Opening Commentary
The Front Line first began to publish its online reporting in 2002 and as such did its best to keep abreast of the issues that were rapidly changing the American way of life as well as the rest of the worlds; business, education, health, government, military, law enforcement and many other factors. As it turned out, many of the articles that appeared herein were either corrupted by some 'unknown' outside source or the links that took the reader to the original page was no longer available.
What we did was begin to save as many of these articles we possibly could and hold them here within our pages and archives for future reference and educational purposes.
The Front Line is very dedicated to national and international news, information and resources but not your typical mainstream news, even though some of that is included here, we have taken strides and measures to provide the reader with that information which is usually overlooked or that the media neglects to present.
The primary focus here is in helping to keep people aware and informed.
We absolutely refuse and deny any stereotype(s) that identifies us with being a left or right wing, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or other political party, religious, corporate or military publication. We favor only the most important group of them all...The Truth.
This is the place to find out whether you have your head screwed on properly or not. It won't hurt and it will only take a couple of weeks, at the least, of your time. It doesn't cost anything and you can, and you should, send it to any of your friends who have a penchant for thought.
PLEASE NOTE:
The following editorial commentary was first posted in 2002.
It is being presented here once again as a timeline feature in an effort to connect the dots of what was happening in those days up to the present.
Reality is perceived by the level of knowledge one possesses and the quality of that knowledge.
The misdirection and disinformation we have been getting from a government that is scrambling to introduce us to the world of terrorism, (as if we didn't know about it already), a world they were fully aware of, and a world they have been an active participant in from the very beginning. This puts us squarely on the "Front Line" of our very own individual self-defense, our very survival, our responsibility to protect our Constitution, especially since they have failed to do so. This is our right as it is our Constitution - not theirs to change without our approval.
This publication is only one of many, hundreds to thousands actually, on and off line, that are involved with presenting, as much as possible that we can keep up with, the overwhelming amount of information compiled from numerous reliable investigative resources from around the world.
These issues are not something that can be taken lightly or disregarded as left or right wing, conservative or liberal, democratic or republican, god or godless...they are human issues that stretch beyond the borders of political, corporate and religious boundaries. These are issues that, We, as human-beings, so-called responsible inhabitants and caretakers of this planet must get involved in...to make up our minds, to take a stand, to speak out and be heard by those we have permitted the responsibility to over-see our concerns, wishes, dreams and future. They have failed to do as we require of them.
These wars are not our wars; these crimes are not our crimes. We did not make the conditions to which they exist and yet we are constantly being subjected to fighting these wars amongst ourselves, killing each other in the name of crooked politicians, corporate overlords and dysfunctional religious leaders. All of this madness must come to an end and we are the only ones who can stop it. As the saying goes: "United We Stand - Divided We Fall"
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Until, and if, they ever get it right, (which, as every day passes, seems to be very unlikely), our safety, security, freedom and liberty as Americans will be subject to their propaganda, to their Homeland Security program and the U.S. Patriot Act I & II.
The entire 'Homeland Security' program and the 'U.S. Patriot Act I & II' should be a huge wake up call for all Americans. These programs are not to our advantage in any degree. They will do nothing to protect anyone or our Freedoms.
This is our country and we must take control of our government not the other way around.
The corporations that all of us work for, one way or the other, would not be so wealthy, big and powerful if it were not for our sweat. We built them...we made them possible...and they want to dump on us and move out of the very country that built them in the first place. This is a rather obvious statement, a slap in the face of all Americans, they don't care about us.
Our Constitution is under fire from the Bush administration and our Bill of Rights is nearly non-existent.
How much longer is America going to sit by and watch our country being dismantled by these internal terrorists? They may not be using bombs, or planes, or chemicals and viruses to take us down, and then again, they just might be, but they sure are using the media to twist and manipulate the truth and the information to fit their agenda of installing, by force, their New World Order. We can't just sit there and let this happen.
Currently, the entire Bush administration is under fire from our Congress, and us, for failing to produce what they called 'evidence' for the approval they blindly and misleadingly received from Congress to engage in the war on Iraq. So far, we have found no weapons of mass-destruction, we have not found Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussain and we aren't going to for as long as this administration needs to completely install its Homeland Security program and the force of the U.S. Patriot Act I & II.
Is this the face of the new SS?
Are we seeing the rebirth of the Geheime Staatsploizei, "Gestapo"?
All of this is going on while Israel continues its battle against Palestine, (and we are lead to believe, again, that the Palestinians are to blame...); how many times do we hear that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation; when did this happen?
All of this while thousands of people are being murdered in Africa; all of this while American industry and jobs are being shipped across the border and over-seas; while our own people can't make ends meet: our children need healthy parents and be able to grow up in a healthy family environment and neighborhood and go to good schools with updated books and instructed by qualified teachers, but it ain't gonna' happen without a health care program that serves all Americans and their families; it ain't gonna' happen when there are no jobs, no industry, no farms, no ranches, no food, no water; yet, there is plenty of deadly nuclear waste to cram down the throats of all innocent Americans who will have this crap traveling through their neighborhoods on its way to those sacred Native Americans land out in Nevada at Yucca Mountain...and this guy, this idiot of a President, this alcoholic-cocaine snorting, pretzel choking, AWOL word stumbling and illiterate fool on the hill wants $87 billion to help re-build Iraq. Well he can just kiss our ass.
It's about time that our Congress revoked 'executive orders’ that our Congress puts down its foot and firmly says no more! That our Congress withdraws the approval of $87 billion to rebuild Iraq; that our Congress lives up to it's oath of office, does their duty, and brings the fool on the hill before the Congress and the Supreme Court under charges of incompatibility; dereliction of duty; treason; bearing false witness; violating the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights; failure to abide by his oath of office; lying and perpetuating the complete dishonor of America in the eyes of the World. This guy has to go...NOW!
The polls are rigged and everybody knows it, therefore, these cannot be trusted any more than the administration that uses them. All one needs to do, and they are, is talk to the American people that they come into contact with on a daily basis and one would soon discover that the polls do not reflect what the People are saying, what the People believe. Unfortunately, there is already a very frightened and paranoid sector of our American society that will not speak as they feel, as they know, for they are afraid that they will be arrested for saying anything against this BS administration, at the least, they may lose their jobs, their friends, their position at church or their kids will be picked on at school. How many other people that you have heard about, not even living in this country, who are not even American citizens, that have lost their jobs, their positions in their governmental bodies, and at the worst their lives because they said something against the Bush administration? There are a lot. One is too many.
President Bush has mocked the American principle of Freedom of Speech in Australia when he was criticized by members of its parliament, none-the-less, these members were asked to leave their own elected governmental seats - they refused - and yet, were escorted out. From their own house! This is insane!
Every day, slowly but surely, American troops are being picked apart in Iraq long after a war that has been presidentially declared over. So then, our troops are now no more than American Police in Iraq and this has been claimed from the very on-set as no more than a police action to begin with. Bring 'em ALL home....NOW!
If Iraq needs to be re-built then let them do it themselves. They do not need $87 billion of American Tax payer’s money to do it. We need our money here to do what we pay taxes for in the first place...to take care of our own country. Iraq can market its oil and do just fine. If Bush wants to rebuild Iraq then perhaps he shouldn't have knocked it down in the first place. Saddam is gone and it's up to the Iraqi people to keep it that way. It's not our problem...and it never has been our problem.
Thank you for joining us on The Front Line.
Editor
PASSAGES
A true patriot would keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances, and not allow them to rest till the causes of their just complaints are removed. —Sam Adams of the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence, Boston, Massachusetts, 1771.
In From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, historian Pauline Maier quotes a letter from Sam Adams emphasizing that "the colonists must henceforth depend primarily upon themselves for the defense of their liberties."
In another passage, published in the January 21, 1771, Boston Gazette, and just as crucial and pertinent under Bush and Ashcroft as it was under the first King George III, Sam Adams wrote, "Our ship is in the hands of pilots who . . . are steering directly under full sail to a rock. The whole crew may see [this course to violate our liberties] in full view if they look the right way."
MOUNT WEATHER
Do you really believe the corporate media tell you all of the truth all of the time? Or do you suspect that some stories are just not dealt with, while others are subtly slanted and edited so as to tell you what to believe concerning an issue, person or movement?
In our own experience, we've been astounded to see the difference between individual wire services [the primary source of news for many newspapers and other media outlets] in the way they treat particular stories; between the British and North American press in which major stories are covered and which are just suppressed by lack of media exposure; and by the all-too-revealing stories which were consistently ignored because they simply proved too embarrassing or inconvenient to those in power.
