspects.

Fiction becomes fact.

Conversely fact becomes fiction. “Ignorance is strength”. The “scenarios” require submission and conformity: for those key decision-makers at the federal, State and municipal levels, the US Government, namely the Bush Administration, is the unquestioned guardian of the truth.

We are not dealing with a propaganda ploy directed towards the broader American public. The TOPOFF anti-terror exercises as well as the “Planning Scenarios” were barely mentioned in the media. The propaganda in this case is targeted. It takes the form of “training” and emergency preparedness. The consensus building process is “internal”: it does not consists in a mass campaign. It is largely addressed to key decision-makers within these various governmental and non-governmental bodies.

TOPOFF 3 included 10,000 top officials in important decision-making positions (federal and State officials, law enforcement, fire departments, hospitals, etc), who may be called to act in the case of an emergency situation. These individuals in turn have a mandate to spread the word within their respective organizations— i.e., to sensitize their coworkers and colleagues, as well as the people working under their direct supervision. This consensus building process thus reaches tens of thousands of people in positions of authority.

In turn, the holding of these antiterrorist exercises supports the National Security doctrine of “preemptive war”,—i.e., that America has the legitimate right to self defense by intervening in foreign lands and that America must defend itself against terrorists. The TOPOFF exercises also sustain the myth of WMDs in the hands of terrorists, being used against America, when in fact the US is the largest producer of WMDs, with a defense budget of more than 400 billion dollars a year.

The objective is to sustain a consensus on the war and national security agenda—and to lay the path for martial law—within the governmental, nongovernmental and corporate business sectors.

Ultimately, the objective is to develop an acceptance for martial law across the land, by “top officials”, their coworkers and subordinates, from the federal to the local level. This acceptance would necessarily entail, in the case of an emergency, the suspension of civil liberties and the rights of citizens.

Officials will not give a specific figure, but they say the exercise involved several thousand fake deaths and thousands more injuries. This time, the sick and dying were only acting. But officials are aware that someday there could well be a real attack. They say the more they learn about how to coordinate prevention and response efforts, the better job they will be able to do to minimize casualties if and when that happens.20

The Anglo-American Homeland Defense Initiative

TOPOFF 3 involved the participation of Canada’s Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as well as Britain’s Home Office. The anti-terrorist exercise, involving simulations of attacks by Islamic terrorists were organized in terms of five separate “venues” in three countries: 1. Interagency exercise; 2. Connecticut; 3. New Jersey; 4. United Kingdom; 5. Canada.

The FSE [Full Scale Exercise] offers agencies and jurisdictions a way to exercise a co-ordinated national and international response to a large-scale, multipoint terrorist attack. It allows participants to test plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and gain the in-depth knowledge that only experience can provide.

The TOPOFF 3 scenario will depict a complex terrorist campaign and drive the exercise play through the homeland security system, beginning in Connecticut and New Jersey, and leading to national and international response.

Over the course of several days fire personnel will conduct search and rescue, hospitals will treat the injured (played by role players), subject-matter experts will analyze the effects of the attack on public health, and top officials will deploy resources and make the difficult decisions needed to save lives.

An internal Virtual News Network (VNN) and news website will provide real-time reporting of the story like an actual TV network would. The mock media will keep players up-to-date on unfolding events and enable decision makers to face the challenge of dealing with the real world media. Only participating agencies can view the VNN broadcast.21

The UK labeled its exercise “Atlantic Blue”, whereas Canada designated its component of TOPOFF 3 as “Triple Play”. While the media briefly acknowledged the Canadian attack scenarios, the details of Britain’s “Atlantic Blue”, held barely a month before the reelection of Prime Minister Tony Blair, were neither revealed, nor reviewed in the British press.

In the US based exercise, more than 200 federal, state, local, tribal, private sector, and international agencies and organizations including volunteer groups were involved.

Shaping the Behavior of Senior Officials

The “Top Officials exercises” (TOPOFF) prepare the Nation for an emergency under Code Red assumptions. More specifically, they set the stage within the various governmental bodies and organizations. The exercises shape the behavior of “top officials” and private sector decision-makers.
 

