How Near Is Martial Law?
Friday, 10. October 2008, 21:22:34
Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, and in his Thursday, October 9, 2008, article How Near Is Martial Law?, he relates that for over a decade, the Progressive Review has been tracking what he dubs the creeping coup, a collection of actions undermining the constitution and making dictatorial control of the country more likely. For more on this he references the 1996 article Mission Creep: the Militarizing of America and the PR's Creeping Coup archives.
Sam Smith provides the Wayne Madsen Reports of October 8, 2008 which relates that WMR has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency Sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest.
In addition, Army Corps of Engineer sources report that the assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team To The Northern Commands U.S. Army North is to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement in the imposition of traffic controls, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared. The BCT was assigned to duties in Iraq before being assigned to the Northern Command, NORHTCOM.
And Mr. Smith references the Amy Goodman Democracy Now article Is Posse Comitatus Dead? where she relates: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It's being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or "sea-smurf" for short.
It's the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to "provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts."
An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted, in addition to emergency response, the force "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control." The Army Times has since appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the Northern Command states: "This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control.".
When Democracy Now! spoke to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, she said the force would have weapons stored in containers on site, as well as access to tanks, but the decision to use weapons would be made at a far higher level, perhaps by Secretary of Defense, SECDEF.
I'm joined now by two guests. Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from Colorado Springs. We're also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why don't we begin with Colonel Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time, October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?
Col. Michael Boatner: Yes, Amy. I'd be happy to. And again, there has been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the homeland. It's something that figures very prominently in the national planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and that's how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it for that purpose.
And really, the new development is that it's been assigned to NORTHCOM, because there's an increasingly important requirement to ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of our services and from a variety of installations, and that's not an ideal command and control environment. So we've been given control of these forces so that we can train them, ensure they're responsive and direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called to support civil authority, those governors or local state jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.
They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart, Georgia, but they wouldn't bring that stuff with them. In fact, they're prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland. Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.
So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this. We're proud to be able to provide this capability. It's all about saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.
AG: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would have -- Secretary of Defense would have -- would be able to preempt the governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons on U.S. soil?
MB: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.
AG: Matt Rothschild, you've been writing about this in The Progressive magazine. What is your concern?
Matthew Rothschild: Well, I'm very concerned on a number of fronts about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on its website it says it doesn't have units of its own. Now it's getting a unit of its own.
And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what it's trained for. Well, let's look at what it's trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in Iraq in counterinsurgency. It's a war-fighting unit, was one of the first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah. And, you know, that's what they've been trained to do. And now they're bringing that training here?
On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why is a Pentagon unit that's going to be possibly patrolling the streets of the United States involved in using tasers?
AG: Colonel Boatner?
MB: Well, I'd like to address that. That involved a service mission and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.
AG: Matt Rothschild?
MR: Well, you know, that doesn't really satisfy me, and I don't think it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United States who have been using these tasers have used them inappropriately.
The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to me.
President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isn't supposed to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President, true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying he's not going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this gives him a whole brigade unit to use against U.S. citizens here at home.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and where does that fit in when U.S. troops are deployed on U.S. soil?
MR: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to help enforce the law. We don't do that. Every time we get a request -- and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act. And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed back, because it's not lawful.
AG: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you?
MR: No, it doesn't. One of the reasons it doesn't is not by what Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive 51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.
And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, we're having these huge disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that National Security Directive 51 and say, "We're in a catastrophic emergency. I'm going to declare martial law, and I'm going to use this combat brigade to enforce it."
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. It's something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my 30-year career, it's only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state requested that the President provide support. And that's a completely different situation. The forces available to do that are in every service in every part of the country, and it's completely unrelated to the -- this consequence management force that we're talking about.
AG: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff Stein -- he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly -- talking about homeland security. And he said, "Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
"The language doesn't just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee" -- this was a piece written last year -- it "runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.
"The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
"No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill."
The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors Association, said, "This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors … to the federal government."
Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: That's in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my responsibilities or what I'm -- was asked to talk about here with regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.
AG: Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this gets to what Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was so concerned about, that with NORTHCOM and with perhaps this unit -- and I want to call Senator Leahy's office today and ask him about this -- you have the usurpation of the governor's role, of the National Guard's role, and it's given straight to the Pentagon in some of these instances. And that's very alarming. And that was alarming to almost every governor, if not every governor, in the country, when Bush tried to do that and around about the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I think these are real concerns.