Fortunately, at least one highly-respected journalist has publicly confessed that this is indeed the case. Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the NEW YORK TIMES, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
In the intervening period, things have got even worse! Media concentration and the virtual disappearance of independent newspapers and fearless investigative reporting often means that the only things you can really trust the media on are the sports results, the classified ads and the weather - and, not infrequently, they're even wrong about the weather! Add the biases and liberal preconceptions of the typical journalist to the political correctness strictures which now prevail and is it any wonder that somewhere and somehow the truth gets lost in the process of reporting it? Consciously or not, most journalists function as paid propagandists and newspapers present the viewpoints which the controlling elite wish us to hear and be influenced by.
Forwarded message:
From: bblack@idcnet.com (j. hrubesky)
Aren't you glad that the power to declare "National Emergencies" or to declare that individuals or groups are "terrorists" rests solely in a Bilderberger-appointed President's wise and selfless hands?
Few Americans--indeed, few Congressional reps--are aware of the existence of Mount Weather, a mysterious underground military base carved deep inside a mountain near the sleepy rural town of Bluemont, Virginia, just 46 miles from Washington DC. Mount Weather--also known as the Western Virginia Office of Controlled Conflict Operations--is buried not just in hard granite, but in secrecy as well.
In March, 1976, The Progressive Magazine published an astonishing article entitled "The Mysterious Mountain." The author, Richard Pollock, based his investigative report on Senate subcommittee hearings and upon "several off-the-record interviews with officials formerly associated with Mount Weather." His report, and a 1991 article in Time Magazine entitled "Doomsday Hideaway", supply a few compelling hints about what is going on underground.
Ted Gup, writing for Time, describes the base as follows:
Mount Weather is a virtually self-contained facility. Aboveground, scattered across manicured lawns, are about a dozen buildings bristling with antennas and microwave relay systems. An on-site sewage-treatment plant, with a 90,000 gal.-a-day capacity, and two tanks holding 250,000 gal. of water could last some 200 people more than a month; underground ponds hold additional water supplies. Not far from the installation's entry gate are a control tower and a helicopter pad. The mountain's real secrets are not visible at ground level.
The mountain's "real secrets" are protected by warning signs, 10 foot-high chain link fences, razor wire, and armed guards. Curious motorists and hikers on the Appalachian trail are relieved of their sketching pads and cameras and sent on their way. Security is tight.
The government has owned the site since 1903; it has seen service as an artillery range, a hobo farm during the Depression, and a National Weather Bureau Facility. In 1936, the U.S. Bureau of Mines took control and started digging.
Mount Weather is virtually an underground city, according to former personnel interviewed by Pollock. Buried deep inside the earth.
Mount Weather was equipped with such amenities as:
private apartments and dormitories
streets and sidewalks
cafeterias and hospitals
a water purification system, power plant and general office buildings
a small lake fed by fresh water from underground springs
its own mass transit system
a TV communication system
Mount Weather is the self-sustaining underground command center for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The facility is the operational center--the hub--of approximately 100 other Federal Relocation Centers, most of which are concentrated in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina. Together this network of underground facilities constitutes the backbone of America's "Continuity of Government" program. In the event of nuclear war, declaration of martial law, or other national emergency, the President, his cabinet and the rest of the Executive Branch would be "relocated" to Mount Weather.
What Does Congress Know about Mount Weather?
According to the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights hearings in 1975, Congress has almost no knowledge and no oversight --budgetary or otherwise--on Mount Weather. Retired Air Force General Leslie W. Bray, in his testimony to the subcommittee, said "I am not at liberty to describe precisely what is the role and the mission and the capability that we have at Mount Weather, or at any other precise location."
Apparently, this underground capital of the United States is a secret only to Congress and the US taxpayers who paid for it. The Russians know about it, as reported in Time:
"Few in the U.S. government will speak of it, though it is assumed that all along the Soviets have known both its precise location and its mission (unlike the Congress, since Bray wouldn't tell); defense experts take it as a given that the site is on the Kremlin's targeting maps."
The Russians attempted to buy real estate right next door, as a "country estate" for their embassy folks, but that deal was dead-ended by the State Department.
Mount Weather's "Government-in-Waiting"
Pollock's report, based on his interviews with former officials at Mount Weather, contains astounding information on the base's personnel. The underground city contains a parallel government-in-waiting:
"High-level Governmental sources, speaking in the promise of strictest anonymity, told me [Pollock] that each of the Federal departments represented at Mount Weather is headed by a single person on whom is conferred the rank of a Cabinet-level official. Protocol even demands that subordinates address them as "Mr. Secretary." Each of the Mount Weather "Cabinet members" is apparently appointed by the White House and serves an indefinite term... many through several Administrations....The facility attempts to duplicate the vital functions of the Executive branch of the Administration."
Nine Federal departments are replicated within Mount Weather (Agriculture; Commerce; Health, Education & Welfare; Housing & Urban Development; Interior; Labor; State; Transportation; and Treasury) as well as at least five Federal agencies (Federal Communications Commission, Selective Service, Federal Power Commission, Civil Service Commission, and the Veterans Administration). The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Post Office, both private corporations, also have offices in Mount Weather.
Pollock writes that the "cabinet members" are "apparently" appointed by the White House and serve an indefinite term, but that information cannot be confirmed, raising the further question of who holds the reins on this "back-up government." Furthermore, appointed Mount Weather officials hold their positions through several elected administrations, transcending the time their appointers spend in office. Unlike other presidential nominees, these apppointments are made without the public advice or consent of the Senate.
Is there an alternative President and Vice President as well?
If so, who appoints them? Pollock says only this:
"As might be expected, there is also an Office of the Presidency at Mount Weather. The Federal Preparedness Agency (precursor to FEMA) apparently appoints a special staff to the Presidential section, which regularly receives top secret national security estimates and raw data from each of the Federal departments and agencies.
What Do They Do At Mount Weather?
Collect Data on American Citizens
The Senate Subcommittee in 1975 learned that the "facility held dossiers on at least 100,000 Americans. [Senator] John Tunney later alleged that the Mount Weather computers can obtain millions of pieces of additional information on the personal lives of American citizens simply by tapping the data stored at any of the other ninety-six Federal Relocation Centers."
The subcommittee concluded that Mount Weather's databases "operate with few, if any, safeguards or guidelines."
Store Necessary Information
The Progressive article detailed that "General Bray gave Tunney's subcommittee a list of the categories of files maintained at Mount Weather: military installations, government facilities, communications, transportation, energy and power, agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale and retail services, manpower, financial, medical and educational institutions, sanitary facilities, population, housing shelter, and stockpiles." This massive database fits cleanly into Mount Weather's ultimate purpose as the command center in the event of a national emergency.
Play War Games
This is the main daily activity of the approximately 240 people who work at Mount Weather. The games are intended to train the Mount Weather bureaucracy to managing a wide range of problems associated with both war and domestic political crises.
Decisions are made in the "Situation Room," the base's nerve center, located in the core of Mount Weather. The Situation Room is the archetypal war room, with "charts, maps and whatever visuals may be needed" and "batteries of communications equipment connecting Mount Weather with the White House and "Raven Rock"--the underground Pentagon sixty miles north of Washington--as well as with almost every US military unit stationed around the globe," according to The Progressive article. "All internal communications are conducted by closed-circuit color television ... senior officers and "Cabinet members" have two consoles recessed in the walls of their office."
Descriptions of the war games read a bit like a Ian Fleming novel. Every year there is a system-wide alert that "includes all military and civilian-run underground installations." The real, aboveground President and his Cabinet members are "relocated" to Mount Weather to observe the simulation. Post-mortems are conducted and the margins for error are calculated after the games. All the data is studied and documented.
Civil Crisis Management
Mount Weather personnel study more than war scenarios. Domestic "crises" are also tracked and watched, and there have been times when Mount Weather almost swung into action, as Pollock reported:
"Officials who were at Mount Weather during the 1960s say the complex was actually prepared to assume certain governmental powers at the time of the 1961 Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. The installation used the tools of its "Civil Crisis Management" program on a standby basis during the 1967 and 1968 urban riots and during a number of national antiwar demonstrations, the sources said."
In its 1974 Annual Report, the Federal Preparedness Agency stated that "Studies conducted at Mount Weather involve the control and management of domestic political unrest where there are material shortages (such as food riots) or in strike situations where the FPA determines that there are industrial disruptions and other domestic resource crises."
