Strategic Shock

[vector7]

Oakland, Calif. firms close early after Wed. riot

Thu Jan 8, 2009 7:31pm EST

(Corrects date)

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 8 (Reuters) - Clorox Corp (CLX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and other businesses in Oakland, California, were sending employees home early on Thursday due to fears of more violence in the wake of a recent fatal police shooting of an unarmed man.

A receptionist at Clorox told Reuters by telephone that employees had been told to leave the company's offices before 3 p.m. PST (2300 GMT). The Oakland Tribune reported other businesses in the city also let employees go home early.

Oakland police arrested more than 100 people on Wednesday night, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, after an appeal to protesters for calm and to disperse by Mayor Ron Dellums failed, resulting in small riot in the city's downtown area. Storefronts and several cars were damaged.

Oakland, California's eighth-largest city with 400,000 residents, is a major port and regional hub. It has a history of racial tension.

Demonstrators were protesting the killing of 22-year-old Oscar Grant of Hayward, California on New Year's Day at an Oakland railway station by a railway police officer, Johannes Mehserle.

Grant was detained by railway police after a scuffle between two groups of young men. Videos recorded by bystanders now circulating on the Internet show Mehserle shooting Grant, who appeared to be face down on a railway platform.

Investigations are under way into the shooting. Mehserle resigned on Wednesday from the police force of the Bay Area Rapid Transit railway.

Mehserle is white and Grant black, prompting one demonstrator on Wednesday night to cast the shooting and its protest in racial terms.

"I feel like the night is going great," demonstrator Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male." (Reporting by Jennifer Martinez; Editing by Eric Walsh)

[vector7]

Marines Admit “Security Force� To Operate Inside U.S.

Contradicting Northcom denial that troops would be engaged in law enforcement, dealing with “civil unrest�


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 8, 2009

Following Northcom’s denial that U.S. Army combat teams would be used to deal with “civil unrest� after the announcement that thousands of active duty military personnel were being moved inside the United States, an Army.com report now concedes that more than 400 Marines assigned to one unit includes a “security force� that would operate within the homeland.

A September 8 Army Times report stated that active duty troops from the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returning from Iraq would be on call as a “federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks,� for a period of 12 months from October 1st.
This preceded a December 1 Washington Post article which reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security� from September 2011.

According to the Army Times article, their duties would include dealing with “civil unrest and crowd control�. This admission was later denied by Northcom’s operations division chief Army Col. Michael Boatner, who told Homeland Security Today, “This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control, but will be used to support lead agencies involved in saving lives, relieving suffering and meeting the needs of communities affected by weapons of mass destruction attacks, accidents or even natural disasters.�
However, a January 7 American Forces Press Service story posted on Army.com confirms that at least some units operating inside the U.S. will rely on a “security force� to provide protection for troops responding to a mass casualty event in America.

Marines assigned to the Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) operating out of the Naval Support Facility in Indian Head, Maryland are “tasked by the Defense Department with responding to disasters that require federal assistance,� according to the article, a job that mandates “the squad’s weapons were replaced with metal pry bars, Kevlar helmets with construction hard-hats, and combat uniforms with coveralls.�

“The commandant of the Marine Corps set in place the guidelines for designing a highly trained and specialized unit designed to respond to such a threat in the event that state and local authorities need Defense Department assistance,� we read.

“The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force led the operational efforts of the unit until October 2008 when, in a historic move, the U.S. Northern Command pulled into its ranks nearly 5,000 active-duty forces designated to respond to homeland emergencies.�

“Now, the CBIRF is associated administratively with the 2nd MEF, but can tap into the extensive medical, aviation, transportation and logistical support of the other units within Northcom’s response force.�

Although Marine Col. John M. Pollock states, “Security for our forces operating within the homeland is a law-enforcement issue, and I would much rather leverage local and state law enforcement to provide that security,� the article does reveal that a “security force� tasked with protecting Marines during their duties is a component of the unit.
“The unit has specialists in bomb disposal, technical rescue decontamination, chemical identification and detection, medical and casualty extraction. It also has a security force,� states the article.
Pollock also stated that the unit was in position at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, an open violation of Posse Comitatus, the law that restricts the military from undertaking law enforcement operations except in times of declared national emergency.

Just who do the Marines need protecting from if all they will be doing is aiding rescue efforts and saving people’s lives? The only conceivable scenario in which Marines would need other Marines to protect them in a law enforcement guise would be if the tasks they were undertaking were highly unpopular and risked reprisals from the general public.

