Part 9: Treason- The NWO...Hidden Past,History of Martial Law in U.S....Martial Law & Emergency Rule Today

Treason 

the New World Order 

by Gurudas
Chapter XIV 

Our Hidden Past: 

History of Martial Law in the U.S. 

“I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else.”

John Locke 

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely.” 

Cicero 

Martial law was declared in the U.S. 30 times between 1789 and 1975. When I scanned hundreds of American history books there was barely a mention of this fact. It is as if the slate has been wiped clean, although when one checks computer on-line services, it is possible to find some articles and books on the subject as suggested by the notes in this chapter. In the law journals there are also articles on martial law in the U.S., although this discussion has decreased in recent years. 

Historically, there has been some confusion about the meaning of the term martial law. 1 Martial law is not military rule, which is the rule of a victorious army in an occupied country. Martial law is the use of military forces to control areas where civilian authorities have lost partial or full control, and there is a suppression of some civil agencies. 2 Nationally only the president should declare martial law, while most authorities agree that governors may declare martial law within their states. Our Constitution limits broad use of emergency powers or the suspension of constitutional protections even in emergencies. 3 

Usually only part of a state, such as a city, is placed under martial law. There have been times when troops were used to aid civilian authorities without martial law being declared. This was done partly for political reasons such as during the 1967 Detroit riots. Martial law has also been declared after natural disasters such as in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania in June, 1972 after a flood following Hurricane Agnes. 

During the War of 1812 Andrew Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans on December 18, 1814. After the British were defeated, martial law remained in effect despite the growing anger of local citizens until March 13, 1815, when the war ended. 4 In 1842 martial law was declared in Rhode Island during the Dorr's Rebellion. There was a popular movement involving a people's convention in 1841 which elected Thomas Dorr as governor. The incumbent governor called this an insurrection, imposed martial law, and called out the militia. 

https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/dorr-rebellion/

There was a broad repression of dissent during the Civil War. Lincoln withdrew the use of the mail for various newspapers that criticized the war. In the 1860s this meant that a newspaper couldn't survive. Prominent newspapers, like the Journal of Commerce and the Daily News in New York, were suppressed with U.S. marshals ordered to seize certain newspapers. Most newspapers reversed their policies and stopped criticizing the war or supported it. 

Lincoln also suspended the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval. On April 27, 1861 Lincoln called on the commanding general of the army to suspend the writ of habeas corpus on the rail corridor between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Later, this was extended to the rail corridor between Philadelphia and Maine, all of Kentucky, Maryland, and St. Louis. 5 Military authorities usually refused to free people who had been arrested when shown a writ of habeas corpus stating that no civilian court had authority over prisoners of war. When Congress asked for information about the arrests, Lincoln said it was not in the public interest to furnish the information. Constitutional safeguards to protect individual liberties were ignored. 

Lincoln also sent troops into war without a congressional declaration of war saying it was a domestic insurrection so no congressional authority was necessary. While Lincoln saved the Union, the general public and many historians have largely forgotten or have forgiven his repressive measures. A more balanced approach to his presidency would bring more criticism of his emergency actions that were often not necessary or legal under the Constitution. 

In Ex parte Milligan (1866) the Supreme Court held that in the absence of actual invasion, martial law and the military trial of civilians was illegal while civil processes were unobstructed and the courts in session. “The Constitution of the U.S. is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances....Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.” However, the Supreme Court did not question the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the war or the arrest of civilians without charge. 

Similar activities were executed in the South, but Jefferson Davis never declared martial law or suspended the writ of habeas corpus without his legislature's consent. Davis was less assertive of executive authority than Lincoln, and when he did exercise this power it was less obviously political and the order was less sweeping. Davis declared martial law in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia on February 27, 1862. Three days later this was expanded to Richmond. Later martial law was declared by Davis or local military commanders in other parts of Virginia, east Tennessee, Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans, Atlanta, Salisbury, N.C., all of Texas and Arkansas, and parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. 6 

The North was especially aggressive in controlling the border states. On August 30, 1861 General Fremont declared martial law throughout Missouri. 7 Governor Morton declared martial law and acted with virtual dictatorship powers in Indiana between 1863 and 1865, after the Democratic-controlled state legislature refused to enact war measures. 8 On September 24, 1862 Lincoln declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the nation. While the exact geographical territory of this proclamation was not outlined “the categories of offenses were vague enough,in effect, to have placed the whole of the U.S. under martial law.” 9 Later use of this proclamation confirms this. Throughout the North upwards of 38,000 people were arrested for treason and helping the enemy. People who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices were arrested. 

On December 1, 1865 President Andrew Johnson issued Proclamation number 51 ending the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except in certain southern states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of New Mexico and Arizona. This proclamation did not even discuss martial law, and restoring the writ of habeas corpus did not end martial law. In the law libraries there are several systems and databases whereby you can check to see what changes took place over the years with various government edicts. There is no evidence that Lincoln's proclamation of martial law was ever lifted. 

Charles Fairman said, in The Law of Martial Law, while there is a close relation between martial law and the writ of habeas corpus, there are also important differences. 10 Professor Joel Parker of Harvard Law School said: “The existence of martial law and the suspension of the habeas corpus have been said to be one and the same thing; but in fact the former includes the latter and much more.” James G. Randall said regarding the actions of the government during the Civil War: “The suspension of the habeas corpus privilege did not, of itself, institute martial law.” 11 Under martial law the loss of many rights such as assembly, curfew, and search and seizure of weapons typically takes place. These activities do not automatically have any relationship to the writ of habeas corpus. Suspension of habeas corpus during martial law may take place, but this is not automatic and loss of this right is but one manifestation of martial law. In addition, when the writ of habeas corpus is suspended this does not necessarily mean that martial law is established. The civil courts may still be in operation. There have, in fact, been instances when martial law was declared and upheld by the courts with habeas corpus not suspended. 

Black's Law Dictionary clearly defines differences between habeas corpus and martial law. 12 It is unlikely that people would have just forgotten to remove the martial law that Lincoln established. I hope some group will take legal action to end the martial law of the Civil War, and people should demand action by Congress. If martial law from the Civil War is still in place, as appears to be the case, this is a dagger pointing at the heart of the people. People should not be fooled into thinking that the continued existence of martial law could not be used to violate the Constitution. Hitler was not alone in using existing laws to seize power. The continued state of martial law in the U.S. from the Civil War is one more tool the secret government could use to control the government, especially in a fabricated emergency. 

The Feed and Forage Act of 1861, a Civil War emergency act, allowed the cavalry to purchase feed for its horses when Congress wasn't in session. This act was used during the Vietnam War to spend millions of dollars without congressional approval. An emergency law passed over 100 years ago was used to get around congressional spending authority. Here we see the dangers of emergency powers becoming law and remaining in place indefinitely. 

Common use of the U.S. flag with yellow fringe around it in the courts is another sign that the U.S. is still under martial law. Such a flag is historically used by military troops. Army regulations 260-10 and 840-10 provide for using this flag. In a March 28, 1924 circular the Army Adjutant General said: “Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags.” Under 4 USC 1, the U.S. flag should include 13 horizontal stripes, alternating red and white with 50 white stars on a blue field. In State of Minnesota v. Randolph C. Miller (1995) when Miller filed a motion to replace the unconstitutional yellow fringed U.S. flag the judge did this. Miller said this flag “signifies that tribunals conducted under such standards are under military law, and that the Constitution is suspended.” 

After the Civil War martial law was used fairly often especially in the West, including in parts of Idaho (1899), Pennsylvania (1902), and Colorado (1903- 1904). Many of these situations involved labor and mining conflicts. Fairman said in the West “martial law has been proclaimed on so many occasions as to have become a household word.” 13 

Martial law was declared by state governors for political purposes in Oklahoma (1935), South Carolina (1935), Arizona (1935), Rhode Island (1937), Tennessee (1939), and Georgia (1940). This was done based on Moyer v. Peabody(1909) when the Supreme Court strongly supported the governors' right to declare martial law and limited the courts' right to challenge state governors. Rhode Island used martial law to stop horse racing. The governors often mobilized the National Guard although there was no violence or threat of violence. Weiner called these cases bogus martial law situations. 14 In Sterling v. Constantin (1932) the Supreme Court curbed the excessive use of martial law by state governors, limiting the application of Moyer v. Peabody, stating that governors could only declare martial law when there was actual violence. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the Milligan rule that courts have the power to review martial law declarations. 