According to official statements, an “actual terrorist attack” of the type envisaged under TOPOFF 3 would inevitably lead to a Code Red Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (“temporary”) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government.

The Role of the Military

What would be the involvement of the Military in an emergency situation?

In theory, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 adopted in the wake of the US civil war, prevents the military from intervening in civilian police and judicial functions. This law has been central to the functioning of constitutional government.

While the Posse Comitatus Act is still on the books, in practice the legislation is no longer effective in preventing the militarization of civilian institutions.26
Both the legislation inherited from the Clinton administration and the post 9/11 PATRIOT Acts I and II have “blur[red] the line between military and civilian roles”. They allow the military to intervene in judicial and law enforcement activities even in the absence of an emergency situation.

In 1996, legislation was passed which allows the Military to intervene in the case of a national emergency (e.g., a terrorist attack). In 1999, Clinton’s Defense Authorization Act (DAA) extended those powers under the 1996 legislation, by creating an “exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, which henceforth permits the military to be involved in civilian affairs “regardless of whether there is an emergency”.27 This exception to the Posse Comitatus Act further expands the controversial measure already adopted by Congress in 1996.

Under that new [1999] measure, which was proposed by the Defense Department, the military would be authorized to deal with crimes involving any chemical or biological weapons—or any other weapon of mass destruction—regardless of whether there is an “emergency.” In addition, the new proposal would lift requirements that the military be reimbursed for the cost of its intervention, thus likely increasing the number of requests for military assistance.

Under this new provision … Nojeim said, “the mere threat of an act of terrorism would justify calling in military units. That represents a loophole large enough to drive a battalion of army tanks through.”

The defense authorization bill would also require the Pentagon to develop a plan to assign military personnel to assist Customs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to “respond to threats to national security posed by entry into the US of terrorists or drug traffickers.”

“The mere threat of an act of terrorism would justify calling in military units. That represents a loophole large enough to drive a battalion of army tanks through.”28
The legal and ideological foundations of the “war on terrorism”, therefore, were already laid under the Clinton Administration.

Despite this 1999 “exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act”, which effectively invalidates it, this has not prevented both the Pentagon and Homeland Security, from actively lobbying Congress for the outright repeal of the 1878 legislation:

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

It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it with a new law. … The Posse Comitatus Act is an artifact of a different conflict—between freedom and slavery or between North and South, if you prefer. Today’s conflict is also in a sense between freedom and slavery, but this time it is between civilization and terrorism. New problems often need new solutions, and a new set of rules is needed for this issue.

President Bush and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using military forces for homeland security and for enforcing the laws of the United States.29

The Posse Comitatus Act is viewed by Homeland Security analysts as a “Legal Impediment to Transformation”:

[The Posse Comitatus Act constitutes] a formidable obstacle to our nation’s flexibility and adaptability at a time when we face an unpredictable enemy with the proven capability of causing unforeseen catastrophic events. The difficulty in correctly interpreting and applying the Act causes widespread confusion at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of our military. Given that future events may call for the use of the military to assist civil authorities, a review of the efficacy of the PCA is in order.30

The ongoing militarization of civilian justice and law enforcement is a bi-partisan project. Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, a former Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been waging in consultation with his Republican counterparts, a battle for the outright repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act since the mid-1990s.

The PATRIOT Legislation

In turn, the Bush administration’s PATRIOT Acts have set the groundwork of the evolving Homeland Security State. In minute detail, they go much further in setting the stage for the militarization of civilian institutions.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 entitled “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” as well as the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” (“PATRIOT Act II”), create the conditions for the militarization of justice and police functions.

Frank Morales describes the PATRIOT legislation as a “Declaration of War on America”:

The “PATRIOT Act” is a repressive “coordination” of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military. It broadens, centralizes and combines the surveillance, arrest and harassment capabilities of the police and intelligence apparatus. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.