The fact that the original Army Times report of September 8 let slip that Marines would have access to non-lethal weapons to be used domestically, a revelation that was later retracted after it stoked media controversy, perhaps offers a not too subtle hint about what the real mission of the Marines will be in anticipation of a total economic collapse or the dreaded mass casualty terror attack that is constantly being hyped by the establishment and the corporate media.

[vector7]

Obama-Bush teams to stage 'disaster' exercise

Fri Jan 9, 1:27 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The outgoing White House administration will next week hold a joint "disaster scenario" exercise with top members of the incoming team of president-elect Barack Obama, US officials said Friday.


"I'm not going to go into the details of it, but it is a disaster scenario where the government would be very much tested," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

"It is an exercise scenario, a hypothetical scenario that is designed to test and tax the capabilities of the federal government," he added.

He did not specify whether Obama or vice president-elect Joe Biden would take part in Tuesday's three-hour long exercise, saying merely it was part of regular training events and had not been motivated by any specific threat.

A huge security blanket is being thrown over Washington for Obama's inauguration on January 20, with up to two million people planning to converge on the US capital to witness the nation's first African-American president being sworn into office.

"It is a very public event ... and one that gathers, you know, leaders in a very small environment, essentially. So obviously we have a lot of concern about it," Stanzel said.

"But there is no credible threat at this point to the inauguration that is precipitating this."

Stanzel said Tuesday's exercise was part of President George W. Bush's commitment to ensuring a smooth handover of powers in the first transition to take place since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He said senior members of Obama's team had been invited "to attend 90-minute orientations and briefings followed by a three-hour exercise intended to familiarize the incoming administration with domestic and international incident management procedures used by the current administration."

"The exercise is a regular thing. We have these exercises at various levels throughout the administration, at several different levels on a regular basis every year," he added.

"This just happens to be an exercise that we were having at a very senior level that we had planned that we can also include the incoming team on that exercise."

[vector7]

White House and Transition Officials Conduct Joint Disaster Exercise

By Spencer S. Hsu
Senior aides to President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama met at the White House this morning to conduct an unprecedented joint disaster exercise for transition leaders.

The three-hour exercise brought together Cabinet members, nominees and senior outgoing and incoming White House officials to discuss how to respond to a hypothetical terrorist attack on transportation and other targets in multiple U.S. cities. The table-top drill followed 90 minutes of orientations and briefings in the West Wing situation room about federal laws and procedures to manage emergency incidents and to preserve the government's chain of command.

"In the post-9/11 world, this isn't just good-mannered good government; it's a national security responsibility," Bush Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told reporters.

"Whether we're Democrats or Republicans, we will have our policy differences. There is no policy difference when it comes to protecting the American people," incoming Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel added.

The timing and duration of Tuesday's preparations just one week before Inauguration Day underscored the importance both sides have placed on a smooth handoff of power in the first presidential transition since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Democrats are taking over for the first time the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Director of National Intelligence, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Pentagon's U.S. Northern Command, for example, each of which was created in the government reorganizations of recent years.

Independent analysts have urged closer and earlier cooperation, noting the frequency with which terrorist attacks have occurred within weeks or months of government transitions in the United States, Britain and Spain, and the fact that in September 2001 many Bush appointees were still awaiting confirmation.

Bolten said the administration has certified nearly 1,000 members of Obama's transition team for access to information at nearly 100 government agencies and expedited clearances for his national security aides so they could "hit the ground running."

The exercise contemplated multiple scenarios to show "who does what under what authorities, and with what coordination in the event of a homeland security incident," Bolten said.

Officials have said there is no specific, credible threat of an attack.

[vector7]

Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:03am MST
Military report raises concerns about social unrest fueled by globalization, urbanization

Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks

A new report from the U.S. military warns of globalization and urbanization fueling social unrest, as well as a potential collapse of the Mexican government as that country deals with violence and corruption induced by drug cartels and organized crime.

The military report also discusses concerns about global water scarcity, including in the American Southwest, and a weakened U.S. globally if there are major reductions in U.S. defense spending.

The Joint Operating Environment 2008 report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command outlines potential short- and long-term security worries, including terrorist networks obtaining nuclear and biological weapons, as well as instability and aggressiveness involving China, India, Pakistan, India and the Middle East.

The report also worries about drug cartels in Mexico and Latin America and their potential for violence, government corruption and, in an extreme scenario, a weakened or failed Mexican state.

“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone,� the report said.

There have been scores of murders between rival drug cartels and between the cartels and Mexican police. The violence is especially bad in northern Mexican cities including Tijuana and Nogales.