AG: Matt Rothschild, the Democratic and Republican conventions were quite amazing displays of force at every level, from the local police on to the state troopers to, well, in the Republican convention, right onto troops just back from Iraq in their Army fatigues. Did this surprise you?
MR: It did. It surprised me also that NORTHCOM itself was involved in intelligence sharing with local police officers in St. Paul. I mean, what in the world is NORTHCOM doing looking at what some of the protesters are involved in? And you had infiltration up there, too. But what we have going on in this country is we have infiltration and spying that goes on, not only at the -- well, all the way from the campus police, practically, Amy, up to the Pentagon and the National Security Agency. We're becoming a police state here.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, a tall order here, could you respond?
MB: Well, that's incorrect. We did not participate in any intelligence collection. We were up there in support of the U.S. Secret Service. We provided some explosive ordnance disposal support of the event. But I'd like to go back and say that, again, in terms of --
AG: Could you explain what their -- explain again what was their role there?
MB: They were just doing routine screens and scans of the area in advance of this kind of a vulnerable event. It's pretty standard support to a national special security event.
AG: And are you saying there was absolutely no intelligence sharing?
MB: That's correct. That is correct. … We're very constrained--
MR: But even that, Amy, now the Pentagon is doing sweeps of areas before, you know, a political convention? That used to be law enforcement's job. That used to be domestic civil law enforcement job. It's now being taken over by the Pentagon. That should concern us.
AG: Why is that, Colonel Michael Boatner? Why is the Pentagon doing it, not local law enforcement?
MB: That's because of the scale and the availability of support. DoD is the only force that has the kind of capability. I mean, we're talking about dozens and dozens of dog detection teams. And so, for anything on this large a scale, the Secret Service comes to DoD with a standard Economy Act request for assistance.
AG: Boatner, in the Republican Convention, these troops, just back from Fallujah -- what about issues of, for example, PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder?
MB: Well, my sense is that that's something that the services handled very well. There's a long track record of great support in the homeland. If those soldiers were National Guard soldiers, I have no visibility of that. But for the active-duty forces, citizens can be confident that if they're employed in the homeland, that they'll be reliable, accountable, and take care of their families and fellow citizens in good form.
AG: Last word, Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this granting of the Pentagon a special unit to be involved in U.S. patrol is something that should alarm all of us. And it's very important to the Army.
Posse Comitatus is dead, dead and dead. And so is the United States Constitution.
George Bush removed all Constitutional Rights and Legal Rights
George Bush removed all Constitutional Rights on March 23, 2005 by announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, SPP, at Baylor University; here he abrogated constitutional authority, abolished national sovereignty, and committed the United States to Council Of Foreign Relations, CFR, trilateral regional governance by the year 2010. By announcing the SPP, Presidents Bush and Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin did away with law. They became the law: the word, the will and the way of the leaders is now the law of the land, that is the law of the continent, as they declared the North American continent to be "home", that is homeland, of the people.
George Bush removed all Legal Rights on May 15, 2006 by de-facto declaration of Martial Law upon sending the National Guard to the US Mexico Border; here he violated the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1876 U.S. statute, which prohibits the use of “armed force” for law enforcement.
And he further trespassed legality, by announcing in conjunction with other global leaders, the Declaration of EU US 2008: the result being that the Liberty Bell and flag have been retired.
Image: Liberty and independence are gone forever
What Rights exist?
Given that "rights existing in law" are no longer in effect, one must look either to religion or philosophy to discover what rights exist.
Rights found in Religion
Christianity, through scripture, holds there is only One Right: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” 1 John 1:12
Right or Rights can only exist where there is power. Where the power is, there the right is.
1 John 1:12 means that one, after having received Christ, has the power to “manifest as” or to “develop as” the son of God. In other words, one having received Christ, can exercise his Right and actuate as the progeny of God.
One will manifest genuine concerning the faith of the Son of God, or one will manifest reprobate concerning the Son of God. Manifesting faithful to the Word of God is the only Right there is.
The Apostle John wrote 1 John 1:12, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to confront the "Law of The Jews” and the "Wisdom of Greeks – Wisdom of the Ancients". The Jews held forth the Prophets, The Nation of Israel and The Law for one's identity and experience. The Greeks held forth the wisdom of the ancients and philosophy for identity and experience.