Immediately after Pearl Harbor was attacked, the governor of Hawaii declared martial law, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, closed the civilian courts and invited the military authorities to take command, which they did. That was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Duncan v. Kahanamo Ku (1946). Here the court went beyond upholding the doctrine of judicial review for martial law and declared military trials of nonmilitary personnel as unlawful. Also, the court said the governor did not have the authority to close the civilian courts. 

Martial law was declared 10 times between 1945 and 1969. Its most prominent use was to protect the civil rights of black Americans as in Little Rock, Arkansas (1957), Oxford, Mississippi (1962), and Selma, Alabama (1965). Often the state National Guard was federalized to enforce federal court orders. In 1968 martial law was also used to disperse marchers in Washington, D.C. Many were arrested, The courts ordered the government to pay large fines for this misuse of authority. 

Some legal authorities have called for more carefully drafted emergency power legislation to protect people's civil rights. 15 While the courts have said that martial law can be declared during an emergency, exactly what would be an “emergency” and what steps can be taken have never been fully defined by the courts. 16 Present laws and cases concerning emergency executive powers do not provide the executive with standards to examine the legality of establishing martial law in domestic violence. 

There are many other topics that can be discussed regarding martial law, but that would go beyond the scope of this book. An excellent booklet, published in 1982, is The Use of Troops in Civil Disturbances in the United States, by A. Kenneth Pye. This 42 page booklet has 154 footnotes which review the many debates and ramifications of martial law, as well as the important law journal articles and books on this topic up to 1982. Little has been published on this topic since then. [I am going to see if he touches on FDR's stunt in 1933 in the next chapter,I have a good link on that,which I will include either within or at the end of the chapter DC]

Chapter XV 

Martial Law and 

Emergency Rule Today 

“The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” 

James Madison 

“Government is not reason; it's not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it's a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” 

George Washington 

The objective observer will appreciate that, if there are plans to establish martial law in the U.S., some preliminary work must be done to prepare for this. A few people cannot do the work and then expect thousands of people in law enforcement to carry out the plans. Certain people in government must learn something about these plans in advance, if these activities are ultimately to be activated. With the democratic traditions of our country there are many people in the government who do stand by the Constitution. It only takes a handful of such people to become horrified by these plans when they learn of them. This is partly why various plans for martial law in America have been leaked over the years. 

According to documents released by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) martial law could be established during peace if there was “a complete breakdown in the exercise of government functions by local civilian authorities,” reported the Defense Department. In 1971 David Packard, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, prepared a document “Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances” that justified military control similar to martial law. This directive claims that Congress intended that there be two exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the Army and Air Force from engaging in domestic law enforcement. The exceptions are to restore public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances endanger life and property, disrupt normal governmental functions, and local officials cannot control the situation. Second, the military would step in when there is a need to protect federal property and federal government functions. Such loopholes make a farce of the Posse Comitatus Act. It was also claimed that for the military to step in a Presidential Executive Order would normally be needed, but this could be waived with “cases of sudden and unexpected emergencies which require that immediate military action be taken.” 1 

In September, 1975 the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights was told by the director of the Federal Preparedness Agency (FPA), predecessor to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), that he couldn't tell them about the activities at Mount Weather or any similar command/relocation centers. Congress didn't have a right to this information. The Progressive said this is “an actual government-in-waiting,” and there were about 100 similar centers in the 1970's. 2 Mount Weather was established as the backup capital of the shadow government ready to take control in an emergency. Various federal agencies are represented here. In June, 1975 Senator John Tunney said the base held dossiers on at least 100,000 Americans and it was “out of control.” The base reportedly has broad surveillance facilities in place. Senator James Abourezk said the entire operation lacked supervision from the courts or Congress, and there was no public mandate or charter for this base to operate under. 

This emergency government was prepared to take over during the Vietnam War disturbances. Its internal reports recognize that during political unrest it may need to step in. This facility even published its own reports and recommendations on various national issues. In 1969 Nixon signed Executive Order (EO) 11490 allowing Mount Weather and the FPA to take over the country when the president proclaimed a national emergency. Exactly what such a national emergency would be is not defined, which is part of the danger. This EO was amended in 1979 to reflect the creation of FEMA. Little has changed today except that these secret bases are now part of FEMA. 

In 1981 FEMA drafted emergency legislation called the Defense Resources Act, which was given to Congress in 1983. This act empowered FEMA to censor international communications, limit employment in areas of the national interest, condemn or seize property, and require loyalty oaths. 3 In a 1981 Defense Directive, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci said martial law would probably be declared by the president, but senior military commanders also have the power to invoke it in the absence of a presidential order. 4 

FEMA continues to gather data from other intelligence agencies and monitor political dissent, because peaceful protesters are considered potential terrorists. In 1983 the Senate Intelligence Committee heard that FEMA was conducting domestic intelligence operations but this was denied. However, FEMA has monitored the activities of many political groups, such as the Livermore Action Group in California. 5 In October, 1984 columnist Jack Anderson said FEMA had “standby legislation” that in a national emergency would “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, effectively eliminate private property, abolish free enterprise, and generally clamp Americans in a totalitarian vise.” 

Martial law might be declared during a nuclear emergency. On June 16, 1955 during exercise “Operation Alert 1955” President Eisenhower appears to have declared limited martial law. This exercise presupposed that the U.S. had been attacked by nuclear weapons. Hearings on this exercise were held by a House Subcommittee, although few people were aware of this. Reportedly “Unless the role and responsibility of State and local governments in both preattack and postattack civil defense functions is made clear...the entire burden of civil defense threatens to devolve by default to the Federal Government.” In 1956 General Maxwell D. Taylor, Army Chief of Staff, told Congress the Army was ready to take control during an atomic attack if the president declared martial law, but “it has very little enthusiasm” for such a role. 6 

The Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control sued FEMA in the early 1980s to obtain plans concerning martial law and the government's response to nuclear war. One FEMA document titled “Martial Law” obtained through the FOIA described martial law as the suspension of “all prior existing laws, functions, systems and programs of civil government.” There were no plans for lifting martial law once it was established. According to released documents FEMA has 22 secret EOs that the president may approve during a nuclear war. In addition, the National Security Council and the Emergency Mobilization Preparedness Board have many secret documents regarding how to respond to national emergencies. FEMA said many documents couldn't be released because of national security. 7 The public has no say in these matters. 

In Blank Check, Tim Weiner said in DEFCON 1, the highest state of military alert when nuclear war is imminent or may have already begun, the nation is automatically placed under martial law. 8 Normally, U.S. forces are at DEFCON 4 or 5. Obviously nuclear war and modern warfare are extremely serious and require a rapid response, but the declaration of martial law in a high state of military alert perhaps without even a nuclear war actually starting has never been discussed openly in Congress, much less in the press so the people can reflect on these issues. Instead secret plans are made, and false excuses can be used to declare a national emergency and martial law, which could then be used as an excuse to disarm the people. In DEFCON 1 it would be difficult for soldiers and the people to start raising questions. Bruce G. Blair said in certain cases, local commanders have “independent authority” to take steps associated with DEFCON 1, 2 or 3 without first consulting the Joint Chiefs. 9 

Certain officials of the Reagan White House from the start of that regime ran a parallel secret government beyond the control or even knowledge of cabinet officials and federal agencies. 10 While some of these activities were discussed during the Iran-contra hearings, the activities of this secret government extended well beyond that arms deal. During the Iran-contra hearings, the head counsel for the Senate investigating committee, Arthur Liman, said there was a “secret government within a government.” According to the Miami Herald, Oliver North and the National Security Council worked closely with FEMA to promote the secret government.11 William Casey, head of the CIA, also conducted covert operations without proper congressional oversight. 