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., warned that Mexican violence and instability could be one of President-elect Barack Obama’s first security challenges.
Mexico is Arizona’s largest trading partner. The state is also a main entry point into the U.S. for Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers, and there are links between the cartels and illegal gun purchases and gun running from Phoenix.

The government report also raises concerns that a diminished or pulled-back U.S. economy on the world stage could reduce American influence and power.

“A central component of America’s global military posture is its massive economic power. This power is predicated on a financially viable, globally connected domestic economy. Should this central feature of American power be weakened, it is highly likely that military capabilities will be diminished or otherwise degraded as a result,� the report said.

The U.S. recession and financial and housing busts have raised concerns about future American economic predominance.

Obama is not highly supportive of international trade policies and has promised to draw down American troops in Iraq. In addition, Democrats gained seats in Congress this year and could push for more protectionist and domestic-oriented policies.

Glenn Williamson, CEO of the Canada Arizona Business Council, expects to see a greater focus on North America under Obama.

“I am starting to see a trend here from the new administration -- possibly pulling in some U.S. assets in far-off countries that don’t even like us, and focusing more on a continental North America where Canada, the U.S. and Mexico could almost be energy self-sufficient,� Williamson said. “The U.S. and Canada need a strong Mexico for that to succeed. The concept of a broken Mexico or Canada on either border of the U.S. does not work.�

A “broken� Mexico could diminish U.S trade, tourism and investment there, resulting in Western investment being moved to Asia or other, more stable markets.

The report also says while economic globalization could bring more prosperity, disparities in wealth and increased economic expectations could lead to unrest and civil wars, which may require U.S. economic, humanitarian and military responses.

[vector7]

Media execs prep for 'news emergency'

By MICHAEL CALDERONE | 1/19/09 12:17 AM EST

Media executives must have been paying attention last week when President Bush declared a state of emergency for Tuesday's inaugural.

CNN's Washington bureau chief David Bohrman, for one, issued a "news emergency" of his own.

While Bush freed up federal funds, Bohrman made available satellite phones in the event of rolling cell phone blackouts. There will be cots and air mattresses for staffers camping out in the newsroom on Monday night, along with shower arrangements at a nearby health club. Staffers will be treated to a pancake breakfast prior to braving the bitter cold and bulging crowds.

"It's the biggest event any of us have ever had to cover," Bohrman said.

While there have been several massive Obama events this past year — Berlin, Denver, and Chicago's Grant Park — the inaugural is proving to be the most complicated. Covering it requires dealing with a vast number of moving parts, among them the challenges for camera crews of literally moving around to cover the sprawling event. Much of Washington will resemble an occupied city, complete with closed streets, checkpoints, and a 40,000-plus security force.

Crowd size is the biggest variable for news executives, since coverage limitations increase as the number of onlookers grows: one million attendees present a certain set of challenges; two million, another. Those directing coverage will be watching in the days leading up for indications of how many people might show up, and start planning accordingly. An extra million people on Tuesday significantly increases gridlock and cuts down on the ability to move television correspondents, camera operators, newspaper reporters, photographers and bloggers.

Even seasoned professionals, accustomed to the crowds and pomp and circumstance of inaugurals past, express disbelief at the sheer crush of attention surrounding the moment Barack Obama plants his right hand on the Bible.

Joe Keenan, director of the Senate Daily Press Gallery, said that credentials have now been issued to print reporters in just about every nation, from Slovenia to Nigeria, Lebanon to Gabon.

"I talked to several European reporters at the conventions, and Obama is a bigger deal there than here," Keenan said, noting that the entire continent will be represented, down to the daily "Luxemburger Wort."

So in addition to pushing through the crowd, U.S. TV outlets will have to out-flank their foreign colleagues for ideal viewing positions. Being an inaugural, which is tailor-made for hours of television coverage, it's essential to be in the right place at the right time.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>

[vector7]

January 19, 2009
Redefining the 'War on Terror'
By Theodore Couloumbis, Bill Ahlstrom & Gary Weaver

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has done a great service by declaring in a January 15 column in The Guardian that "ultimately, the notion [of the "war on terror"] is misleading and mistaken."

Words mean a lot. They create frameworks for thinking about things. They reinforce or undermine stereotypes. They spur people to action. They can inform. And mislead. Create striking clarity. Or becloud the real issues.

The “war on terror� did all these.

This single phrase evoked the successful struggles against Fascism in World War II and Communism in the Cold War and suggested that similar worldwide mobilization was required to defeat terror.

It reflected a uniquely American tendency to over-simplify and sloganize: “War on Cancer… War on Poverty… War on Drugs… War on Terror… .�

It created an environment of fear that was used to justify a broad range of actions that undermine civil liberties, from the Patriot Act to Guantanamo.