Rights found in Philosophy
Leo Strauss was a philosophy instructor at the University of Chicago. He developed and held forth Straussism. And today, Straussism is the prevailing and predominate philosophy of the age. Straussism presents the “Wisdom of the Ancients”: there is only one right: The Natural Right of the Few to Rule the Many.
Strauss called for "philosopher kings", that is "philosopher rulers", to arise to manifest this right.
His student-disciples, the Straussians, headed by Paul Wolfowitz left academia in search of political power. They called themselves neocons and constructed neo-conservatism or as some write neo-liberalism; they rose to power in the White House. Straussism is now the dynamo behind foreign and domestic policy.
Straussians hold that those who are fit to rule, are those who realize there is no morality -- that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients are wise and wily, whereas the modern philosophers, like Locke and other liberals, are vulgar and foolish.
Strauss held that human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, is not one of freedom, but of subordination. The Straussians, hold they are the wise Elite, and as such are to rule over the vulgar Many.
Yes, there is a conflict between Religion and Philosophy
Realizing the perceived difference about rights, the Apostle Paul communicated that the conflict is to be resolved in a non-resistive manner:
1 Corinthians 13:1-7: 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Tyrannical neocon rule is God’s Furnace and Forge, Hammer and Anvil where one’s Right is learned, developed and exercised.
Image: Neocon Rule is God's Furnace and Forge, Hammer and Anvil where one's Right is learned
It is highly likely that a national emergency will arise: either the outbreak of pandemic bird flu, or rioting due to gasoline shortages, during the upcoming war with Iran, or during the current credit gridlock, that is lending gridlock, where liquidity is evaporating faster than the central bankers can add it in, resulting in a financial and stock market meltdown.
The national emergency will require the use of blue helmeted United Nation’s peace-keeping troops under the command of NORTHCOM, for civil security and domestic order; martial law will be in effect declared with apparent legitimacy coming from legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and National Security and Homeland Security Directives. This will establish tyrannical state-corporate neocon rule.
If one be a genuine Christian, one will manifest his Right – the power to actuate as the son or daughter of God; and in doing so he will manifest the presence of Jesus Christ, in a non-hostile and non-resistive way, to those who desire to rule over him, even if it means suffering or hardship or death.
Yet, being subject does not mean one can share in the deceitful deed of wicked governance: one is not to participate in another’s sin by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, partaking, silence, or by defense of a wrong done.
Furthermore, one is to come out and be separate from the world.
Paul served as living example of “the one and only right” in 2 Corinthians 4:7-10: We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed, perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed — always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.
Some men know the rule of men, others the rule of law, myself, I know the rule of God.
It is important to understand that I when I came into Christ, I died! Christ now lives in me. The old person is gone. The new abides.
The cost of liberty is bloodshed
One cannot be free without the shedding of blood, the revolutionary war bought and brought political freedom.
Christ's death bought me freedom, yes indeed I was bought at a price. I could not have been set free from the law of sin and death without His sacrifice. This awareness draws me to have greater desire for the Faith of Jesus Christ living within me so I might know the grace of liberty He has provided.
The announcement of the creation of NORTHCOM is a fulfillment of the bible prophecy Of Revelation 6:1,2
U.S. Northern Command was established by announcement on October 1, 2002, by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.
On October 2, 2002 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called the activation of U.S. Northern Command "historic" and said the new command is charged with "the momentous responsibility to help deter and defend against attacks on America's home soil."
I say that the establishment of NORTHCOM fulfills the bible prophecy of the First Horseman of the Apocalypse. The horse is white signifying conquest over mankind, and the fact the rider has a bow with no arrows, foretells a bloodless coup.
The Scripture reference is Revelation 6:1-2 where the NIV relates: "I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest".
Here is one artist's rendition of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Arlen L Chitwood relates the Greek word "crown" here is "stephanos" or "conqueror's crown"; a number of leaders have conquered capitalism and replaced it with state corporatism.
God is Sovereign, and as such from eternity past, foreknew, foresaw, and worked out today's events; everything is working out according to his foreordained plan.
Suggested Reading
I suggest one read others who see things differently than I do: The ‘Higher Powers’: Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility
As I wrote this article, I asked my self why is it that I consistently see things differently from those of the Mises persuasion such as the author above who posted on the Misean Lew Rockwell website: the reflection came to me that those of the Austrian School of Economics want man and one of his laws sovereign, which is contrary to my belief that God and His Will is sovereign.
Those of the Mises persuasion are simply part of the 'worldly matrix construct'.