In 1984 Knight Rider, a prominent news service, published information about RX 84, a plot to suspend the Constitution and put over 100,000 illegal immigrants and political prisoners into concentration camps. Some reports said over 400,000 people were going to be arrested with martial law declared during a national emergency which was not even clearly defined but which supposedly could include arresting dissidents during widespread political protests, nuclear war, or a foreign invasion. During this period the U.S. considered invading Nicaragua and there was concern about how people would react. The Miami Herald said the plot called for FEMA to take control of the nation and for military commanders to control state and local governments during a national emergency. According to papers obtained from the FOIA, FEMA conducted training exercise REX Alpha 84 and Night Train 84 on April 5-13, 1984, which called for detaining illegal aliens in military camps. President Reagan approved this exercise by signing National Security Decision Directive 52. The Miami Herald obtained a FEMA memo describing the exercise, which stated that the Alpha Two part of the exercise called for activating “emergency legislation, assumption of emergency powers....” Exactly what this emergency legislation is remains a secret. 

https://ia800906.us.archive.org/2/items/pdfy--Wf7F1Pn6j8MjASw/Rex%2084%20%20H.R.%20645%20National%20Emergency%20Centers%20Establishment%20Act.pdf

According to congressional sources, the plot to declare martial law was part of a secret EO prepared by Reagan in May, 1984, that would be used during an emergency. Authority to declare martial law was also based on the Defense Resources Act which was to serve as standby legislation during a national emergency. If enacted this act would give a president broad powers equivalent to martial law. 12 In September, 1984 the Washington Post said Attorney General William French, in an August 2 letter to presidential aide Robert McFarlane, accused FEMA of trying to so increase its power that it would be an “emergency czar.”13 Perhaps French was also concerned about the plans for martial law. 

The martial law part of the plot was described in a June 30, 1982 letter by John Brinkerhoff, a deputy to Louis O. Giuffrida, the director of FEMA under Reagan (1981-1985). The Miami Herald obtained a copy of this letter. The memo said that martial law means the suspension of all prior existing laws. 14 Louis O. Giuffrida had in 1970 prepared plans to place black radicals in detention camps. 15 He called for martial law if there was a national uprising of black militants with at least 21 million “American Negroes” being placed in “assembly centers or relocation camps.” 

We should all reflect on the number 21 million. Whenever a dictatorship is established, there are always various factions, and one can never be certain in advance exactly who will gain the upper hand. There are few blacks in the ruling elite, and it is very chilling that a fanatic like Giuffrida was placed in charge of FEMA, which would control the government during a national emergency. With the ruling elite having concluded that the world population must be radically diminished for life to survive on this planet, what would happen to many minorities if the one world dictatorship took hold? 

In 1967 a novel The Man Who Cried I Am, was written by John Williams. The protagonist in the book discovered the King Alfred Plan which called for the arrest and extermination of all American blacks in a national emergency. Remember this was during many civil rights riots. Reportedly, Williams considered the plan real but could only get it published in a novel. As typically happens whenever horrific secret plans are released, many sources claimed they are false. Objectively there is no definite proof as to the validity or falsity of this plan. An almost identical version of this plan was leaked to various researchers after the book came out and a reliable source told Mac Brussel the plan was real. A plan by this name was in an Ohio prison system computer, and Dave Emory also believes this plan is probably true. 

During the Iran-contra hearings, Oliver North was asked by Rep. Jack Brooks about plans for FEMA to suspend the Constitution and establish martial law. Senator Inouye, chairman of the Senate Iran-contra Committee quickly intervened, so North didn't have to publicly respond. What could be a worse threat to the survival of the Republic than to suppress information about a plot to remove the Constitution and establish a dictatorship. If ever there was news that should have been heard this was it. No one in government would investigate this plot and only a few in the press would even discuss it. Senator Inouye said this was “a secret government—a shadow government...(with) its own fund-raising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself.” Yet he refused to heed his own warning. 

After this discussion Rep. Gonzalez gave an interview in which he said: “Tragically Rep. Brooks had been stopped by the chairman (Inouye). The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps.” The historian, Theodore Draper, said about the Iran-contra hearings: “If ever the constitutional democracy of the U.S. is overthrown, we now have a better idea of how this is likely to be done.” People in the Patriot movement and militias understand this. 

Much about FEMA remains secret. Even directors of FEMA aren't told about certain classified programs. Under Bush, when the House wanted to learn how certain FEMA funds were being spent, the director admitted he didn't know, and when Congress pushed the issue the political leadership declared national security and the budget was passed. It is remarkable how these two words keep Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duties. 16 According to one congressional report only 10 percent of FEMA employees are involved in disaster relief. 

Several years ago, FEMA did such a poor job during many natural disasters because it exists to monitor people not to help during emergencies. For years FEMA refused to take some of its sophisticated communications equipment to disaster relief areas to keep its assets secret. According to the National Academy of Public Administration, 27 percent ($100 million) of FEMA's 1993 budget, without including the disaster-relief fund, went into a secret “black budget.” On September 6, 1994 Clinton appointed George J. Opfer, a 25-year veteran of the Secret Service, inspector general of FEMA. If FEMA's main purpose is to assist in natural disasters, why is he from law enforcement? Clinton appointed James Witt as head of FEMA. He is described as the first head of FEMA with emergency management experience. Why is this the case if FEMA's main goal is to provide emergency relief? 

In 1984 Secretary of State George Shultz lobbied vigorously for a preemptive strikes bill that would give him authority to list “known and suspected terrorists” within the U.S., who could be attacked and killed by government agents with impunity. Shultz admitted in a public address on October 25, 1984 that the strikes would take place based on information that would never stand up in court, and that innocent people would be killed in the process. He insisted, however, that people listed would not be permitted to sue in court to have their names taken off that list. Attorney General Meese said arrested people would be considered guilty until proven otherwise. 17 The New York Times said this bill was identical to Hitler's “Night and Fog” program. 

In 1985 and 1987 the San Francisco Bay Guardian described the “Garden Plot,” a secret plan developed in the 1960s to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law during an emergency. President Johnson had this plan developed after the Detroit riots to crush political dissent. Senator Sam Ervin discovered in the early 1970s that these plans included files on 18,000 Americans. Details of the plan were released under the FOIA by the Western States Legal Foundation. 18 On March 13, 1989 Newsweek said it may be time to have martial law because of crime and drugs. According to the article there are many calls for this, which was an obvious lie. 19 Was this article a trial balloon to see how people would respond? 

On February 22, 1990 Rep. Newt Gingrich introduced H.R. 4079 that would have destroyed the Bill of Rights. This bill called for a declaration of a national drug and crime emergency with detention centers established in unused military facilities for violent criminals and drug offenders. Anyone even threatening to use force to protect himself or his property could be arrested. Under the broad language of the bill, thousands of political dissenters could have been arrested, because people could be arrested without clear evidence of criminal activity. The minimum sentence was to be five years and people's property could also have been seized.

The national press rarely discussed this bill and its implications. According to a 1994 Time article, Gingrich wanted to build stockades on military bases to house prisoners. 20 He hasn't given up yet. 

In the Senate, Phil Gramm introduced S 2245, a similar bill. Read these bills and you will appreciate how dangerous Gramm and Gingrich are. Gramm speaks for the moneyed interests, which is why by early 1995, he had raised more money than anyone else ever had by that early date for a presidential campaign. Gramm showed his real nature when he single-handedly blocked a bill to tighten the law on becoming a registered financial adviser. The House unanimously passed the bill, and the Senate agreed to a weakened version to please Gramm. This bill would have made it easier to prevent convicted felons and incompetents from becoming financial advisers. The $16 million required to finance the bill would have only come from fees levied on financial advisers. 21 From illegally taking money from corporations in 1984 (151 contributions in all) to illegally using his staff for campaigning, Gramm is one of the most corrupt people in Washington. 22 Two hundred years ago, if congressmen proposed suspending the Constitution they would have been run out of town or would have been arrested for treason. Today we make one a speaker of the House and the other a presidential contender. When you control the media and money you can convince people of anything! 