It fostered extreme oversimplification: “You’re either with us or against us.� And implied that military force is the main weapon.

It is a phrase fitting for a soundbite, but not for a thoughtful discussion or for the basis of a great nation’s policy.

There is a struggle. But it is against terrorists, who use the tactics of terror to pursue their objectives. And against the conditions that breed terrorists.

There is no single, global, over-arching enemy. Terrorists are manifold. They have many different motives. And share little in common, except for the tactics of terror.

As Miliband points out: “The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common. Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channeling their followers into democratic politics.�

In this he echoes a little-noticed 2007 Washington Post column by Zbigniew Brzezinski: “The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra … has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.�

As Brzezinski rightly pointed out, “The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.�

This is not to say that the threat of terrorist attacks is imaginary. It is a real and present danger, not only in the US, but also in many other countries around the world, developed and developing alike. Because terror tactics can and will be used by individuals and groups that believe terrorism will further their objectives. But it is not a unified threat, controlled by a single organization or leader. Often it is focused on driving military forces from occupying land terrorists view as theirs, and they justify their tactics by invoking ideology or religion.

The Obama Administration’s national security team should clearly differentiate between the tactics of terrorism and specific terrorist organizations, prioritizing the latter based on the level of threat posed to the US and its friends and allies. Once identified and prioritized, and in concert with interested and willing partners, the US should develop and embark on ways to isolate, engage and neutralize, transform, or eliminate them. Depending on the nature of the organization and level of threat posed, a mixture of intelligence, diplomacy, covert action, and military force should be deployed by the US, its partners and allies.

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton provided a preview of the Administration’s position in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “For terrorism, we must have a comprehensive strategy, leveraging intelligence, diplomacy, and military assets to defeat Al Qaida and other terrorist groups by rooting out their networks and drying up their support for violent and nihilistic extremism.�

There are important examples of terrorist movements that have been eventually transformed. The PLO and the IRA, and even the Israeli Irgun, all evolved from the use of terrorist tactics to engagement in the political process. General David Petraeus’s approach in the Sunni dominated Iraqi Al Anbar province, turning enemy terrorists into situational allies, is yet another. The processes of isolating and engaging terrorist movements will, of course, vary depending on location and other considerations including religion and culture. Successful engagement and transformation requires clear demonstration and broad acceptance of the value of peaceful outcomes – in other words, a focus on common good of those involved.

Because the Middle East is the central cauldron for much of the world’s terrorist activity, the US must renew its focus on that region. Secretary-designate Clinton emphasized that the US and its allies “… must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East… .� She emphasized a renewed “determination to seek a just and lasting peace agreement that brings real security to Israel; normal and positive relations with its neighbors; independence, economic progress, and security to the Palestinians in their own state.�

As the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the nexus of many regional issues, and the rationale for much terrorist and counter-terrorist military activity, the central question will be whether a mix of engaging moderates and isolating extremists can move terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to renounce violence in favor of active political participation. Next steps in Gaza will provide an early test.

Similarly, a concerted drive by the US, Europe, and other powers such as India, to complete the United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism would do much to establish broad consensus both on the nature of terrorism, and effective ways to combat it.

Foreign Secretary Miliband is right: “The call for a ‘war on terror’ was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share.�

Theodore Couloumbis is vice president of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and professor emeritus at the University of Athens, Greece; Bill Ahlstrom is an executive at a US multinational; Gary Weaver is professor at American University’s School of International Service; these views are their own.

[vector7]

Maybe their getting ready for a breakdown in Mexico then spilling over here.

Mysterious Prison Buses in the Desert


by Ellen Brown


Global Research, January 22, 2009
Web of Debt

On a recent visit to Tucson, Arizona, where I was invited to give a presentation on monetary reform, I was disturbed by a story of strange goings on in the desert. A little over a year ago, it seems, a new industrial facility sprang up on the edge of town. It was in a remote industrial zone and appeared to be a bus depot. The new enterprise was surrounded by an imposing security fence and bore no outward signs identifying its services. However, it soon became apparent that the compound was in the business of outfitting a fleet of prison buses. Thirty or so secondhand city buses were being reconfigured with prison bars in the windows and a coat of fresh paint bearing the “Wackenhut G4S” logo on the side.

The new Wackenhut operation is shrouded in mystery. It has been running its fleet of empty prison buses night and day, apparently logging miles on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract. Multiple buses can be seen driving all over town and even on remote desert back roads. Oddly, except for the driver and one escort guard seated in front, these buses are always empty.