The “domestic war on terrorism” hinges upon the Pentagon’s doctrine of homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being enacted in the name of internal security. So called “homeland security”, originally set within the Pentagon’s “operations other than war”, is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on America. Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating military “doctrine” seeks to justify new roles and missions for the Pentagon within America. Vast “legal” authority and funds to spy on the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement “community.”

All this is taking place amidst an increasingly perfected “fusion” of the police and military functions both within the US and abroad, where the phenomena is referred to as “peacekeeping”, or the “poli-cization of the military”. Here in America, all distinction between the military and police functions is about to be forever expunged with the looming repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.

In other words, the “New World Law and Order” based on the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, requires a system of domestic and global counterinsurgency led by the Pentagon.31

Even under a functioning civilian government, the PATRIOT Acts have already instated several features of martial law. The extent to which they are applied is at the discretion of the military authorities.

The 2003 PATRIOT Act II goes very far in extending and enlarging the “Big Brother functions” of control and surveillance of people. It vastly expands the surveillance and counterinsurgency powers, providing government access to personal bank accounts, information on home computers, telephone wire tapping, credit card accounts, etc.32

US Northern Command (NorthCom)

Northern Command (NorthCom) based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, was set up in April 2002 in the context of “the preemptive war on terrorism”.
The creation of NorthCom is consistent with the de facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the position of Homeland Defense Command “in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil”, had already been envisaged in early 1999 by Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen.33

Following the Bush Administration’s decision to create NorthCom, the White House instructed Justice Department lawyers “to review the Posse Comitatus law in light of new security requirements in the war on terrorism.” The 1878 Act was said to “greatly restrict the military’s ability to participate in domestic law enforce-ment”.34

The role of Northern Command defined in the Pentagon’s “Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security” (JP-26), constitutes a blueprint on how to defend the Homeland.
According to Frank Morales, “the scenario of a military takeover of America is unfolding”. And Northern Command is the core military entity in this takeover and militarization of civilian institutions.

A coup d’État could be triggered even in the case of a bogus terror alert based on fabricated intelligence. Even in the case where it is known and documented to senior military officials that the “outside enemy” is fabricated, the military coup d’Etat characterized by detailed command military/security provisions, would become operational almost immediately.

NorthCom’s “Command Mission” encompasses a number of “non-military functions” including “crisis management” and “domestic civil support”. Under NorthCom jurisdiction, the latter would imply a process of “military support to federal, state and local authorities in the event of a terror attack”. The latter would include:
the preparation for, prevention of, deterrence of, preemption of, defense against, and response to threats and aggression directed towards US territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure; as well as crisis management, consequence management, and other domestic civil support.35

NorthCom is said to have a “Creeping Civilian Mission”.36 Since its inception, it has been building capabilities in domestic intelligence and law enforcement. It is in permanent liaison with the DHS and the Justice Department. It has several hundred FBI and CIA officers stationed at its headquarters in Colorado.37 It is in permanent liaison, through an advanced communications system, with municipalities and domestic civilian law enforcement agencies around the country.38 Moreover, the CIA, which has a unit operating out of NorthCom, has extended its mandate to issues of “domestic intelligence”.

In the case of a national emergency, Northern Command would deploy its forces in the air, land and sea. Several functions of civilian government would be transferred to NorthCom headquarters, which already has structures which enable it to oversee and supervise civilian institutions.

NorthCom’s “command structure” would be activated in the case of a Code Red terror alert. In accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act (DAA), however, NorthCom does not require a terror alert, an attack or a war-like situation to intervene in the country’s civilian affairs.

The Center for Law and Military Operations, based in Charlottesville, Virginia has published a “useful” Handbook entitled “Domestic Operational Law for Judge Advocates,” which prepares for new “law enforcement” missions for the Military. According to Frank Morales, the Handbook:

attempts to solidify, from a legal standpoint, Pentagon penetration of America and it’s ‘operations other than war,’ essentially providing the US corporate elite with lawful justification for its class war against the American people, specifically those that resist the “new world law and order” agenda.39

In other words, “the ‘war on terrorism’ is the cover for the war on dissent”.40

North-American Integration

The jurisdiction of the Northern Command now extends from Mexico to Alaska. Under bi-national agreements signed with Canada and Mexico, Northern Command can intervene and deploy its forces and military arsenal on land, air and sea in Canada (extending into its Northern territories), throughout Mexico and in parts of the Caribbean.41

Taken together, the existing legislation grants the military extensive rights to intervene in any “emergency situation”, and, in practice, without the prior approval of the Commander in Chief.