On July 9, 1990, six members of a U.S. Army intelligence unit went AWOL in West Germany. There was a worldwide high security alert to arrest them, and in mid-July they were arrested in Gulf Breeze. This small Florida town has for several years been the location of great UFO activity with some press coverage. The local police were told not to interrogate them, and they were allowed no outside contact. The national media completely distorted what they were doing and saying. For instance, few reported that they warned about an imminent war in the Middle East. Strangely, 21 days after being arrested, and after the Gulf War started, they were released with a general discharged. 

Recently one of the six men, Vance Davis, has gone public, saying they fled the Army because, as members of an intelligence unit, they had been shown above top secret documents stating that covert elements within the military planned to establish a “Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF)” that would restore law and order by changing the U.S. Constitution and replacing the FBI, National Guard, FDA, and IRS with a National Police Force called the Black Guard. They were also shown much information about UFOs, a high-level cover-up, and the arrival of aliens. 

Starting in 1992 the National Guard, with the agreement of Governor Pedro Rossello, was used to stop crime and drug use in Puerto Rico. According to the Associated Press, “It is the first time American military units have been pressed into routine crime-fighting service with police.” Rafael Albarran, a political scientist in Puerto Rico said: “The government is legitimizing military intervention within civil society.” The guard were posted at 50 housing projects with barbed wire fences, and they monitored who entered and left these dwellings. These projects looked like war zones with heavily armed troops, helicopters, and armored personnel carriers. There have been numerous unlawful searches and seizures and many security cameras have been installed. In one incident a 14-year old girl was killed by a stray bullet, when residents thought undercover police were from a gang. Nothing like killing a child to protect her! The Washington Post reported on these events June 30, 1994, saying there have been many civil rights violations. 23 

There was little other national coverage of these events, which set a dangerous precedent. In 1993 the mayor of Washington, D.C. tried to use the National Guard to fight crime. 

On May 10, 1994, 300 marines at the Twenty-nine Palms Marine Corps base were asked by a U.S. Navy officer to fill out a Combat Arms Survey, which included questions asking if they would swear allegiance to the UN and fire on Americans who resisted federal gun confiscation. Questions included: Number 39: “I feel the President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander in Chief to the UN Secretary-General. I am a UN fighting person.” Number 40: “I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a UN soldier.” Number 44: “I would like UN member countries, including the U.S., to give the UN all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.” Number 45: I am a UN fighting person and am prepared “to give my life” to maintain “every nation's way of life.” Number 46 states that the U.S. government bans all non-sporting firearms with a 30 day amnesty period. After 30 days, if U.S. citizens refuse to surrender their weapons the survey asks: “I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.” 

Lt. Commander Guy Cunningham who gave this survey was interviewed in Fishing and Hunting News. He said: “The importance of my survey is going to have to be addressed on higher levels.” This survey was reportedly conducted to see how Marines would act in non-traditional roles in military and civilian circumstances. Are we supposedly to be comforted by the implication that if U.S. troops kill Americans who refuse to surrender their arms, it would be a non-traditional role! 

The Department of Navy and Defense Department said this survey was part of a master's thesis and was not official government policy. They claimed it was only given to troops at one military base, but it was given to troops on many bases. Modern Gun magazine February, 1994 reported this survey or one very like it was given to elite Navy Seal units in September and October, 1993. About 80 percent of the soldiers are answering no to the question of killing American citizens who refuse to give up their guns. Reportedly, at least some of those who answered yes are receiving special treatment and reassignment. The March, 1994 Twenty-nine Palms base newspaper had a photo and report that members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) visited the base and received a high-level tour. While I am not aware of evidence linking the CFR visit to this survey being given out a few months later, the timing is certainly suspicious because of CFR goals. 

This survey created an uproar and actually backfired, in that it alerted thousands of troops and several million Americans to the fact that something very wrong is taking place. American troops should never under any circumstances be asked such outrageous questions. This survey has been widely discussed in certain publications such as the American Legion Magazine (November, 1994) and Soldier of Fortune (November, 1994 and August, 1995), on talk radio, and computer bulletin boards. Naturally, the national media won't discuss this. Despite what the military states it continues to ask soldiers strange questions. A 1996 Army Survey asks in question 30 if soldiers will agree to be part of a UN peace keeping/peace to be sent wherever needed? 

Rep. Bob Dornan wanted to conduct a congressional investigation into the survey's origins and intentions, but the House leadership blocked this. In an August 30, 1994 letter to Rep. Dornan, C.W. Hoffman, Jr., Staff Advocate for the Twenty-nine Palms Marine Corps base said the survey “did not in any way reflect official U.S. Marine Corps or U.S. Government policy” but that “the survey did consist of 46 questions regarding a variety of possible unconventional missions.” This appears to be an admission that U.S. Marines may possibly be ordered to swear an oath of loyalty to the UN and to fire on American civilians who refuse to surrender their arms. 

If you are in the military or law enforcement, carefully consider the implications of this survey. What will you do if you are ordered to kill Americans who refuse to give up their weapons? What will you do if ordered to kill peaceful Americans for any reason? What action will you take against those who would give such treasonous orders? Is your first duty and responsibility to the people and the Constitution, or to a corporate ruling elite that looks upon you with contempt. If you are in the military, you have a duly to not carry out unlawful or unconstitutional orders. Under the Manual For Courts-Martial (MCM) Paragraphs 169b, 171a, and 216d: “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the U.S....” Even though certain orders have an inference of legality, they must still be lawful to be enforceable. An act performed “pursuant to an order that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal” is unlawful. Robert S. Rivkin said in The Rights of Servicemen you should disobey certain orders, like committing war crimes. Duress is no defense unless it can be proved that you would have suffered immediate death or serious bodily harm if you refused to obey the order. 24 Anyone in law enforcement or the military who kills Americans under a phony martial law will also face the rage of the people. 

The Navy admitted the idea for the questions in the survey came partly from Presidential Review Directives (PRD) 13 and 25 about creating “a U.S. military force structure whose command and control would include the UN.” This is false in that PRD 13 and PRD 25 allow for U.S. forces to serve under, not alongside, the UN command. Under PRD 13 “U.S. commanders under UN command did not have to comply with orders which they believe are: (1) outside the mandate of the mission, (2) illegal under U.S. law, or (3) militarily imprudent or unsound.” These limitations put into place by General Colin Powell, were removed with PRD 25, which was issued by Clinton May 3, 1994 after Powell had retired. Rep. Bob Dornan informed me that he and Rep. Doolittle introduced H.R. 3334 to strictly limit instances when U.S. forces could serve under foreign command. Rep. Jim Lightfoot and others tried to get PRD 25 fully declassified. Under the summary version of PRD 25 that was released, in certain circumstances including emergencies “the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces.” Clifford Bernath, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, also said in responding to questions about reports of foreign troops in the U.S. “On a case by case basis, the president will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council....” However, transferring control of the U.S. military to the UN is treason. On June 9, 1994 Rep. Mitchell tried to get this secret law declassified and reviewed by Congress. This was a rare instance when Congress tried and failed to get one of these secret edicts released. America is a country where secret laws are created by the president and Congress cannot even see them. This is not constitutional government. 25

In August, 1995 Michael New, an Army medic stationed in Germany, refused an order to wear UN insignias on his uniform when his unit was sent to Macedonia under the UN because it was not a lawful order. When New asked Army officers how his status would change if he wore UN insignias they refused to answer him. New said “I swore allegiance to my country not the UN,” and he received thousands of letters of support. New's unit in Macedonia serves under a foreign officer and it surrendered their U.S. Army identification cards for UN identity cards. While the Geneva convention provides some protection to U.S. troops when taken prisoner this is not true for UN troops. Moreover, wearing UN emblems is not allowed under U.S. Army regulation 670-1. 26 New was court martialed in January, 1996 and found guilty of refusing to follow a lawful order to wear UN insignias and serve under the UN in Macedonia, but the case is under appeal in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Other soldiers have also publicly supported New. Army Sergeant First Class Edward Rasor held a news conference November 9, 1995 in Washington, D.C. and announced that he wouldn't serve under the UN or wear a UN uniform. 