Keywords
United States Constitution, US Constitution, christian responsibility, constitution, constitutional authority, law, lewrockwell, austrianschoolofeconomics, lawful, legal, illegal, illegality, unlawful, theonlyrightthereis, violation, abrogation
Sam Smith provides the Wayne Madsen Reports of October 8, 2008 which relates that WMR has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency Sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest.
In addition, Army Corps of Engineer sources report that the assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team To The Northern Commands U.S. Army North is to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement in the imposition of traffic controls, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared. The BCT was assigned to duties in Iraq before being assigned to the Northern Command, NORHTCOM.
And Mr. Smith references the Amy Goodman Democracy Now article Is Posse Comitatus Dead? where she relates: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It's being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or "sea-smurf" for short.
It's the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to "provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts."
An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted, in addition to emergency response, the force "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control." The Army Times has since appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the Northern Command states: "This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control.".
When Democracy Now! spoke to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, she said the force would have weapons stored in containers on site, as well as access to tanks, but the decision to use weapons would be made at a far higher level, perhaps by Secretary of Defense, SECDEF.
I'm joined now by two guests. Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from Colorado Springs. We're also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why don't we begin with Colonel Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time, October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?
Col. Michael Boatner: Yes, Amy. I'd be happy to. And again, there has been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the homeland. It's something that figures very prominently in the national planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and that's how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it for that purpose.
And really, the new development is that it's been assigned to NORTHCOM, because there's an increasingly important requirement to ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of our services and from a variety of installations, and that's not an ideal command and control environment. So we've been given control of these forces so that we can train them, ensure they're responsive and direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called to support civil authority, those governors or local state jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.
They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart, Georgia, but they wouldn't bring that stuff with them. In fact, they're prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland. Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.
So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this. We're proud to be able to provide this capability. It's all about saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.
AG: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would have -- Secretary of Defense would have -- would be able to preempt the governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons on U.S. soil?
MB: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.
AG: Matt Rothschild, you've been writing about this in The Progressive magazine. What is your concern?
Matthew Rothschild: Well, I'm very concerned on a number of fronts about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on its website it says it doesn't have units of its own. Now it's getting a unit of its own.
And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what it's trained for. Well, let's look at what it's trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in Iraq in counterinsurgency. It's a war-fighting unit, was one of the first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah. And, you know, that's what they've been trained to do. And now they're bringing that training here?
On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why is a Pentagon unit that's going to be possibly patrolling the streets of the United States involved in using tasers?
AG: Colonel Boatner?
MB: Well, I'd like to address that. That involved a service mission and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.
AG: Matt Rothschild?
MR: Well, you know, that doesn't really satisfy me, and I don't think it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United States who have been using these tasers have used them inappropriately.
The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to me.
President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isn't supposed to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President, true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying he's not going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this gives him a whole brigade unit to use against U.S. citizens here at home.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and where does that fit in when U.S. troops are deployed on U.S. soil?
MR: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to help enforce the law. We don't do that. Every time we get a request -- and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act. And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed back, because it's not lawful.
AG: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you?
MR: No, it doesn't. One of the reasons it doesn't is not by what Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive 51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.
And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, we're having these huge disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that National Security Directive 51 and say, "We're in a catastrophic emergency. I'm going to declare martial law, and I'm going to use this combat brigade to enforce it."
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. It's something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my 30-year career, it's only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state requested that the President provide support. And that's a completely different situation. The forces available to do that are in every service in every part of the country, and it's completely unrelated to the -- this consequence management force that we're talking about.
AG: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff Stein -- he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly -- talking about homeland security. And he said, "Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
"The language doesn't just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee" -- this was a piece written last year -- it "runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.
"The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
"No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill."
The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors Association, said, "This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors … to the federal government."
Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: That's in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my responsibilities or what I'm -- was asked to talk about here with regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.
AG: Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this gets to what Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was so concerned about, that with NORTHCOM and with perhaps this unit -- and I want to call Senator Leahy's office today and ask him about this -- you have the usurpation of the governor's role, of the National Guard's role, and it's given straight to the Pentagon in some of these instances. And that's very alarming. And that was alarming to almost every governor, if not every governor, in the country, when Bush tried to do that and around about the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I think these are real concerns.
AG: Matt Rothschild, the Democratic and Republican conventions were quite amazing displays of force at every level, from the local police on to the state troopers to, well, in the Republican convention, right onto troops just back from Iraq in their Army fatigues. Did this surprise you?