Upon the creation of Northern Command in April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that NorthCom would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region.

Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. The “War on Terrorism” was the main justification of this restructuring of the North-American defense structures.

US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US Department of Defense includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”42

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that:

NorthCom—with all of North America as its geographic command—”is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.”43

Following Canada’s refusal to join NorthCom, a high-level so-called “consultative” Bi-National Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Airforce base in Colorado, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to “prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States”.44

Following consultations between Washington and Ottawa, bi-national “military contingency plans” were established, which could be activated in the case of a terror attack or “threat”.

Under the so-called Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), NorthCom is to assist civilian governmental bodies such as municipalities in both the US and Canada. Military commanders would “provide bi-national military assistance to civil authorities”. In other words, it would respond “to national requests for military in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada”.45

In the case of a Code Red Alert, these “requests” (e.g., from a Canadian municipality) could result in the deployment of US troops or Special Forces inside Canadian territory. In fact, with an integrated command structure, Canadian and US servicemen would be integrated into the same bi-national military operations.
What these initiatives suggest is that the Bush administration is using the “War on Terrorism” as a pretext to exert military as well as political control over Canada and Mexico.

In this regard, Canada’s National Security Policy is a copy and paste version of US National Security doctrine, which commits Canada to “regular national and international exercises involving civilian and military resources to assess the adequacy of the national system against various emergency scenarios.” Moreover, under the 1999 Canada-US Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Guidelines and Smart Border Accord, Canada has committed itself to “engage with the US in joint counter-terrorism training activities, including exercises.”46

Consolidating the Big Brother Data Banks

In the wake of September 11, the Bush Administration established its proposed Big Brother data bank: the Total Information Awareness Program (TIAP).
TIAP was operated by the Information Awareness Office (IAO), which had a mandate “to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States government.”47

This would include medical records, credit card and banking information, educational and employment data, records concerning travel and the use of the Internet, email, telephone and fax. TIAP was operated in the offices of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a division of the Pentagon in Northern Virginia.48

Ironically, when it was first set up, TIAP was headed by a man with a criminal record, former National Security Adviser Admiral John Pointdexter.

Pointdexter, who was indicted on criminal charges for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, subsequently resigned as TIAP Director and the program was “officially” discontinued.49

While the Information Awareness Office (IAO) no longer exists in name, the initiative of creating a single giant “Big Brother data bank” encompassing information from a number of State agencies, has by no means been abandoned. Several US Government bodies including Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI, respectively oversee their own data banks, which are fully operational. They also collaborate in the controversial Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX). The latter is defined as “a crime-fighting database” used by law enforcement agencies, the US Justice Department and Homeland Security.50

The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, sets the framework for establishing a centralized “Information Sharing Network” which will coordinate data from “all available sources”. The proposed network would bring together the data banks of various government agencies under a single governmental umbrella.51 This integration of Big Brother data banks also includes tax records, immigration data as well as confidential information on travelers.

Similar procedures have been implemented in Canada. In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the “Canada-US Smart Border Declaration.” Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents.

It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians. Under the ongoing US-Canada integration in military command structures, “Homeland Security” and intelligence, Canadian data banks would eventually be integrated into those of the US. Canada Customs and Revenue has already assembled confidential information on travelers, which it shares with its US counterparts. In early 2004, Ottawa announced under the pretext of combating terrorism that “US border agents will soon have access to the immigration and tax records of Canadian residents”.

Moreover, under Canada’s controversial Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act of 2004, Canadian police, intelligence and immigration authorities are not only authorized to collect personal data, they also have the authority to share it with their US counterparts.52

What these developments suggest is that the process of bi-national integration is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada’s jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of bi-national integration—including the sharing and/or merger of data banks—is completed.