The Mount Weather facility uses a vast array of resources to continually monitor the American people. According to Daniel J. Cronin, former assistant director for the FPA, Reconnaissance satellites, local and state police intelligence reports, and Federal law enforcement agencies are just a few of the resources available to the FPA [now FEMA] for information gathering. "We try to monitor situations and get to them before they become emergencies," Cronin said. "No expense is spared in the monitoring program."
Maintain and Update the "Survivors List"
Using all the data generated by the war games and domestic crisis scenarios, the facility continually maintains and updates a list of names and addresses of people deemed to be "vital" to the survival of the nation, or who can "assist essential and non-interruptible services." In the 1976 article, the "survivors list" contained 6,500 names, but even that was deemed to be low.
Who Pays for All This, and How Much?
At the same time tens of millions of dollars were being spent on maintaining and upgrading the complex to protect several hundred designated officials in the event of nuclear attack, the US government drastically reduced its emphasis on war preparedness for US citizens. A 1989 FEMA brochure entitled "Are You Prepared?" suggests that citizens construct makeshift fallout shelters using used furniture, books, and other common household items.
Officially, Mount Weather (and its budget) does not exist. FEMA refuses to answer inquiries about the facility; as FEMA spokesman Bob Blair told Time magazine, "I'll be glad to tell you all about it, but I'd have to kill you afterward."
We don't know how much Mount Weather has cost over the years, but of course, American taxpayers bear this burden as well. A Christian Science Monitor article entitled "Study Reveals US Has Spent $4 Trillion on Nukes Since '45" reports that "The government devoted at least $12 billion to civil defense projects to protect the population from nuclear attack. But billions of dollars more were secretly spent on vast underground complexes from which civilian and military officials would run the government during a nuclear war."
What is Mount Weather's Ultimate Purpose?
We have seen that Mount Weather contains an unelected, parallel "government-in-waiting" ready to take control of the United States upon word from the President or his successor. The facility contains a massive database of information on U.S. citizens which is operated with no safeguards or accountability. Ostensibly, this expensive hub of America's network of sub-terran bases was designed to preserve our form of government during a nuclear holocaust.
But Mount Weather is not simply a Cold War holdover. Information on command and control strategies during national emergencies have largely been withheld from the American public. Executive Order 11051, signed by President Kennedy on October 2, 1962, states that "national preparedness must be achieved... as may be required to deal with increases in international tension with limited war, or with general war including attack upon the United States."
However, Executive Order 11490, drafted by Gen. George A Lincoln (former director for the Office of Emergency Preparedness, the FPA's predecessor) and signed by President Nixon in October 1969, tells a different story. EO 11490, which superceded Kennedy's EO 11051, begins, "Whereas our national security is dependent upon our ability to assure continuity of government, at every level, in any national emergency type situation that might conceivably confront the nation..."
As researcher William Cooper points out, Nixon's order makes no reference to "war," "imminent attack," or "general war." These quantifiers are replaced by an extremely vague "national emergency type situation" that "might conceivably" interfere with the workings of the national power structure. Furthermore, there is no publicly known Executive Order outlining the restoration of the Constitution after a national emergency has ended. Unless the parallel government at Mount Weather does not decide out of the goodness of its heart to return power to Constitutional authority, the United States could experience an honest-to-God coup d'etat posing as a national emergency.
Like the enigmatic Area 51 in Nevada, the Federal government wants to keep the Mount Weather facility buried in secrecy. Public awareness of this place and its purpose would raise serious questions about who holds the reins of power in this country. The Constitution states that those reins lie in the hands of the people, but the very existence of Mount Weather indicates an entirely different reality. As long as Mount Weather exists, these questions will remain.
.............................................
YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE MEDIA IS NOT
TELLING YOU ABOUT "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE"
In 1966, a Georgetown University professor published a big book about the elite Network which he said controls America. His book approved of their plan for global, or world, control to supersede our self-government by "We the people." The professor had a profound effect on one of his students.
In 1992, that student became President of the United States and Bill Clinton credited Professor Carroll Quigley with forming his vision for the future. In the next several years, he pushed for several United Nations treaties (including some rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush) which are designed to control human behavior, energy consumption, private property, and natural resources. The President issued a secret order (PDD 25) to place American armed forces under foreign command and in foreign uniform, and he began using U.S. troops as global cops and social workers. His Administration is steadily putting American trade and property under the control of international organizations.
'Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence' contains exclusive interviews with national news makers on the front lines of the quiet war. This compelling program documents the treaties and UN conferences that are undermining American independence and paving the way for global control.
Senator Jesse Helms, U.S. Representative Helen Chenoweth, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Senator John Ashcroft join a long list of experts who form a disturbing picture of the "global governance" movement.
In Part One, you'll see the Clinton Administration's dramatic push to ratify United Nations treaties that will effectively grant non-American organizations control over human behavior, our national economy, and even our land, private property, and natural sources. You'll learn why parents and families should be concerned about innocent sounding treaties about women and children, how American Senators were deceived into nearly ratifying a dangerous treaty on the environment, and the disturbing truth about the United Nations takeover of American heritage sites.
In Part Two, you'll see how United Nations conferences are intentionally designed to deceive nations into accepting a radical social agenda and how the Clinton administration is using these conferences to implement policies that would never be approved by Congress or the American public.
Don't forget about the young American solider who was court-Martialed for challenging the ominous Clinton order to put American soldiers under foreign command and in foreign uniform.
........................................
Many similar topics are regularly reviewed and reported on in depth in the pages of The New World Order Intelligence Update, the acclaimed monthly analytical and geopolitical Newsletter. This is a newsletter that a subscription is not available unless you're a member of one of the groups included in the list below.
The Bilderbergers and the Bilderberg Group,
Trilateral Commission,
Council on Foreign Relations [CFR],
Davos,
David Rockefeller,
the Royal Institute for International Affairs,
Chatham House,
the World Economic Forum,
the New World Order,
Gun Control,
threats to the Constitution,
United Nations [UN],
NATO,
the Illuminati,
Adam Weishaupt,
the Knights Templars,
Priory of Sion,
the Black Nobility,
the Order Of The Solar Temple,
Rosicrucians,
MKULTRA,
Mind Control,
Surviving the coming Economic Collapse,
Skull and Bones Society,
Bill Clinton,
the CIA and Drug Importation through Mena [Arkansas],
the New World Army,
NSA/GCHQ/CSE and communications surveillance,
Report From Iron Mountain and the great UFO deception,
FEMA and its underground bases and presidential Executive Orders [EO's],
the planned U.S. and Canadian Concentration Camp program,
Operation Garden Plot,
Operation Cable Splicer,
the deaths of Ron Brown,
William Colby, and Vince Foster,
the downing of TWA800,
the Oklahoma City bombing,
the coming Global Food Shortage,
the Wildlands Project,
the link between Environmentalism and the New World Order,
the Great Soviet Deception,
China - the coming Superpower,
personal Survival Skills,
the Global Mafia,
Waco,
Ruby Ridge,
Our Global Neighbourhood,
the Report of the Commission on Global Governance,
Gorbachev,
Smart Cards,
Implantable Biochips and Biometrics,
National Identity [ID] Cards,
Non-lethal Weapons,
the Constitutional Militia,
Black Helicopters,
the BATF,
the Federal Reserve - (not federal, with no reserves),
Biblical Prophecy,
Quebec Separation,
the James Bay and the massive Grand Canal Project,
the planned Breakup of Canada,
the coming Continental and Hemispheric Unions,
the European Union [EU],
European Monetary Union [EMU],
Bosnia and the coming Balkan War,
Conrad Black,
Henry Kissinger,
Population Control and Reduction,
Conspiracy Theory and Theories,
Secret Societies,
Masons [Freemasons],
the Rhodes Scholarships and Cecil Rhodes' plan for a Federal World State,
the Ten U.S. Federal Regions,
the coming Crackdown on "Terrorism" and the Internet,
the World Conservation Bank.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COLLUDING WITH
UNITED NATIONS TO TAKE AIM AT YOUR
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
TAKE ACTION: DEMAND THE SENATE PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
Right now, the hate-America crowd at the United Nations is huddled with members of the Obama Administration - led by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton - to put the final touches on an international treaty that takes direct aim at the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Too absurd to be believable, you say? Don't just take our word for it.
As Dick Morris recently wrote in The Hill, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being hashed out behind closed doors at U.N. headquarters in New York City "marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights."