On October 6, 1995, Rep. David Funderburk sent a letter to Clinton with the support of over 20 other representatives complaining about placing U.S. troops under UN command and the persecution of New. As noted in this letter, placing U.S. troops under the UN violates the Constitution and a president has no authority to do this. Rep. Tom Delay has introduced H.R. 2540 with 70 co-sponsors, and Senator Craig has introduced S 1370 with 24 co-sponsors which amends title 10 and prohibits members of the armed forces from wearing UN insignias. While this is a good first step, Congress does not accept that the New case really involves a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty. U.S. troops should never serve under a foreign entity. 

On October 5, 1994 the House passed H.R. 4922, the Digital Telephone and Privacy Improvement Act, also called the Wiretap Access Bill. On October 7, 1994 at 10:30 p.m. S. 2375 an identical bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. There was no floor debate in either House. By a unanimous consent vote, not one senator actually voted for the bill which gives them cover to deny responsibility for this unConstitutional act. H.R. 4922 was introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde and S 2375 by Senator Patrick Leahy. Under Senate rules, one senator could have blocked the bill, but the few senators who expressed interest in doing this were visited by FBI Director Louis Freeh who convinced them to not stop the bill. Freeh said, “My real objective is to get access to the contents of telephone calls.” A federal official expressed concern about “too much privacy in the wrong hands.” The National Security Agency (NSA) also played a key role in promoting and getting this bill passed. 27 

Under this law remote-activated equipment is being used to instantly record phone conversations, faxes, and computer bulletin board messages. Even local phone companies have no idea whose phone calls are being recorded, because encryption is used. With this new law, the government will be able to tell instantly who you call and who is calling you. Supposedly this new law was needed because new technology such as fiber optics and digital switches made it harder to wiretap conversations. Some of the equipment required for this new law was reportedly installed in 1992, and the cost to taxpayers is S500 million, although it remains to be seen if Congress will actually grant this money. Phone company executives are upset because, if Congress refuses to allot the money to pay for the equipment needed to carry out this program, user fees will be increased and the public will get very angry. Hopefully, there will be legal challenges to this law. Since the equipment of private phone companies is being used, they may be liable. 

Passage of the wiretap bill means there will be conspiracy trials based on conversations. People will be blackmailed by federal agents to stop legal political activities those in power don't like. As internal FBI documents revealed in the Earth First case, federal authorities are tapping thousands of conversations just because people called groups the Feds don't like. This bill was passed partly to give political cover to the national security state. It legalized what has continued for years. The massive electronic surveillance revealed in the 1970s never stopped. Aside from the activities of the FBI and CIA, NSA intercepts and monitors most forms of communication, and there are no public laws defining or limiting its authority. It has “spent a great deal of time and money spying on American citizens. For twenty-one years after its inception (1952) it tracked every telegram and telex in and out of the U.S., and monitored the telephone conversations of the politically suspect.” 28 According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center there were 98,000 wiretaps in 1993. 

The book, The Secret War Against the Jews, documents the massive wiretap program that has continued for years. 29 The authors said: “No citizen is safe anymore. Privacy is gone, search warrants are meaningless, the protections of the courts and constitutions have been overthrown entirely, without the knowledge or consent of our legislatures, presidents....” A second source revealing this criminality is The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford. He said NSA has over the years wiretapped conversations of congressmen taking money from foreign governments and accepting bribes to sell their votes. 30 This enables the intelligence community to blackmail Congress. 

During World War II the British were allowed to wiretap Americans, and to get around U.S. laws a sham was created so British officers at U.S. bases could ask for wiretap information on thousands of U.S. citizens. Thus supposedly, no U.S. agencies were doing the actual wiretap so no U.S. laws were broken. For instance, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act limits U.S. intelligence agencies in domestic intelligence, but it places no limits on the activities of foreign intelligence activities in the U.S. Thus the massive U.S. wiretap program continued, supposedly under the leadership of British intelligence agents. Behind the scenes, British intelligence agents have been extremely active in America for much of this century. This farce continues today and is also used with Canada and Australia. Initially these wiretaps were conducted against Jews and Nazi sympathizers, but the program gradually extended to all Americans. This information was leaked by disgruntled agents partly because the wiretap program has gotten so ridiculous. Jewish children calling home from summer camps are wiretapped. 

Grant Jeffrey, in the Final Warning, presents information that the government is monitoring all phone conversations in the U.S. with Cray super-computers. With certain people the conversations are targeted so that if specific words are used individuals then play back that discussion. The government can also download any computer as was done with the spy Richard Ames. 

A clue to the vast wiretapping now taking place was revealed in October, 1995 when the FBI petitioned to wiretap up to one in every 100 phones. The objective was to simultaneously wiretap 1.5 million lines. The government could then intercept tens of thousands of calls at once. Phone company executives were shocked, because they have never seen the FBI monitor more than seven phones at once in the same office. Mark Rasch director of a security think tank said this suggests they're doing many more wiretaps than has been admitted. 31 CBS Evening News on November 30, 1995 said the phone company NYNEX admitted it had recorded thousands of phone conversations without permission. The Wall Street Journal said the telephone workers' union confirmed that 1 in 50 Mexican phone lines are wiretapped. 32 The Spanish war in the 1930s was a testing ground for the weapons used in World War II. In a similar fashion Mexico is a client state for various U.S. federal agencies and, from voting machines to surveillance technologies, what occurs in Mexico is also applied in the U.S. 

Although the courts have at times blocked government wiretaps of Americans, 33 in more recent years a special court has readily complied with all government requests to wiretap conversations. On May 4, 1994 CBS Evening News said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) established in 1979 approved requests for electronic surveillance of Americans over 7,500 times. Meeting in secret in the Justice Department this court has granted all but one request. On February 9, 1995 Clinton signed EO 12949 greatly expanding the power of the FISC to allow the Justice Department to conduct physical or electronic surveillance without obtaining a search warrant in open court, without notifying the victim, and without needing to provide an inventory of what was seized. Evidence gathered under FISC jurisdiction can now be used in criminal trials. Previously such evidence was only used for intelligence. Many people have complained about the telephone bill, yet few are aware of this EO which provides even more authority to monitor people than that allowed under the telephone act. In 1972 U.S. v. U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court said warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, warning that the “danger to political dissent is acute where the government attempts (acts) under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.'” 34 

It is quite easy for the government to get people's phone records and there is no requirement for people to be notified of this. In 1978 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that phone records belong to the phone company not to customers. Typically, the government serves a subpoena to get phone records and the phone company automatically complies. In a recent year Pacific Bell received 14,765 subpoenas while Bell Atlantic received 7,098. 

In 1991 Gregory Millman, a financial reporter, charged that billions of dollars in taxes owed by GM, Kellogg, and other large corporations were never collected by the IRS because of currency and interest-rate hedging techniques. Millman claimed that he used internal IRS documents to write the article. The IRS responded by getting his phone records and those of numerous other people in a broad sweep, which probably involved more work than the IRS exercised to collect these taxes. In 1991 Procter & Gamble got the Cincinnati police to examine over 35 million long-distance phone calls to find someone who was giving the Wall Street Journal critical information about the company. 35 

When I started making phone calls to gather material for this book, I soon started hearing clicking noises on both my phones. Once when I said what I thought of those listening on the other end, the noises promptly stopped. The wiretap comes and goes every so often, because a writer is rarely a high priority threat and the noises occur depending on whom I call. Once the noise was so loud and constant I called the local phone company repair department and told them  there was a wiretap on my line using old equipment and asked them to get the government to switch to better equipment. The person wasn't surprised, and the noises soon stopped. Another time, while talking to a contact in Oklahoma, the line was cut twice in several minutes. I am aware of one person who has installed a device that lights up when a wiretap is activated on his line. 