America at a Critical Crossroads

As outlined in Chapter XX, the coded terror alerts and “terror events” are part of a disinformation campaign carried out by the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and Homeland Security.

US intelligence is not only involved in creating phony terror warnings, it is also behind the terror groups, providing them with covert support.

Meanwhile, the militarization of civilian institutions is not only contemplated, it has become a talking point on network television; it is openly debated as a “solution” to “protecting American democracy” which is said to be threatened by “Islamic terrorists”.

The implications of a Code Red Alert are rarely the object of serious debate. Through media disinformation, citizens are being prepared and gradually conditioned for the unthinkable.

Bipartisan Consensus

A large section of US public opinion thought that a change in direction might occur if the Democrats had won the 2004 presidential elections.

Yet the Democrats are not opposed to the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor are they opposed to the militarization of civilian institutions, as evidenced by their 1996 initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act. Moreover, their perspective and understanding of 9/11 and the “war on terrorism” is broadly similar to that of the Republicans.

This ongoing militarization of America is not a Republican project. The “war on terrorism” is part of a bipartisan agenda. Furthermore, successive US Administrations since Jimmy Carter have supported the Islamic brigades and have used them in covert intelligence operations.

While there are substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats, Bush’s National Security doctrine is a continuation of that formulated under the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s, which was based on a “strategy of containment of Rogue States”.

In 2003, the Democrats released their own militarization blueprint, entitled “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy”. The latter called for “the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal
values.”53

The militarization of America is a project of the US corporate elites, with significant divisions within the corporate establishment on how it is to be achieved.
The corporate establishment and its associated think tanks and semi-secret societies (The Bildeberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.), however, is by no means monolithic. Influential voices within the elites would prefer a “softer” police state apparatus, a “democratic dictatorship” which retains the external appearances of a functioning democracy.

The Democrats’ “Progressive Internationalism” is viewed by these sectors as a more effective way of imposing the US economic and military agenda worldwide. For instance, the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the 2004 presidential elections was supported by billionaire George Soros, who had waged a scathing denunciation of George W. Bush and the Neocons.

While the US Congress and the bipartisan consensus constitutes the façade, the Military (and its Intelligence counterparts) are, from the point of view of the corporate elites, mere foreign policy “pawns”, to use Henry Kissinger’s expression, acting on behalf of dominant business interests.

The Wall Street financial establishment, the military-industrial complex, led by Lockheed Martin, the big five weapons and aerospace defense contractors, the Texas oil giants and energy conglomerates, the construction and engineering and public utility companies not to mention the biotechnology conglomerates, are indelibly behind this militarization of America.

The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest, which supports American and British) economic and strategic interests. Its underpinnings are supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Under the legislation put into place by both parties since the 1990s, a Coup d’État could be triggered in the wake of a Code Red Alert.

If emergency measures are maintained, the militarization of civilian institutions will become entrenched, leading to the suspension of civil liberties and the outright repression of the antiwar movement. It would make any form of reversal back to civilian forms of government much more difficult to achieve.

Ye t it should be understood that a step-by-step militarization of civilian institutions, as distinct from an outright Military Coup d’État, would essentially lead America in the same direction, while maintaining all the appearances of a “functioning democracy”.

In this regard, the contours of a functioning Police State under the façade of Constitutional government have already been defined:

• the Big Brother surveillance apparatus, through the establishment of consolidated data banks on citizens

• the militarization of justice and law enforcement;

• the disinformation and propaganda network;