And with the month-long negations over this dangerous treaty scheduled to conclude on July 27 - MERE DAYS FROM NOW - we have no time to waste to stop this dangerous treaty dead in its tracks.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Exposed
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been in the works for a number of years.
Recognizing its threat, President George W. Bush rejected the treaty back in 2006 when the U.N. first voted to proceed with its development. But in a stunning reversal of U.S. policy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now supporting the U.N. negotiations and are working feverously to finalize ATT by July 27.
ATT supporters claim the treaty is designed simply to prevent illegal arms trade between dangerous rogue nations. But Second Amendment proponents here in the U.S. have studied it carefully and are exposing ATT for what it really is.
Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association-ILA had this to say about ATT:
"The U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy."
"You might think that something so obviously menacing to one of our enumerated fundamental rights would receive a strong rebuke from our top government leaders. But you'd be wrong. This is President Barack Obama's vision for America, and we're expected to just go along with it."
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton also is sounding the alarm.
"The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt...that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing everything they can to deflect attention from these very real concerns, but if ATT is signed and ratified, the ultimate result will be over-burdensome gun registration requirements, severe restrictions on gun ownership and ammunition purchases and eventual outright gun bans right here in the United States.
Guess Which Nation Is Leading the U.N. Assault on The Second Amendment...
The United Nations is often referred to as the "theater of the absurd" for good reason. And its appointment of the nation to lead the Arms Trade Treaty Conference would be laughable if the issue wasn't so serious.
The nation that is leading the ATT negotiations? IRAN
No, we couldn't make that up if we tried. Earlier this month, U.N. Watch, a human rights group that monitors the U.N., revealed that Iran was elected to lead the ATT conference at which the treaty is being finalized. As Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, put it:
"Right after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality and common sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post regulating the transfer of guns and bombs.
"This is like choosing Bernie Madoff to police fraud on the stock market."
Iran's role in leading the talks to finalize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is reason enough to oppose it. That this treaty takes direct aim at our right to keep and bear arms as law-abiding American citizens should render ATT dead on arrival.
America simply cannot allow any more of her sovereignty to be forfeited to the United Nations "world community" -- especially not the fundamental right that has protected us from tyranny for over two centuries.
The good news is we can stop ratification of the ATT. Under the U.S. Constitution, all treaties must receive the support of two-thirds of the Senate before they can be ratified.
That's why we must act right now to force at least 34 Members of the United States Senate to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that this effort to use the U.N. to eradicate the Second Amendment is dead on arrival - before Barack Obama signs it, which could happen as early as July 27.
We must force 34 Senators to stand up on behalf of all law-abiding American citizens and say to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the tyrants and despots that dominate the U.N., (to paraphrase former National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston) "From Our Cold, Dead Hands!"
Please stand with us now; demand the Senate speak as one American voice and decry any attempt to destroy our Second Amendment.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella, President
Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-535-5836
Fax: 703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Contributions to CFIF are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
UNKNOWN LITTLE PIECES OF HISTORY:
In George Washington's days, there were no cameras.
One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of George
Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his
back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by
painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by
how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are 'limbs,' therefore
painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, 'Okay,
but it'll cost you an arm and a leg.' (Artists know hands and arms are
more difficult to paint)
*******
As incredible as it sounds, men and women took baths
only twice a year (May and October) Women kept their hair covered, while
men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs. Wealthy
men could afford good wigs made from wool. They couldn't wash t he wigs,
so to clean them they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in
the shell, and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big
and fluffy, hence the term 'big wig.' Today we often use the term 'here
comes the Big Wig' because someone appears to be or is powerful and
wealthy.
*******
In the late 1700's, many houses consisted of a large
room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board folded down from
the wall, and was used for dining. The 'head of the household' always
sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor.
Occasionally a guest, who was usually a man, would be invited to sit in
this chair during a meal. To sit in the chair meant you were important
and in charge. They called the one sitting in the chair the 'chair
man.' Today in business, we use the expression or title 'Chairman' or
'Chairman of the Board..'
*******
Personal hygiene left much room for improvement. As a
result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The
women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their
complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to
stare at another woman's face she was told, 'mind your own bee's wax.'
Should the woman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term 'crack a
smile'. In addition, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would
melt . . . Therefore, the expression 'losing face.'
*******
Ladies wore corsets, which would lace up in the front. A
proper and dignified woman, as in 'straight laced'. . Wore a tightly
tied lace.
*******
Common entertainment included playing cards. However,
there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable
to the 'Ace of Spades.' To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase
51 cards instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people
were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't 'playing with a
full deck.'
*******
Early politicians required feedback from the public to
determine what the people considered important. Since there were no
telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to
local taverns, pubs, and bars. They were told to 'go sip some ale' and
listen to people's conversations and political concerns.. Many
assistants were dispatched at different times. 'You go sip here' and
'You go sip there.' The two words 'go sip' were eventually combined when
referring to the local opinion and, thus we have the term 'gossip.'
*******
At local taverns, pubs, and bars, people drank from pint
and quart-sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the
customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention
and remember who was drinking in 'pints' and who was drinking in
'quarts,' hence the term 'minding your'P's and Q's '
*******
One more and betting you didn't know this!
In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many
freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon
balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon.
However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best
storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top,
resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a
supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to
the cannon. There was only one problem...how to prevent the bottom
layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a
metal plate called a 'Monkey' with 16 round indentations.
However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls
would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to
make 'Brass Monkeys.' Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much
more and much faster than iron when chilled.
Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the
brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would
come right off the monkey. Thus, it was quite literally, 'Cold enough
to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.' (All this time, you thought
that was an improper expression, didn't you.)
DEPLETED URANIUM ~ The Planet Killer
We, as Human-beings, have a duty and a responsibility to insure that those who are in positions of power, whether it be government, military, corporation, medical and educational do not use their positions to mislead and lie to the world at large about the truths and facts on this deadly subject...and it is just that.
In the Western Shoshone Nation of Newe Sogobia, which is surrounded by the State of Nevada, has at least four (4) Depleted Uranium storage facilities on their lands and at least one known of that was discovered near the Paiute Reservation at Pyramid Lake. This is of great concern considering that they have never been informed by the Department of Interior, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management or any other department that these sites were being placed on their lands.
This being the case, how many other places within the United States, aside from Native American lands have they secretly been storing these materials...right out in the open? Military grade nuclear waste, such as this, cannot be buried for at least 50 years. Why? It's too hot - literally. It must have a cool down period.
Most, if not all, of this Depleted Uranium is designated for places like Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Carlsbad, New Mexico and INEEL in Idaho. Native American Lands, along with nonNative lands have also reported finding these dump or storage sites in California, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Washington and Alaska. In order for it to get there it must travel across the country by road and rail. In other words, it must travel through everyone's neighborhood. Has anyone noticed the rise in cancer in these areas, new and unusual cancers? How many know that it is contact with depleted uranium munitions and their use that is the real cause of the Gulf War Syndrome?
You will learn herein and through associated links that there are great and numerous problems with the moving and storage of these materials. If this is how these materials are handled and these are the problems with it then how are we to trust the safe passage of Spent Nuclear Waste? We can't.
Perhaps, once you've read and learned the details of this situation you may become aware that we must all unify our energies and efforts to put hard pressure on those who play active rolls in these matters and accept nothing short of demanding a total cease and desist orders on these projects with no compromises.
What are we going to do about it? Unification. This is a world issue. It is about the survival of humans everywhere. It crosses all borders, all governments, all religions and all political arguments...it is about the survival of our entire planet.
This is not about another environmental group attacking the already heated arguments in regards to destroying the planet for the sake of advancing civilization and its greedy addiction to manufacturing a lot of stuff people don't really need and finding areas to dump the waste from it - and yet, it is an environmental group known as human-beings trying to save their entire planet from such afore mindsets.
Ask yourself, is it really worth it to destroy the entire planet just so one nation, one political concept, one religion, one corporation, one military can have total control over all the others? It's not logical, not practical, it's inhuman and in the long-run...we all die and no one wins. End of subject.