MR: It did. It surprised me also that NORTHCOM itself was involved in intelligence sharing with local police officers in St. Paul. I mean, what in the world is NORTHCOM doing looking at what some of the protesters are involved in? And you had infiltration up there, too. But what we have going on in this country is we have infiltration and spying that goes on, not only at the -- well, all the way from the campus police, practically, Amy, up to the Pentagon and the National Security Agency. We're becoming a police state here.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, a tall order here, could you respond?
MB: Well, that's incorrect. We did not participate in any intelligence collection. We were up there in support of the U.S. Secret Service. We provided some explosive ordnance disposal support of the event. But I'd like to go back and say that, again, in terms of --
AG: Could you explain what their -- explain again what was their role there?
MB: They were just doing routine screens and scans of the area in advance of this kind of a vulnerable event. It's pretty standard support to a national special security event.
AG: And are you saying there was absolutely no intelligence sharing?
MB: That's correct. That is correct. … We're very constrained--
MR: But even that, Amy, now the Pentagon is doing sweeps of areas before, you know, a political convention? That used to be law enforcement's job. That used to be domestic civil law enforcement job. It's now being taken over by the Pentagon. That should concern us.
AG: Why is that, Colonel Michael Boatner? Why is the Pentagon doing it, not local law enforcement?
MB: That's because of the scale and the availability of support. DoD is the only force that has the kind of capability. I mean, we're talking about dozens and dozens of dog detection teams. And so, for anything on this large a scale, the Secret Service comes to DoD with a standard Economy Act request for assistance.
AG: Boatner, in the Republican Convention, these troops, just back from Fallujah -- what about issues of, for example, PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder?
MB: Well, my sense is that that's something that the services handled very well. There's a long track record of great support in the homeland. If those soldiers were National Guard soldiers, I have no visibility of that. But for the active-duty forces, citizens can be confident that if they're employed in the homeland, that they'll be reliable, accountable, and take care of their families and fellow citizens in good form.
AG: Last word, Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this granting of the Pentagon a special unit to be involved in U.S. patrol is something that should alarm all of us. And it's very important to the Army.
Posse Comitatus is dead, dead and dead. And so is the United States Constitution.
George Bush removed all Constitutional Rights and Legal Rights
George Bush removed all Constitutional Rights on March 23, 2005 by announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, SPP, at Baylor University; here he abrogated constitutional authority, abolished national sovereignty, and committed the United States to Council Of Foreign Relations, CFR, trilateral regional governance by the year 2010. By announcing the SPP, Presidents Bush and Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin did away with law. They became the law: the word, the will and the way of the leaders is now the law of the land, that is the law of the continent, as they declared the North American continent to be "home", that is homeland, of the people.
George Bush removed all Legal Rights on May 15, 2006 by de-facto declaration of Martial Law upon sending the National Guard to the US Mexico Border; here he violated the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1876 U.S. statute, which prohibits the use of “armed force” for law enforcement.
And he further trespassed legality, by announcing in conjunction with other global leaders, the Declaration of EU US 2008: the result being that the Liberty Bell and flag have been retired.
Image: Liberty and independence are gone forever
What Rights exist?
Given that "rights existing in law" are no longer in effect, one must look either to religion or philosophy to discover what rights exist.
Rights found in Religion
Christianity, through scripture, holds there is only One Right: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” 1 John 1:12
Right or Rights can only exist where there is power. Where the power is, there the right is.
1 John 1:12 means that one, after having received Christ, has the power to “manifest as” or to “develop as” the son of God. In other words, one having received Christ, can exercise his Right and actuate as the progeny of God.
One will manifest genuine concerning the faith of the Son of God, or one will manifest reprobate concerning the Son of God. Manifesting faithful to the Word of God is the only Right there is.
The Apostle John wrote 1 John 1:12, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to confront the "Law of The Jews” and the "Wisdom of Greeks – Wisdom of the Ancients". The Jews held forth the Prophets, The Nation of Israel and The Law for one's identity and experience. The Greeks held forth the wisdom of the ancients and philosophy for identity and experience.
Rights found in Philosophy
Leo Strauss was a philosophy instructor at the University of Chicago. He developed and held forth Straussism. And today, Straussism is the prevailing and predominate philosophy of the age. Straussism presents the “Wisdom of the Ancients”: there is only one right: The Natural Right of the Few to Rule the Many.
Strauss called for "philosopher kings", that is "philosopher rulers", to arise to manifest this right.