Wackenhut Services was founded by George Wackenhut in 1954 to provide prison guard services to state and federal governments. Wackenhut Services is now owned by the Danish corporation G4S.

Observers originally thought that the purpose of the new Wackenhut operation was to outfit prison buses to be distributed in other parts of the country. But it soon became apparent that none of the buses was leaving the Tucson depot. Recently, a passerby observed what appeared to be a training operation there. In what seemed to be strange activity for 10:30 PM on a Saturday night, the depot yard was fully illuminated, the entire fleet of buses was up and running, and drivers and guards were scrambling around the yard. The question is, what were they training for?

Wackenhut has never officially announced itself to the community, and the local news media have never mentioned its presence. Hiring has been discreetly conducted via the Internet, and an apathetic general public has taken little notice. Among the few who have noticed, one theory is that the prison bus depot is simply infrastructure for border security. But if so, where are the illegal aliens? Why are these buses always empty? What is the alleged justification for burning thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to run thirty decrepit, smoking buses night and day without passengers?

There is another interesting piece to this puzzle. On the desolate plain between Phoenix and Tucson is a tiny town called Florence, Arizona, which features a population consisting largely of prisoners. For decades, Florence has been the home of two of the largest county and federal prisons in the state; and in 2007, a vast new DHS prison was built there as well. Like the Wackenhut buses, this shiny new facility, which literally disappears into the horizon, has gone unannounced and unnoticed by the general public. A new facility for imprisoning illegal aliens? It is hard to imagine such expensive infrastructure being built for that purpose when U.S. policy has been to simply return illegals to their home countries.

Fraud and waste aside, this mysterious activity has sinister implications. Why the obvious secrecy? Since the World Trade Center disaster in 2001, the Department of Homeland Security has grown to monster proportions, claiming a projected $50 billion of the federal budget in 2009. DHS includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which earned notoriety in 2005 for its gross mishandling of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Al Martin, a retired naval intelligence officer and former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, has linked the remilitarization of FEMA to the civil unrest anticipated along with economic collapse. He wrote in a November 2005 newsletter called “Behind the Scenes in the Beltway”:

“FEMA is being upgraded as a federal agency, and upon passage of PATRIOT Act III, which contains the amendment to overturn posse comitatus, FEMA will be re-militarized, which will give the agency military police powers. . . . Why is all of this being done? Why is the regime moving to a militarized police state and to a dictatorship? It is because of what Comptroller General David Walker said, that after 2009, the ability of the United States to continue to service its debt becomes questionable. Although the average citizen may not understand what that means, when the United States can no longer service its debt it collapses as an economic entity. We would be an economically collapsed state. The only way government can function and can maintain control in an economically collapsed state is through a military dictatorship.”1

All of this is quite ominous. It is also a good argument for considering radical funding alternatives. There are other ways to deal with the federal debt besides relying on the waning appetites of the Chinese and the Japanese for U.S. securities. Some innovative alternatives for funding both the federal debt and President Obama’s new economic stimulus package will be the subject of followup articles. Stay tuned.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.

1.Al Martin, “FEMA, CILFs and State Security: Shocking Updates,” www.almartinraw.com (November 28, 2005)

[vector7]

Iceland - It Can Happen Here

Societal breakdowns do not follow a linear path from complete contentment to anarchy. At a point that is not predictable, when the masses feel unsafe and threatened - societal order breaks down all at once. It happened in Iceland this week; it can happen here as well. Read below:

The government of Iceland today became the first to be effectively brought down by the credit crunch.

After several nights of rioting over the financial crisis, Prime Minister Geir Haarde, surrendered to increasing pressure and called a general election for May.

A poll would not normally be held until 2011...

...Special forces had to rescue Haarde from his car after he was surrounded by an furious mob hurling eggs and cans outside the government offices, in Reykjavik.

The seething crowd spattered the building with paint and yoghurt, yelling and banging pans, hurling fireworks and flares at the windows and even lighting a fire in front of the main doors.

'There were a couple of hundred (protesters) when they had to use the gas,' police spokesman Gunnar Sigurdsson said. 'It went on for two hours or so. There were no arrests. Some injuries, but not serious.'

[vector7]

Under normal conditions I would pass on the tinfoil, but with the emerging Left dictators it begins to make you wonder.

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers� to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,� according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations�.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,� an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.
With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,� fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control� centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center� as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.
The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.�

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements� between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.�

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

Read the new legislation in full below.
————————————————†”———————

National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (Introduced in House)
HR 645 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 645
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
————————————————†”—————————–
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–

(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:

(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.

(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.

(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(g) Reports-

(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).

(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect–
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).