- Editor
DEPLETED URANIUM INFORMATION LINKS:
Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
Features potential health effects of DU, history of its use, and information about the manufacturing and testing of DU in Britain.
www.cadu.org.uk
Depleted Uranium Education Project
Features reports and information regarding Depleted Uranium.
www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
Discounted Casualties - The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium
Profiles the impact of depleted uranium.
www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html
Depleted Uranium Page
Information from the Federation of American Scientists.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
NATO: Depleted Uranium
Text of a NATO report.
www.nato.int/du/home.htm
Gulf War Veterans and Depleted Uranium
Paper prepared by Dr.Rosalie Bertell for the 1999 Hague Peace Conference.
ccnr.org/du_hague.html
Depleted Uranium and Health: The Implications For Iraq
Text of a 1999 report.
www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html
BBC News: Depleted Uranium
Offers links to articles, reports, and analysis.
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm
Balkan War Syndrome
Collection of articles relating to the disease as well as depleted uranium.
www.balkansyndrome.com
DoD Updates its Depleted Uranium Environmental Exposure Report
From Gulflink.
www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_du_ii_19dec00.htm
Depleted UF6 Management Program
Environmental Assessment Division information network page offering news, documents, and more.
web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/indexnav.cfm
Depleted UF6 Management Information Network
Online repository of information about the U.S. Department of Energy's inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6), a product of the uranium enrichment process.
web.ead.anl.gov/uranium
Depleted Uranium Watch
Features articles and links.
www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch
Guardian Unlimited: Depleted Uranium
Special report of the effects of depleted uranium on Gulf War and Balkans veterans.
www.guardian.co.uk/uranium
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride PEIS
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for management of depleted uranium hexafluoride.
www.ead.anl.gov/~web/newduf6/index.html
Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
Features potential health effects of DU, history of its use, and information about the manufacturing and testing of DU in Britain.
www.cadu.org.uk
Depleted Uranium Education Project
Features reports and information regarding Depleted Uranium.
www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
Discounted Casualties - The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium
Profiles the impact of depleted uranium.
www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html
Depleted Uranium Page
Information from the Federation of American Scientists.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
NATO: Depleted Uranium
Text of a NATO report.
www.nato.int/du/home.htm
Gulf War Veterans and Depleted Uranium
Paper prepared by Dr.Rosalie Bertell for the 1999 Hague Peace Conference.
ccnr.org/du_hague.html
Depleted Uranium and Health: The Implications For Iraq
Text of a 1999 report.
www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html
BBC News: Depleted Uranium
Offers links to articles, reports, and analysis.
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm
Balkan War Syndrome
Collection of articles relating to the disease as well as depleted uranium.
www.balkansyndrome.com
DoD Updates its Depleted Uranium Environmental Exposure Report
From Gulflink.
www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_du_ii_19dec00.htm
Depleted UF6 Management Program
Environmental Assessment Division information network page offering news, documents, and more.
web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/indexnav.cfm
Depleted UF6 Management Information Network
Online repository of information about the U.S. Department of Energy's inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6), a product of the uranium enrichment process.
web.ead.anl.gov/uranium
Depleted Uranium Watch
Features articles and links.
www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch
Guardian Unlimited: Depleted Uranium
Special report of the effects of depleted uranium on Gulf War and Balkans veterans.
www.guardian.co.uk/uranium
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride PEIS
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for management of depleted uranium hexafluoride.
www.ead.anl.gov/~web/newduf6/index.html
Beyond Treason
|
|
Reflections on the New World Order
June 1991
Has a new pattern of international politics taken hold--or is the new
order not new, not orderly, and not even addressed to the world? The
following analysts share their thoughts about the world and the order that might emerge from the current upheavals.
While Canadian diplomacy and the posture of its armed forces
supported containment an nuclear deterrence throughout the Cold War, Ottawa never abandoned the United Nations. Through contributions to peacekeeping and multilateral arms control forums and agencies, Canada remained committed to the ideals of collective security. Ottawa kept its faith in the United Nations when Washington's waned; Canadians hoped the international organization would, in time, change from the world's last best hope to its first choice for resolving conflict.
Has that time arrived? Can Canada shed its Cold War alliances? Probably not, at least not right away. The so-called new world order may not promote the kind of order Canada prefers.
In Europe, conventional arms control and the demise of the Warsaw Pact may cause NATO to fade away, along with the small Canadian force of about 6,000 stationed in Europe. On the other hand, the alliance may stay around for years to cope with instability in Central Europe. If that is the case, Canadian forces will probably remain in Europe for political reasons: Canada has long viewed its ties with Europe as a way to offset the imbalance in its relations with the United States.
Canada's role in North American defense, formalized in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), is unlikely to change.
The NORAD agreement has been renewed for another five years. Even if a treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear warheads, the need for surveillance and warning of air attack will continue, and Canadian territory and seas are essential for this. Yet Canadians worry that new space-based technologies produced by the Strategic Defense Initiative and its companion, the Air Defense Initiative, may allow the United States to monitor Canadian air space without Canada's cooperation. And they wonder whether Canada's decision not to acquire nuclear powered attack submarines may reduce
bilateral cooperation in the Arctic. Canada may have to remain an active participant in the strategic defense of North America for the sake of its own sovereignty.
But these uncertainties do not threaten the security and prosperity of the country. Rather, those threats lie in the domestic scene: the future unity of the country is in doubt. Commissions of inquiry are crisscrossing Quebec and the rest of the country to determine if the union can be saved by new forms of federalism. Some time before the end of 1992, Quebec will hold a referendum to determine if its citizens wish to remain part of Canada. If Quebec separates, Canada's standing as a major industrial country is likely to suffer, along with its diplomatic powers of persuasion.
How the United States would react is anyone's guess. But it would be something of a surprise to Washington if the new world order brought change where Americans least expected it.
By JOEL J. SOKOLSKY
Joel J. Sokolsky is associate Professor of politics at the Royal Military College of Canada and senior fellow at the Queen's University Centre for International Relations, Kingston, 0ntario.
A THIN FABRIC
The seeds of the present confusion about world order were sown in the peculiar form of order that prevailed during the Cold War. Before the ink was dry on the U.N. Charter, with its prescriptions for multilateral peace, a very different organizing principle emerged. Two universalist visions of society were marshalled for a global confrontation that ultimately would be backed by the nuclear balance of terror.
Paradoxically, the apocalyptic potential of the force that maintained this system, and the caution of the two dominant players, turned the confrontation into a limited competition with an elaborate set of implicit rules. Most of the time, some norms of international law circumscribed the game, and occasionally the United Nations and other multilateral institutions were allowed to play a minor role.
On the sidelines, meanwhile, the majority of the world's people and states subsisted in a disorder all their own. Third World countries were drawn in and out of the orbits of the competing superpowers while facing the awesome challenges of decolonization and development.
More than 20 million lives were lost in wars during this period, and many times that number were sacrificed to poverty. A new international economic order became the powerful rallying cry for the aspirations of most of the planet. That movement dissolved in frustration, however, when the industrialized world rejected the designs of the new order but offered no adequate alternatives.
The end of the Cold War in some ways plunged the world back to the conditions of 1945. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was one of the clearest violations in memory of the basic rule of international order: that territory should not be acquired by force. The international community, no longer paralyzed by the Cold War, had no choice but to respond. Sadly, the machinery and even the philosophy of collective security had been left only half developed. The U.N. Charter's provisions for enforcing security were followed to a greater extent than ever before, but not to the letter. No Military Staff Committee directed the action; no standby forces were in place.
During the crisis, the Security Council served its intended functions up to the point at which it delegated the decision on using force to an impressively wide but ad hoe coalition led by the United States. Washington's prodigious diplomatic and military efforts to maintain the coalition and carry out the enforcement action allowed a minimum standard of order to be maintained.
The events since August 2, 1990, offer more warnings than guarantees for the future. For a long time to come, military forces will be needed to police the international order. For the great powers, however, balance will still be a precondition of security, since the policing forces are unlikely to achieve the strength or authority to counter a major frontal challenge. Nevertheless, for the sake of order among all nations, further reductions in East-West arms and greater control on weapons trafficking are now essential.
Collective security against aggression is only part of what most of humanity would regard as a new order worthy of the name. Democratic and liberal values, long championed by the West, have finally prevailed in the competition with communism, and they will now be tested for their consistency and relevance to day-to-day human affairs.
A thin fabric of order now exists, to which the world now has the opportunity to add successive layers. Other wise the fragile new order may be discredited as a mere cover for the status quo and may give way to new confrontations which could make the Cold War look
like a golden age.
By BERNARD WOOD
Bernard Wood is chief executive officer of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security in Ottawa.
AN ODOR OF THE OLD
Notions about a new world order are already beginning to appear as frayed as last year's intellectual fashion, "the end of history. History continues to be made, and current events create distressingly familiar patters.