His student-disciples, the Straussians, headed by Paul Wolfowitz left academia in search of political power. They called themselves neocons and constructed neo-conservatism or as some write neo-liberalism; they rose to power in the White House. Straussism is now the dynamo behind foreign and domestic policy.
Straussians hold that those who are fit to rule, are those who realize there is no morality -- that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients are wise and wily, whereas the modern philosophers, like Locke and other liberals, are vulgar and foolish.
Strauss held that human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, is not one of freedom, but of subordination. The Straussians, hold they are the wise Elite, and as such are to rule over the vulgar Many.
Yes, there is a conflict between Religion and Philosophy
Realizing the perceived difference about rights, the Apostle Paul communicated that the conflict is to be resolved in a non-resistive manner:
1 Corinthians 13:1-7: 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Tyrannical neocon rule is God’s Furnace and Forge, Hammer and Anvil where one’s Right is learned, developed and exercised.
Image: Neocon Rule is God's Furnace and Forge, Hammer and Anvil where one's Right is learned
It is highly likely that a national emergency will arise: either the outbreak of pandemic bird flu, or rioting due to gasoline shortages, during the upcoming war with Iran, or during the current credit gridlock, that is lending gridlock, where liquidity is evaporating faster than the central bankers can add it in, resulting in a financial and stock market meltdown.
The national emergency will require the use of blue helmeted United Nation’s peace-keeping troops under the command of NORTHCOM, for civil security and domestic order; martial law will be in effect declared with apparent legitimacy coming from legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and National Security and Homeland Security Directives. This will establish tyrannical state-corporate neocon rule.
If one be a genuine Christian, one will manifest his Right – the power to actuate as the son or daughter of God; and in doing so he will manifest the presence of Jesus Christ, in a non-hostile and non-resistive way, to those who desire to rule over him, even if it means suffering or hardship or death.
Yet, being subject does not mean one can share in the deceitful deed of wicked governance: one is not to participate in another’s sin by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, partaking, silence, or by defense of a wrong done.
Furthermore, one is to come out and be separate from the world.
Paul served as living example of “the one and only right” in 2 Corinthians 4:7-10: We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed, perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed — always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.
Some men know the rule of men, others the rule of law, myself, I know the rule of God.
It is important to understand that I when I came into Christ, I died! Christ now lives in me. The old person is gone. The new abides.
The cost of liberty is bloodshed
One cannot be free without the shedding of blood, the revolutionary war bought and brought political freedom.
Christ's death bought me freedom, yes indeed I was bought at a price. I could not have been set free from the law of sin and death without His sacrifice. This awareness draws me to have greater desire for the Faith of Jesus Christ living within me so I might know the grace of liberty He has provided.
The announcement of the creation of NORTHCOM is a fulfillment of the bible prophecy Of Revelation 6:1,2
U.S. Northern Command was established by announcement on October 1, 2002, by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.
On October 2, 2002 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called the activation of U.S. Northern Command "historic" and said the new command is charged with "the momentous responsibility to help deter and defend against attacks on America's home soil."
I say that the establishment of NORTHCOM fulfills the bible prophecy of the First Horseman of the Apocalypse. The horse is white signifying conquest over mankind, and the fact the rider has a bow with no arrows, foretells a bloodless coup.
The Scripture reference is Revelation 6:1-2 where the NIV relates: "I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest".
Here is one artist's rendition of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Arlen L Chitwood relates the Greek word "crown" here is "stephanos" or "conqueror's crown"; a number of leaders have conquered capitalism and replaced it with state corporatism.
God is Sovereign, and as such from eternity past, foreknew, foresaw, and worked out today's events; everything is working out according to his foreordained plan.
Suggested Reading
I suggest one read others who see things differently than I do: The ‘Higher Powers’: Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility
As I wrote this article, I asked my self why is it that I consistently see things differently from those of the Mises persuasion such as the author above who posted on the Misean Lew Rockwell website: the reflection came to me that those of the Austrian School of Economics want man and one of his laws sovereign, which is contrary to my belief that God and His Will is sovereign.
Those of the Mises persuasion are simply part of the 'worldly matrix construct'.
Keywords
United States Constitution, US Constitution, christian responsibility, constitution, constitutional authority, law, lewrockwell, austrianschoolofeconomics, lawful, legal, illegal, illegality, unlawful, theonlyrightthereis, violation, abrogation
WIDGETIZE