If you don't believe this, start calling various patriot or environmental groups expressing your interest in getting involved, and you will probably start hearing strange noises on your phone, although equipment is being gradually upgraded so before too long there will be no noises on the line when your phone is bugged. People with a high priority are already wiretapped with equipment that emits no noises. This is our tax dollars at work. While this is completely against the Constitution, I am not suggesting that there is any immediate physical threat to this surveillance. However, if one were to speak of committing violent acts, one might be arrested, disappear, or have an arranged suicide or accident, depending on how much of a threat one were perceived to be by the security state. 

The main focus as in any tyrannical government is to remain in power by controlling the people, which means surveillance especially of those deemed to be a potential threat. Ex-head of the CIA James Woolsey told Congress that CIA spy satellites can hear almost any conversation. In late 1995 ABCs Primetime Live said since 1993 cameras have been used to record cars that go through red lights. This means cars can be located throughout the U.S., when this technology is applied nationally, as in inevitable. Of course, the people will be told the benefits of this tighter surveillance. Various federal agencies such as the IRS, DEA, FBI, Customs, EPA, and OSHA paid $97 million in 1993 to Americans who reported violations of laws. The Washington Post said the CIA has called on spouses of intelligence or military personnel to report any suspicious activities to the authorities. In the new world order, loyalty to the state will be more important than the family unit. Getting many people to spy on others is one more sign of a coming police state. 

Increasingly, local police agencies use surveillance systems often with the support of the federal government. Military surveillance technology is now used in domestic police work. 36 Electronic surveillance is used to see who to arrest in the future. People are put into different categories, depending on their perceived threat to the government. This determines when they will be arrested in an emergency. After someone is initially categorized and put onto a certain list, surveillance generally takes place, with recording equipment which is occasionally listened to depending on what category you are in. If certain words are spoken, the recordings may be listened to more often. 

In 1952 the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government released a map positioning foreign troops in the U.S. as part of a world government. On September 21, 1992 Bush said at the UN: “The U.S. is prepared to make available our bases and facilities for multinational training and field exercises.” Today there are growing reports of foreign troops and military equipment in the U.S. The NBC Evening News November 30, 1994 quoted the Pentagon as admitting there were currently 5,000 foreign troops in the U.S. undergoing training. While such training has continued for years, these troops are now coming to the U.S. in units instead of individually. NBC reported September 7, 1994 that 500 Russian troops would be in the U.S. in 1995 for training exercises. The Washington Post also reported on U.S. Soviet military maneuvers in the U.S. in Martial Law and Emergency Rule Today 195 1995. 37 There are many reports of foreign troops at Fort Polk, Louisiana, Fort Riley, Kansas, and Holloman Air Force base in New Mexico CBS News on August 18, 1995 said 4,000 foreign troops from 14 East European nations were being trained at Fort Polk for UN peace keeping and civilian control operations. On May 2, 1996 the New York Times said a new agreement provided for training Mexican troops on U.S. bases. 

In the summer and fall of 1994, U.S. troops were in Russia conducting maneuvers. There was an official admission that there were joint Russian/U.S. military exercises taking place in the U.S. and Russia but the announcement took place in Moscow. On September 5, 1994 General Pavel Grachev acknowledged that U.S. and Russian forces were conducting joint exercises in the U.S. as well as in Russia to deal with riots, terrorist attacks, and other emergencies. 

Spotlight published evidence of UN/foreign troop movements in the U.S. and has produced many photos of Russian and UN military vehicles in America. Because of these reports, Congress was flooded with inquiries. Clifford Bernath, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, sent people a letter on this topic declaring all is fine. He said some Russians may undergo training in the U.S. in 1995, and in March, 1994, 50 Russian soldiers participated in a joint exercise in Alaska. Bernath acknowledged that Canadian troops trained at Marine bases in southern California in early 1994. Their military vehicles reportedly moved on a 110-car train and some vehicles had UN markings. Senator Conrad Burns got a letter from the Department of the Army saying the railroad cars were loaded with Canadian army vehicles returning to Canada from Camp Pendleton, California where training had been conducted “under the umbrella of the UN.” 

While the Pentagon claims that reports of Soviet-bloc military equipment spotted in the U.S. are just old surplus, numerous photos show that the latest Russian equipment is showing up across the U.S. This includes the Russian HindE helicopter, SA-13 missile launcher, SA-13 Gopher surface-to-air missile system, BTR-60 armored personnel carrier, and T-72 and T-80 tanks. There are clearly too many Russian tanks and armor here to just be used in target practice and training exercises as the government claims, and none of this equipment is listed in the Pentagon inventory of military equipment. 

According to the September 25, 1994 Daily News, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, there are “500 (foreign) operational tracked and wheeled vehicles” at the White Sands Missile Range in Alamogordo. The article included a photo of a long row of T-72 tanks which “stand at the ready.” The article said there are similar “tank farms” with Russian military vehicles at military bases in Arizona, Florida, and Maryland. The Gulfport, Mississippi airport and Fort Irwin, California reportedly also have much Russian military equipment. The September 22, 1994 San Diego Union Tribune had a classified ad to hire someone to service Russian military equipment. 

One citizen photographed a truck hauling a Russian T-72 lank along a highway north of San Antonio. When spotted taking the photos he was forced off the road. Two hours later when he returned home a car that had been behind the truck hauling the T-72 was parked in front of his home. This citizen got his shotgun and walked towards the car which promptly drove away. Since when is it a crime for an American to take photos of military vehicles on a public highway! And why should this be a secret? In 1994 a unit of German troops camped near Wickenburg, Arizona. No local authorities were told about this. A local resident told them to leave or he would come back with friends and drive them away using gunfire if necessary. They promptly left. 

Will large numbers of third world troops be brought here supposedly for UN training, while the U.S. military is weakened and stationed overseas? The number of U.S. divisions has been sharply cut and thousands of U.S. troops are overseas. The people should demand that no foreign troops be allowed into the U.S. for UN related duties. We still have over 100,000 troops defending Europe from a Russian army that is collapsing, and in late 1995 Clinton committed 25,000 troops to Bosnia with many more providing support. From deployment in Somalia, Haiti, Kuwait, South Korea, and perhaps the Golan Heights, the federal government has an endless appetite to station troops overseas. 

Many unsubstantiated rumors claim that hundreds of thousands of foreign troops are secretly stationed on U.S. soil. The New American did a 12-page report on foreign troops in the U.S., but it found evidence of no more than a limited number of foreign troops here. 38 While there may be over 5,000 foreign troops in the U.S., this has not yet been confirmed. The greater concern is what do these events mean? Today it is 5,000 or more foreign troops here. What will it be in the future? Are the military exercises in preparation for seizing all guns from the people? Are these foreign troops in the U.S. quietly getting familiar with the roads and terrain to provide guidance for large groups of UN troops that may later be brought in? 

On November 5, 1993 Senator Roth introduced Amendment 1122 to the 1993 crime bill calling for the U.S. to hire Hong Kong police into the federal police. This was also discussed in Section 5108 of the same bill. Supposedly, they were needed to deal with Asian gangs in the U.S., and no limit was placed on the number to be hired. This amendment actually passed the Senate, but was removed in the House/Senate conference. With Hong Kong returning to China in 1997 this law would have provided a legal excuse to bring thousands of Chinese communist troops into the U.S. 39 

Another disturbing trend is that, in recent years, American troops have been conducting military exercises in our cities and suburbs, sometimes using live ammunition. Are these training exercises being conducted as a prelude to disarming Americans? The U.S. Army Office of Public Affairs said its urban warfare training is allowed under the Defense Department Authorization Act of 1987. While there has been heated discussion in some local newspapers about these exercises, the national media rarely discusses this topic. According to veteran reporter Sarah McClendon, in the Washington Report, August 26, 1994 “The U.S. Army admitted that it had been training local police and National Guard (units) in how to break and enter private property since 1987.” The government has established a MJTF training facility in Belle Chasse, Louisiana to conduct anti-terrorist exercises. Increasingly, National Guard units are receiving training in urban warfare on U.S. military bases. Why is such training necessary? 