Separatist tendencies are on the rise in Eastern Europe; migration patterns are aggravating age-old ethnic grievances; devastating wars continue to be fought in the Middle East; and the Soviet General Staff is again undermining arms control treaties. All this is a reminder that an old order coexists with the heartening developments of the past decade. Still, the changes are impressive. Fledgling democratic governments have been created in Latin America and Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union has at least changed sufficiently to make a return to Stalinism inconceivable, and fear of a Soviet attack on NATO has dissolved along with the Kremlin's external empire. More recently, the United Nations and American firepower both worked as designed, decisively defeating Saddam Hussein' s power grab in the Persian Gulf.
Where do we go from here? If the new world order is to be more than a vacuous phrase, the first item of business is to consolidate recent gains. It makes little sense to engineer a new democracy in Iraq with military force if the democratically elected leaders of countries like Brazil, Nicaragua, Poland, and Czechoslovakia lose ground to economic stagnation and domestic strife. The most effective assistance for unsteady democracies facing no external threats is not more arms but more capital, economic training, and debt forgiveness.
Nations will continue to use military force as long as they believe that their vital interests are threatened and that force can accomplish important objectives, at reasonable cost, when nonviolent means are likely to fail. The closer the world moves toward a new order, the less impelled individual states will feel to use military force, and the better the prospect will be for collective military action when force is required. In the interim--an indefinite period during which the brushfires of the old world order will continue to burn--a primary responsibility of the United Nations will be to plant peacekeeping operations in razed areas.
The attempts to move from the old order to the new suggest that arms control priorities must be reoriented. The traditional arms control agenda is topped by efforts to reduce U.S. and Soviet nuclear and conventional arms and to curtail, if not stop, underground nuclear tests. More needs to be accomplished on this unfinished agenda, but a new arms control agenda is displacing it, in the wake of the Gulf War and the demise of the Soviet threat.
The proliferation of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles now receives top billing. In addition to tightening up the " supply side" of the proliferation problem, the international community can enlist confidence-building measures to ameliorate the demand for these weapons in regions of chronic tension. The negotiation of a chemical weapons convention has become even more important than before, despite such an accord's obvious limitations. The most difficult problem of all is the proliferation of highly lethal conventional arms, and this has yet to be tackled. Movement toward a new world order requires progress in both the old and new arms control agendas.
By MICHAEL KREPON
Michael Krepon is president of the Henry L. Stimson Center in
Washington, D. C., and a Bulletin contributing editor.
BUT WILL IT PLAY IN PANMUNJOM?
Creating a new world order will not be easy, mainly because the political and diplomatic situations in the Soviet, European, and Middle Eastern spheres are fluid.
Take the case of the Soviet Union. In August 1990, ties with the United States were more important to Moscow than its desire to stand with Iraq, a traditional friend. With the Soviet economy shattered and the empire under attack, the Gorbachev-Shevardnadze team had a growing interest in stabilizing European and Asian affairs. This meant playing a new game: avoiding confrontation with the United States. But in the last six months Moscow's aims have changed, and the Soviets now fear being squeezed out of the Middle East. The military is regaining ascendancy in the Soviet power structure, and as Moscow rebuilds its international links, the United States will again seek to contain it in some way.
In the Middle East, Iraq has been bombed to a preindustrial level and is immersed in civil strife. An ascendant Iran is likely to challenge the Kuwaiti and Saudi royal regimes, two loyalists who depend on U.S. military protection. And despite Saddam Hussein's foolishness in attacking Kuwait and creating an issue on which the U.N. Security Council could agree, the crisis forced the world to concentrate on the problems of the Middle East: chemical weapons, rich versus poor Arabs, Islamic fundamentalism, demographic pressures, the undemocratic Arab autocracies, and the Palestinian issue.
Not that this makes the problems easier to solve. The lesson of the Gulf crisis is that personalized politics and foreign policy-a weakness of the American leadership style-tend to backfire. American goals, enemies--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein- -and to deal with villains when it suits the purpose: Noriega, the Shah, Somoza, Marcos, Mobutu.
Instead of betting on the Assads, Fahds, and Gorbachevs, the United States should build relations by dealing with impersonal institutional forces, as it does when dealing with democracies. The Middle Eastern states must take the responsibility of checking bad behavior in their region and addressing their own structural problems. This may involve cooperative regional security arrangements. But against the sharpening of religious opinion apparent from the Indian subcontinent to the Magreb, arms control and peace talks are unlikely to work. The recent victory will buy only a little time for American diplomacy.
Since the war, pressure has been put on Israel to move toward a peace process, and Israel has agreed in principle to the idea. But Israel is unlikely either to accommodate the Palestinians or trade the Golan Heights for peace. The United States will try to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel will not accept a nuclear ban. Likewise, the United States will find it difficult to control conventional arms transfers because of Western companies' pressure to sell.
The United States does not have the kind of imperialistic vision necessary to impose a new order on the world. It lacks even a coherent long-term policy or a strategic concept in the Middle East. On top of this, the U.S. economy is weak and its ability to buy favors is limited.
Saddam's defeat was a way to show American resolve, and that plays well at home but not abroad. The perception of the United States as the only superpower produced some piggybacking: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Syria are now on board to gain U.S. protection, respectability, and advantage. But other powers are loose cannons. The signs are of a world environment in flux rather than a world order in the making.
By ASHOK KAPUR
Ashok Kapur is professor of political science at the University of
Waterloo, Ontario.
COALITIONS FOR REGIONAL CRISES
The success of the war against Iraq redefined the U.S. role in the international system in a new and probably enduring way. The practical meaning of the new world order is that the United States has become an organizer of ad hoc coalitions to cope with regional crises. Although it provides the rationale for continued active engagement in foreign affairs, the new definition may also contribute to domestic renewal in the United States.
The United States confirms the rightness of its involvement in international affairs by forming and leading coalitions. In the 1940s the United States emerged from isolation to head a worldwide coalition against Nazi and Japanese aggression, and for 40 years after the war, the United States organized and headed anti- Soviet coalitions throughout the world. But by mid-1990 the sharp decline in the Soviet threat was dramatically evidenced by the Soviet agreement to withdraw forces from Eastern Europe and to permit a unified Germany to join NATO. Many politically aware Americans suddenly and painfully sensed the loss of the mission which for two generations had structured U.S. foreign involvement and had shaped the American international identity.
Under these circumstances, the United States could have withdrawn from active interest in world affairs and turned inward to concentrate on domestic concerns. In fact, some conservatives began to lead the way back toward isolation, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait they argued against U.S. involvement in the crisis. Instead of turning inward, however, the United States organized a coalition and carried out a successful military operation. The feeling of being at loose ends had not lasted long.
The much decreased possibility of global war, at least on the scale of World Wars I and 11, has made the most important difference between the old and new U.S. roles. The Soviet Union has declined to a regional military power with only limited capability to project military force. Consequently, the cases with which the United States may have to deal in the future will be regional and local, and only a few will involve important U.S. interests. There will be no worldwide adversary to enhance the significance of these regional issues.
Even though the new period began with a war, the new role is unlikely to involve frequent engagements in combat. The use of force will be a last resort because of the three Cs = cost, casualties, and cooperation. Modern military intervention is vastly expensive in the face of a huge budget deficit; the American public is understandably disinclined to accept large casualties in U.S. forces; and it is difficult to obtain the kind of active participation by other countries on which the American public will continue to insist.
In place of military force, emphasis will fall on political and economic measures, confidence-building measures, conflict resolution, and especially on economic sanctions which, properly applied, are a powerful weapon. Recently, the United States has negotiated new agreements on both conventional and strategic force reductions; in
its new role, it will urge arms control on others more vigorously than it has in the past.
This kind of security policy - selectively identifying those issues which may involve U.S. interests and dealing with them primarily by political and economic means and routinely through coalitions should make it possible to withdraw at least half of U.S. forces from Europe, Japan, and Korea over the next decade. The U.S. military can then focus on maintaining a residual strategic nuclear deterrent and rapidly transportable intervention forces backed by expandable reserves.
Paradoxically, and despite concerns that military force may continue to be overemphasized in U.S. foreign policy, the newly defined international role may be the best route to deeply needed domestic reform in the United States. If the regional coalition-building pattern becomes established and brings success, the contrast between this cause for pride and the shameful areas of domestic backwardness will be painful, as it was in the 1950s between America's new international role as defender of Western democracy and the issue of civil rights at home. Once again, the contrast could generate more energetic efforts to cope with these problems than would be produced by turning inward in order to concentrate on the same problems.