• the covert support to terrorist organizations

• political assassinations, torture manuals and concentration camps

• extensive war crimes and the blatant violation of international law

Notes

1. Transcript of the complete March 2005 speech of Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=42&content=4392
2. Ibid.
3. Homeland Security Council (HSC), Planning Scenarios, July 2004, http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/hsc-planning-scenarios-jul04_exec-sum.pdf 
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Reuven Pedatzur,“The US removes the Nuclear Brakes”, Haaretz, 26 May 2005.
8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf
9. Washington Post, 28 February 2002.
10. See the Continuity in Government website at http://www.continuityof-government.org/home.html
11. National Security Council, op cit.
12. See www.USAonWatch.org
13. Citizen Corps, Guide for Local Officials, President Bush’s introductory remarks, http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf
14. For full text, see Department of Homeland Security,“Summary Conclusions From National Exercise”, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693. The first TOPOFF 1 exercise was conducted on a small scale in May 2000 under the Clinton Administration. It consisted in a simulated aerosol plague attack in a Denver, Colorado, concert hall. Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2003.
15. See Department of Homeland Security, TOPOFF 2 Summary Report, Washington, December 19, 2003 at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/T2_Report_Final_Public.doc 
16. Ibid.
17. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson at Press Conference, April, 2005, complete transcript at http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-9058.html 
18. Ibid.
19. New York Times, 26 February 2005.
20. Voice of America, 8 April 2005.
21. Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/inter-app/editorial/editorial_0588.xml
22. Asbury Park Press, New Jersey, 9 April 2005 http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050409/NEWS03/504090432/1007 
23. New Jersey Ledger, 9 April 2005.
24. Jim Bronskill,“Plague, explosions and mystery cargo: Terror drill looks ahead to next 9/11, Cnews (Canoe Network), 8 April 2005.
25. US Federal News, 28 March 2005.
26. Frank Morales,“Homeland Defense” and the Militarization of America, Centre for Research on Globalization, 15 September 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/arti-cles/MOR309A.html
27. See American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Congress Moves to Expand Military Involvement in Law Enforcement”, 14 September 1999, http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=8683&c=24
28. Ibid.
29. John R. Brinkerhoff, “The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security”, Homeland Security Journal, February 2002, http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm  John R. Brinkerhoff is former associate director for national preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
30. Donald J. Currier, “The Posse Comitatus Act: A Harmless Relic from the Post-Reconstruction Era or a Legal Impediment to Transformation?” Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., September 2003.
31. Frank Morales,“Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America”, Centre for Research on Globalization, December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR312A.html 
32. For further details, see bibliography and analysis of www.Ratical.org at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA2.html#DSEAanalysis
33. Lynne Wilson,“The Law of Posse Comitatus: Police and military powers once statutorily divided are swiftly merging”, Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 2002.
34. National Journal, Government Record, 22 July 2002.
35. Global Security website: “Northern Command”, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm
36. David Isenberg, Asian Times, 5 December 2003.
37. National Journal, 1 May 2004.
38. David Isenberg, op cit.
39. Frank Morales, “Homeland Defense and the Militarization of America”, op cit.
40. Ibid.
41. See The Global Security Website: “Northern Command”, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm
42. “Canada-US Relations-Defense Partnership”, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), July 2003, http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
43. Ibid.
44. Text of the Canada US Security Cooperation Agreement, Canadian Embassy, Washington, http://www.canadianembassy.org/defence/text-en.asp
45.See Canada, National Defense, The Bi-National Planning Group http:// www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1528
46. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: TOPOFF 3 Exercising International Preparedness”, Washington, 28 March 2005.
47. See Source Watch, Center for Media Democracy, at http://www.source-watch.org/index.php?title=Total_Information_Awareness
48. See Washington Post, 11 Nov 2002.
49. See Admiral John Pointdexter’s PowerPoint presentation at http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech2002/presentations/iao_pdf/slides/poindexteriao.pdf
50 See The Multistate Anti-Terroism In formation eXchange (MATRIX) website at http://www.matrix-at.org/
51. Deseret Morning News, 29, 2004.
52. House of Commons, Text of the C-7 Public Safety Act, Ottawa, 2002, http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-7/C-7_3/C-7TOCE.html , see also Transcripts of the House of Commons, http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=37&Ses=3&ls=c7
53. Mark Hand,“‘It’s Time to Get Over It’ John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On”, Press Action, 9 Feb 2004.

Back to Contents

Back to Big Brother Loves You