A MJTF training exercise included the FBI and Marines in civilian clothes, with live ammunition used at the vacant Del Sol Hotel in Yuma, Arizona in the spring of 1994. Residents nearby were given no advance notice and some were scared by the gunfire. The Yuma raid was discussed on the front page of The Yuma Daily Sun on October 21, 1994. On June 12, 1995 residents of Des Plaines, Illinois were disturbed from their sleep by a MJTF training operation that involved low flying planes and live ammunition. Local police denied this was happening, Martial Law and Emergency Rule Today 197 but later admitted they were ordered not to talk about it. Key Largo, Florida residents were awakened by a similar military assault. 

Plans to conduct a military exercise in the empty Book-Cadillac Hotel in Detroit were cancelled after news of the exercise was published in the Detroit Free Press July 23, 1994. The military wanted to place sharpshooters on the nearby Book Tower office building. However, a live ammunition exercise was conducted by a MJTF unit, including regular Army troops, in the Detroit suburb of Van Buren in late September and early October, 1994. Michigan State Rep. Deborah Whyman and some aides found live ammunition and an unused grenade at the scene, which was not even secured after the exercise. They were under constant surveillance while inspecting the buildings. 

When the The Olympian, on July 5, 1994, published plans to parachute troops into downtown Rainer, Washington to fight a unit of the National Guard using blank ammunition, there was an uproar. Many citizens complained at a town meeting, and permission to hold the exercise was revoked. Citizens were scared when the Marines and FBI conducted a joint exercise, in late July, 1994, on Tybee Island, Georgia. Helicopters hovered over homes in the middle of the night. On July 18, 1994 a press release from Camp Pendleton announced that some Marines and Navy personnel would undergo urban training at “privately owned sites and military installations” near Sacramento from July 23 to August 3. According to the Miami Herald, Miami Beach gave permission for a military exercise to be held in early 1995 at the abandoned St. Hortiz Hotel. The Army wanted to use live ammunition in this hotel, which is in the heart of a busy district. 

Several years ago the National Guard State Partnership Program was established to exchange American soldiers in guard units with personnel from the former Soviet Union, supposedly to promote democracy and human rights in these foreign countries. Arrangements have already been established between Alabama and Romania, Arizona and Kazakhstan, California and Ukraine, Colorado and Slovenia, Illinois and Poland, Indiana and Slovakia, Maryland and Estonia, Michigan and Latvia, Ohio and Hungary, Pennsylvania and Lithuania, Tennessee and Bulgaria, Texas and the Chech Republic, South Carolina and Albania, and Utah and Belarus. These 14 states reportedly volunteered to participate in this program. Have any citizens of these states even heard of this program? The Department of Defense is spending $33 million to promote this operation, and Russia will soon be a participant. 

This is a program that could bring into the U.S. tens of thousands of soldiers from former communist countries, while our troops are sent overseas. These foreign troops would not defend our freedom, and if U.S. soldiers are out of the country it would be hard for them to protect the people. If such foreign troops were ordered to seize all arms here and kill those who resisted, they would probably follow such orders while most American soldiers would not. Moreover, federal authorities have been quietly removing tanks and other heavy equipment from certain armories. 

The Defense Department wants to eliminate half the 110,000 Army National Guard combat troops. The remaining National Guard combat units would transfer to support activities like managing supplies. Supposedly this would be done to save money. Between 1989 and 1998 the active-duty Army is to be cut 36 percent, while the Army National Guard is to be reduced 20 percent. 40 There are also reports that Army reserve units would be placed under the command of FEMA during an emergency. An interview with a Jewish leader of the Texas Constitutional Militia in the December 4, 1994 issue of the London Sunday Telegraph helps explain why the National Guard is being weakened. Reserve guardsmen, police officers, and active duty military officers quietly work with militias across the country. 

There are been unconfirmed reports that members of street gangs such as the Crips and Bloods are being recruited and trained to be used as shock troops to raid homes, seize guns, and arrest certain people. Newsweek had an article about gangs being in the military and the U.S. Justice Department working with them. 41 The Washington Times said the federal government allocated an initial $2.5 million to recruit street gangs into a neighborhood watch program in Washington, D.C. Will every city soon see this? In June, 1996 the press said the Justice Department was going to hold a conference with gang leaders from across the nation to discuss common problems. FEMA is involved in a secret program called the National Guard Civilian Opportunity Act which involves placing troubled youths in youth camps to give them military training and discipline. Gang members could be a vast resource to create terror. Just in the Chicago area, according to police reports, there are 100,000 gang members, and the White House on May 13, 1996 said there were 16,000 gangs with 500,000 members. 

In 1979 William R. Pabst released a detailed report with the locations of various prison camps in the U.S. already established for civilians. 4 2 Reagan reportedly signed a national security directive activating 11 large prison camps. The U.S. Army field manual FM 41-10 titled Civil Affairs Operations, dated January, 1993, discusses methods for rounding up civilians and place them in detention centers. Included are FEMA chain of command information and diagrams of detention centers. Other U.S. Army documents state that it has plans for “regulation of civilian inmate labor utilization” and for “preparing requests to establishing civilian prison camps on (Army) installations.” In 1994 C. Dean Rhody of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command in Fort Monroe, Virginia sent a memo about a “Draft Army Regulation on Civilian Inmate Program” stating that “the new regulation will provide the following: (a) Policy for civilian inmate utilization on installations, (b) Procedures for preparing requests to establish civilian inmate labor programs on installations, and (c) Procedures for preparing requests to establish civilian prison camps on installations.” When the researcher, Dennis Cuddy, called to confirm this memo, he was told the memo was “leaked” and was “premature” because it was a “draft regulation” that had not been finalized. 43 The U.S. Army War College report “The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War” states that the role of the military was changing from national defense to suppression and control of populations in the U.S. and under the UN. 

According to the General Accounting Office, by 1994, 88 percent of the closed military bases had been taken over by other government agencies. Reportedly certain bases and FEMA installations are being turned into prison camps. The Seneca Army Depot by Seneca Falls, N.Y. is one Army base reportedly being closed and converted to a federal prison. Senator Alfonse D'Amato has confirmed that much heavy construction is taking place at this base which will be turned over to the National Guard. This and other closed bases usually ban the public, and barbed wire has been placed around many of these bases. 

The Immigration Reduction Act of 1995 (H.R. 2162) calls for the Secretary of Defense to provide the Attorney General with a list of all closed military bases  in the U.S. with facilities “suitable for detention and upon request of the Attorney General shall give assistance as the Attorney General may require to take possession of and operate such facilities.” There remains an interest to provide facilities to imprison many people. RX 84, discussed above, calls for the arrest of 100,000 to 400,000 people, so the government must have facilities ready to suddenly imprison so many people. While I do not feel that conclusive evidence has been presented yet as to what is being done with the closed bases, this situation must be closely watched, especially because of our history of imprisoning or proposing to imprison many people. 

In the past, entire tribes of Native Americans were resettled or deliberately killed. Thousands of American Indian children were forcibly taken from their families and placed in special schools or with non-Indian families to destroy their cultural roots. During World War I, governors from four western states asked the federal government to imprison members of the Industrial Workers of the World until the war was over. In 1939 the Hobbs “Concentration Camp” Bill passed the House by a large majority, calling for the detention of aliens. Over 110,000 Japanese-Americans were abruptly arrested and sent to concentration camps in harsh regions during World War II. None of these people had ever committed even one act against the U.S. Authorities were able to move fast because lists had been prepared in advance. The 1950 Internal Security Act had provisions to establish prison camps for subversives. Senator Paul Douglas helped draft this law without realizing he was on an FBI list to be arrested as a threat to national security. In 1968 the House Un-American Activities Committee advocated detention centers during the civil rights disturbances. It called for scaling ghettos, restricting entry, curfews, and the suspension of civil rights during a “guerrilla uprising.” The full report reads like a gestapo tirade. Threatening or actually putting political dissidents into concentration camps is a well established tradition in America recognized by many people unless you are a politician or in the establishment press. 