By JONATHAN DEAN
Former Ambassador Johnathan Dean is arms control adviser of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.
COLLECTIVE WILL OR LAW OF THE JUNGLE
We have just fought the most successful war in history, my English friend exclaimed in exasperation, and you are saying that it could have been done better? I agreed that this was what I was saying. The victory my friend was referring to was the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait.
From the outset it was clear that the coalition was capable of defeating Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but the objectives went far wider. This is not about Kuwait, President Bush declared, but about the world we want to live in. How much of a victory was the war in the Gulf in those terms?
The war showed that a coalition of First World powers could defeat a nation just emerging from the Third World. But demonstrating the military dominance of the rich over the poor does not represent much of an advance toward a desirable world, for two reasons. One is that this will not continue to be true: before long the poor will be able to subject the rich to nuclear and environmental blackmail. The other is that we do not wish it to continue to be true, because there is today a genuine longing for a new world order. In Shelley's words, The world is weary of the past. Oh, might it die or rest at last.
Fortunately, the Gulf crisis achieved significantly more than merely demonstrating the power of military might. The United Nations was involved in crisis management as never before, with foreign ministers elbowing aside ambassadors at the Security Council table. At the outset this is where the action was. The United Nations agreed to apply sanctions in a situation in which war was a viable option. The member states complied. Months later the U.S. Senate nearly voted against war, despite growing outrage over Saddam's thuggery.
At the start, the twin pillars supporting the new world order were clearly evident: action must be sanctioned in a global forum, and the collective will must be enforeed with restraint. Otherwise, we would be back to the law of the jungle. Above all, those who enforce the law must at all times be distinguishable from those who infringe it.
But restraint began to fail because the crisis increasingly came to be seenas not about the world we want to live in, but about Kuwait-to invert President Bush's rallying call.
In a world of nuclear plenty, war, it is widely agreed, has become a less and less viable option. World leaders have told us repeatedly that war is an institution that must be retired. Sanctions represent the way of the future.
However, when confronted with the reality of the invasion of Kuwait, doubts began to arise: sanctions might not work soon enough; coalition forces might grow impatient. The coalition forgot that sanctions must work ultimately, that they must be made to work for the sake of the future, and that military force was irrelevant to making them work.
This dimming of vision was evident in the successive statements of William Webster, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. In December 1990 he testified before Congress that the most effective peacetime embargo ever mounted was strangling Iraq's economy, blocking 90 percent of its imports and 97 percent of its exports. But in January 1991 Webster said he had not meant to suggest that sanctions would cause Saddam Hussein to abandon his defiance of the rest of the world.
Yet, ultimately, sanctions surely would have done so. The real question was whether in this new world we were obliged to wait for that outcome.
At the same time, conventional thinking was reinforced by a surprising and specious argument, that war was urgent because it was the only way to prevent Iraq from becoming a nuclear power. Those knowledgeable about nuclear weapons manufacture, particularly the production of plutonium or highly enriched uranium, expressed the
view that it would be 5-10 years before Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, a rumor circulated that Iraq could somehow manufacture them much sooner.
If anyone was still thinking about the world we want to live in, they pictured it as a world in which the nuclear haves would eliminate the have not as they approached the nuclear threshold. The pillars of legality and restraint were tottering.
There were further opportunities for demonstrating restraint as well as resolve. Four days into the war it was evident that laser and computer-guided munitions had dealt a crippling blow to Baghdad.
Water, electric power, and telecommunications were out; the airport was largely destroyed; many military and political headquarters were in ruins, along with the largest oil refinery and the main nuclear research facility. All this was achieved with modest damage to other structures and apparently with relatively few casualties in those first days.
It would have been possible at this point to take an unprecedented action of the type the world needs in order to signal it's entry into a new age. If the purpose of the war was to cripple Iraq rather than to shatter it, this was the moment for a cease-fire. The early blows had been staggeringly effective and constituted a powerful
warning. No police force could have asked for more. And yet, calling a halt at that stage and reverting to diplomacy and sanctions does not seem to have been on the agenda.
Instead, just as sanctions had escalated to war, the early air strikes gave way to a sustained air attack and later to ground warfare. Conventional thinking dictated continual escalation for maximum military advantage, and conventional thinking won the day.
All of this constituted normal behavior in the past. But these are anything but normal times. Modern weapons have made the jungle too dangerous a place in which to live. The new world order represents not only the world we want to live in, but the only world in which we can hope to survive.
By JOHN C. POLANYI
John C. Polanyi, founding chairman of the Canadian Pugwash group, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1986.
JAPAN AND THE U.S. SAMURAI SPIRIT
Viewed from Japan, America's euphoria about the war against Iraq and
the so-called new world order is both ironic and a cause for deep pessimism.
The irony is most obvious in the banality of the current American rhetoric, but it runs deeper. Japan declared its own new order for East Asia in 1938, accompanied by a war of annihilation against China and attractive slogans about co-existence and coprosperity. While the imperial forces bombed Chinese cities, the Japanese people threw themselves wholeheartedly behind their fighting men. The Japanese media accepted military censorship with scarcely a murmur, and fell all over themselves to support official policy. The extraordinary death and destruction on the Chinese side received only passing notice; the killing of a thousand Chinese was of no account in Japan compared to the death of a single Japanese soldier.
Japan was indisputably a naked aggressor against China, but it is questionable, more so now than ever, whether the Japanese were peculiarly war-loving, ultranationalistic, conformist, and intolerant of dissent. This is what Americans and most others believed at the time, however, and why Japan was demilitarized and democratized after the war.
That policy succeeded beyond all expectations, primarily because the Japanese people themselves were sick of war and shrewdly charted an economic course outside the arms race. Since 1945, Japan has created the most impressive civilian-oriented economy in the world. It is the only major nation that has not fattened itself on direct arms exports, although the dual (military and civilian) uses of Japanese technology are another matter. Its famous no-war constitution has been bent but not broken. It has resisted the seduction of possessing nuclear weapons, although this is within easy technological reach.
Japan has handled domestic challenges-education, income distribution, pollution and crime control, long-term planning-with skill. Its body politic is pluralistic and contentious, with a strong core of citizens opposing militarism.
Until the Gulf War, Japan seemed to offer not merely a striking contrast to its previous self but also a major hope, directly and by example, for a more stable, less militarized world order. Now, instead, it is the most ridiculed and reviled of all the nations on the anti-Iraqi side. The civilian-oriented economy, the peace constitution, and the pacifist political constituency are the butt of made-in-America Gulf War jokes, the target of anger and abuse. The Japanese have been told that they will never qualify as a great power in the new world order without awesome firepower, military forces that can be dispatched abroad, and a snappier responsiveness to U.S. demands.
Part of the explanation lies in the quick-fix military ardor of contemporary America (and Britain), coupled with fear and envy of Japan's economic capabilities. But a greater part lies in the failure of both the ruling party and the opposition in Japan to transcend economic nationalism and clearly define their country's global role and responsibilities.
The rhetoric within and outside Japan is appalling. The Japanese used to be accused of suffering from a nuclear allergy as if principled opposition to the nuclear arms race were an unpleasant disorder. Now one hears references to Japan's "allergy to war. One American expert derided Japan's infantile fear of war an
extraordinary comment on the conventional wisdom of our times.
Such comments also are heard in conservative circles in Japan. Politicians and businessmen who support a greater military role commonly use two phrases. Heilva-boke (peace senility) implies that the country has become soft and irresponsible since 1945, out of touch with the real world. One-country pacifism, or some variation on this, points to the nationalistic aspects of Japan's antimilitarism and the failure of peace groups to articulate a broader vision beyond keeping Japan out of trouble.
The Gulf War also exacerbated the mixture of admiration and animosity the Japanese always have felt toward the United States. In a bizarre twist, Japanese conservatives now praise Americans for possessing a samurai spirit lacking in Japan. At the same time, the image of the United States as a war-loving, sloganeering, extremist country (all World War II Western images of Japan) has been strengthened. A best-selling series of booklets on current events includes such titles as Why Does America Like War? and Scary America. During the Gulf War, letters to the editor revealed the abiding legacy of World War II when they expressed deep distrust of military solutions and horrified sympathy for Iraqi soldiers and civilians who were being bombed so relentlessly. The Japanese have been quick to call attention to the self-serving psychological motives behind America's military inauguration of a new world order, including the therapeutic value of erasing Vietnam from memory and the technological pride restored by seeing, smart weapons in action.