For a preview of the future, consider the tight control now in effect at U.S. airports. To board a plane a photo I.D. is required. If we one day wake up and discover that some excuse has been used to suspend the Constitution and establish martial law, would most of Congress in the name of national security not say a word? Would Congress be too busy taking money from special interests to enrich themselves to get reelected? What does it take for Congress to recognize and question treason and sedition when it takes place? Part of the problem is that many in Congress are closely allied with the corporate elite.[He did not touch this emergency,that we are still under from 1933 DC]
 https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-special-report-on-national-emergency.html
next
The Oklahoma Bombing 

notes
Chapter XIV Our Hidden Past: History of Martial Law in the U.S. 
1 “Martial Law,” Southern California Law Review, 42 (Spring, 1969), 549. 
2 Frederick B. Wiener, “Martial Law Today,” American Bar Association J., 55 (August 1969), 723. 
3 Gabor S. Boritt, Lincoln the War President (N.Y: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 152. 
4 Jonathan Lurie, “Andrew Jackson, Martial Law, Civilian Control of the Military, and American Politics: An Intriguing Amalgam,” Military Law Review, 126 (Fall, 1989), 135-145. 
5 Richard F. Benscl, Yankee Leviathan (N.Y: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 140-1. 
6 Ibid., p. 143. 
7 Robert E. Denney, The Civil War Years (N.Y: Sterling Publishing Co., 1994), p. 71, 104. 
8 Allan Nevins, The War For the Union: War Becomes Revolution, 1862-1863, Vol. 3 (N.Y: Charles Scribner Sons, 1960; reprint ed., N.Y: MacMillian Publishing Co., 1992), p. 90-392. 
9 Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Fate of Liberty (N.Y: Oxford U. Press, 1991), p. 65. 290 Treason The New World order 
10 Charles Fairman, The Law of Martial Law (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1930), p. 43-49. 
11 James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1963), p. 183. 
12 Blacks Law Dictionary (St. Paul, Mn: West Publishing Co., 1991), p. 97. 
13 Fairman, op. cit., Note 10, p. 68. 
14 Frederick B. Wiener, “Militia Clause of the Constitution,” Harvard Law Review, LIV (December 1940), 218-219. 
15 F. David Trickey, “Constitutional and Statutory Basis of Governors' Emergency Powers,” Michigan Law Review, 64 (December, 1965), 307. 
16 op. cit., Note 1, p. 555. 

Chapter XV Martial Law and Emergency Rule Today 
1 Dave Lindorff, “Could It Happen Here?” Mother Jones, XIII (April, 1988), 60. 
2 Richard P. Pollock, “The Mysterious Mountain,” The Progressive, 40 (March, 1976), 12-16. 
3 Keenen Peck, “The Take-Charge Gang,” The Progressive, 49 (May, 1985), 18- 24. 
4 Lindorff, op. cit., Note 1, p. 60. 
5 Peck, op. cit., Note 3, p. 18. 
6 B.W. Menke, Martial Law-Its Use in Case of Atomic Attack (Washington, D.C. Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1956), p. 1, 2, 44-45, 81-82. 
7 Howard Witt, “Lawyers Press U.S. on Martial Law Plans For War Survival,” Chicago Tribune, August 15, 1983, Section 1, p. 12. 
8 Tim Weiner, Blank Check The Pentagons Black Budget (N.Y: Warner Books, 1990), p. 54-55. 
9 Bruce G. Blair, “Alerting in Crisis and Conventional War,” in Managing Nuclear Operations, cd. by Ashton B. Carter, (Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution, 1987), p. 116-117. 
10 Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Advisers Ran 'Secret' Government,” Miami Herald, July 5, 1987, p. 1, 14; Alfonso Chardy, “North Helped Revise Wartime Plans,” Miami Herald, July 19, 1987, p. 17; Joe Conason and Murray Waas, “The Enemy Within,” Village Voice, July 21, 1987, p. 14-18, 32. 
11 Chardy, July 5, 1987, op. cit., Note 10, p. 1, 14. 
12 Ibid.; Chardy, July 19, 1987, op. cit., Note 10, p. 17. 
13 Pete Earley, “Smith Accuses FEMA of Grab for Power,” Washington Post, September 3, 1984, p. A19. 
14 Lindorff, op. cit.. Note 1, p. 60. 
15 Peck, op. cit., Note 3, p. 23. 
16 Ted Gup, “How FEMA Learned to Stop Worrying About Civilians and Love the Bomb,” Mother Jones, XIX (January/February, 1994), 28-31, 74, 76. 
17 John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard (Boston: South End Press, 1991), p. 20. 
18 Tom Redmond, Garden Plot-A Sweeping Martial Law Plan Developed in the 1960s-is Alive in SF, San Francisco Bay Guardian, September 8, 1987, p. 17- 19; “Meese Acknowledges Counter-insurgency Role,” San Francisco Bay Guardian, February 20, 1985, p. 5. 
19 Melinda Beck, et al., “We Need Drastic Measures,” Newsweek, March 13, 1989, p. 21. 
20 Richard Lacayo, “Lock 'Em Up,” Time, Febuary 7, 1994, p. 50-53. Notes 291 
21 Frank Lalli, “How Gramm Coddles Criminals, Not Investors,” Money, XXIII (December, 1994), 5. 
22 Robert Sherrill, “Ruthless Ambition Phil Gramm's Trail of Sleaze,” The Nation, March 6, 1995, p. 301-306. 
23 Karl Ross, “In Puerto Rico's War on Drugs, Combat Troops Reinforce Police,” Washington Post, June 30, 1994, p. A3. 
24 Robert S. Rivkin, The Rights of Servicemen (N.Y: Richard W. Baron, 1973), p. 104-109. 
25 U.S., Congress, House, Congressional Record, June 9, 1994, p. H 4256-4258. 
26 Rowan Scarborough, “American Medic is Poised to Snub United Nations Uniform,” Washington Times, September 4-10, 1995, p. 17. 
27 Peter Cassidy, “Silent Coup in Cyberspace,” Covert Action, Number 52 (Spring, 1995), 54-56. 
28 Weiner, op. cit., Note 8, p. 121. 
29 John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews (N.Y: St. Martin's Press, 1994), p. 181-196. 
30 James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982), p. 366-367. 
31 John Markoff, “FBI Wants Advanced System to Vastly Increase Wiretapping,” New York Times, November 2, 1995, p. A1, C5. 
32 Paul B. Carroll and Dianne Solis, “Reporter's Notebook: In Mexico, Corruption Fight Stirs Skepticism,” Wall Street Journal, November 29, 1995, p. All . 
33 Frank J. Donner, The Age of Surveillance (N.Y: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980), p. 244-248. 
34 Philip Colangelo, “The Secret FISA Court: Rubber Stamping on Rights,” Covert Action, Number 53 (Summer, 1995), 43-49; James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982), p. 367-379. 
35 Wayne Biddle, “Tapping Phone Records: They've Got Your Number,” The Nation, October 26, 1992, p. 467, 468, 470. 
36 Ford Rowan, Techno Spies (N.Y: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1978), p. 152. 
37 Lee Hockstader, “U.S. Offers Russians New Joint War Games, Research” Washington Post, May 6, 1994, p. A32. 
38 William F. Jasper, “Fact and Fiction,” The New American, October 31, 1994, p. 4-8, 25-31. 
39 U.S., Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, November 5, 1993 p. S 15183. 
40 Eric Schmitt, “Guardsmen Fight Cuts By Pentagon,” New York Times, December 26, 1995, p. A1, A13. 
41 Gregory Vistica, “Gangstas' in the Ranks,” Newsweek, July 24, 1995, p. 48. 
42 William Cooper, Behold A Pale Horse (Sedona, Az: Light Technology Publishing, 1991). 
43 Dennis Cuddy, Ph.D., The Road to Socialism and the New World Order (Highland City, Fl: Florida Pro Family Forum, Inc., 1995), p. 77.  

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.