If one believes that the world must learn to rely less on weaponry and more on genuine multilateralism, the war was a disaster. To date the new world order is little more than a new warfare order, with new weapons orders on the rise. And Japan is under pressure to abandon its peace constitution in order to contribute more than just money to overseas military actions orchestrated by the United States.
This is folly. What Japan should be encouraged to do instead is develop a global policy consistent with both its constitution and its technological and economic resources. This might include the following:
A Japanese peacekeeping force, separate from the current Self-Defense Forces, authorized to serve in U.N. monitoring activities. The Japanese might also consider creating an international relief force capable of responding quickly to humanitarian crises such as disasters and refugee movements.
Clarification and reaffirmation of official restraints on military-related activities. The government should reemphasize earlier policies such as the three non-nuclear principles, the ban on weapons exports, and military budget ceilings. The peace constitution should be upheld rather than incrementally perverted
by constant enlargement of the mission of the Self-Defense Forces.
(Ideally the constitution should be revised through a popular referendum clarifying the limited role of Japan's military, but this is politically infeasible now.)
Greater participation in arms control. Japan's exceptional economic and technological capacity makes this an urgent matter, especially if a new smart-weapons arms race increases the demand for Japanese dual-use technology. Japan should establish all feasible controls on such technology, link economic assistance to arms control, and make its technology available for the surveillance and verification tasks essential to international arms control.
Expansion and integration of major economic assistance and development programs directed to the most abiding problems that threaten the world today: poverty, debt, underdevelopment, health maintenance, environmental protection, and population control.
Active promotion of regional demilitarization as well as development. Although Japan has natural ties to the industrialized West, it is logical and desirable that it make a special long-term commitment to the well-being of the Asia-Pacific region. This is politically delicate as well as historically appropriate, for Japan has never made amends for the ravages of its earlier new order in Asia. At the same time, such commitments to regional interests and obligations must actively involve the Soviet Union. At present, Japan, under strong U.S. pressure, has resisted multilateral approaches to regional security.
This agenda would not unravel Japan's important relationship with the United States, although in time it might lead to reconsideration of the bilateral military alliance. It would, however, require high levels of trust, patience, vision, and cooperativeness commodities currently in short supply in both countries.
By JOHN W.DOWER
John W Dower, Joseph Naiman professor of history and Japanese studies at the University of California, San Diego, is the author of War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (1987).
OBEY THE U.N. CHARTER
Many substantial and important changes have occurred in the world, but the impression that we are now under a new order is wishful thinking.
Rhetoric about a new world order more accurately reflects frustration with past failures than the existence of concrete evidence that one order has concluded and another has been born. The changes that have occurred have not yet affected institutions beyond Europe, nor have they influenced international relationships significantly enough to justify describing them as global.
Instead of a new world order, we may be witnessing the maturing of the old order envisaged by the U.N. Charter and the tenets of international law. A close look at the Charter shows a stark contrast between intention and practice in the last four decades. Nothing in the Charter justifies the flagrant uses of force prevalent since World War II, whether by powerful states--to preserve old dominions and acquired interests--or by developing states zealously asserting their new-found independence, occasionally at the expense of others.
But now the community of nations is in an evolutionary stage, attempting to correct its course.
Much has been said about the "peace dividend" and the need to redirect toward the cause of human prosperity the tremendous resources previously devoted to war. Peaceful means for resolving conflicts are gaining ground, but the use of force and the insatiable appetite for arms are still the rule rather than the exception.
Wars will continue until the community of nations faithfully and scrupulously abides by the provisions of the U.N. Charter. According to Articles 2 and 51, force should only be used in self-defense, after efforts to reconcile differences peacefully have failed, and should cease once the United Nations has begun a process to resolve the conflict as outlined in Articles 41-49. When this collective security system or an equivalent one proves effective in preserving the security of nations, the use of force will begin to subside.
A momentous step in that direction would be to limit the destructive potential of weapons. Nuclear arsenals should be irrevocably cut back, and universal measures should be taken to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Global and regional measures to curtail the threats posed by all weapons of mass destruction would also be conducive to a leveling and reduction process that would benefit all nations.
These efforts may bring us closer to the time when nations discover that the benefits of collective security surpass the benefits of acquiring weapons. We can only hope that such a day is not far off.
By MOHAMED NABIL FAHMY
Mohamed Nabil Fahmy is a counselor in the Egyptian Foreign Ministry in Cairo. The views expressed are his own.
PUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THE AGENDA
Two events prompted President Bush to invoke a new world order: the end of the Cold War and the prosecution of the Gulf But neither the president nor the pundit community has remarked on he fact that these two seminal events had one thing in common: they destroyed the rationale for maintaining large, elaborate arsenals of nuclear weapons.
Although the war's "lessons" filled the airwaves and news pages - the utility of tactical missile defense, the power of stealth technology, the efficacy of smart munitions, the wisdom of coalition building - few commentators highlighted the fact that the United States chose not to use its most potent weapons in the conflict. The real lesson is that nuclear weapons serve no purpose except possibly to deter aggression by a large, nuclear armed country under rational leadership, such as the Soviet Union. The U.S. arsenal of 20,000 nuclear warheads could not deter Saddam Hussein, nor could it be used to defeat him.
The United States sought to fight a just war in the Gulf, backed by the international community. Indeed, the notions of justice and internationalism comprise the moral and political foundations of the new world order. But a just war precludes first use of nuclear weapons, as well as attacks on civilians, who are the inevitable victims of nuclear weapons. And if the moral injunctions against nuclear weapons are not enough, the international political prohibitions on their use are certain. The United States would have lost even the pretense of international backing if it had so much as threatened Iraq with nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons offered no military advantage in the Gulf. U.S. commanders keyed their strategy on freedom of movement, especially in the air, and on precision. The former was provided without nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons would have precluded the latter. Much was made of the U.S. military's fear of chemical weapons, but
fighting in the vicinity of exploding nuclear weapons would have been nearly impossible. Although civilian Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Vice-President Dan Quayle gratuitously and unwisely refused to rule out U.S. use of nuclear weapons, military leaders made clear that the nuclear arsenal was useless.
While the Gulf War showed the disutility of tactical nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War destroyed the rationale for developing and deploying new types of these weapons, tactical and strategic. Now that the Soviet Union lacks the intention, interest, and, to a significant extent, capacity to attack Western territories, there is no legitimate reason to continue the nuclear arms race. The current stockpile provides more than enough technical sophistication and variation for a robust nuclear deterrent. Only inertia and institutional logrolling propel the continuing efforts to develop new nuclear weapons. But inertia is a brainless phenomenon; it does not serve those who would create a new world order.
The question at this epochal juncture is, what is the ultimate aim of arms control? Although nuclear arms control has become central to U.S. foreign and military policies, and a major issue in presidential elections, its fundamental goals have not been fully defined. What is the wisest way to avoid the apocalyptic dangers of nuclear weapons while exploiting their power to deter?
The answer will have two parts. First, the global community must consider in detail the long-term objective: ridding the world of deployed nuclear weapons. Nuclear know-how will always remain, but that does not mean that deployed systems must. We must discover whether there are combinations of defensive technologies and aims
control regimes that can enforce a global ban on nuclear weapons and deter any leader from acquiring and using them. Conversely, if nuclear weapons really are necessary for global security, a serious, open dialogue should focus on what the optimal arsenal is, and what kind of arms control regimes should be established to manage it.
Second, in the near future we must take practical steps to bring the world closer to the ultimate aim of arms control by stopping the nuclear arms race, and by reducing nuclear arsenals to the lowest possible levels consistent with the requirements of stable deterrence. This means banning all nuclear tests and the production of fissile materials; withdrawing and destroying short-range, land- based nuclear weapons; and energetically pursuing deep cuts in strategic nuclear forces. Each of these objectives is familial-, and the technical obstacles to them are well known. But if the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union are serious about the new world order, they must stop bemoaning the difficulties and start creating solutions.
Rather than letting the establishment that conducted the nuclear arms race under the old world order say whether and how to end it, concerned citizens must insist that other minds and interests determine what is possible. This occurred in the Soviet Union when Eduard Shevardnadze came from outside the defense establishment and took charge of arms control policy, supported by Mikhail Gorbachev. It needs to happen now in the United States.
Progress in these areas will buttress another pillar of the new world order, international constraints on the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Preventing proliferation has moved to the top of the international security agenda, but it will fail if the current nuclear powers continue the arms race. Nuclear weapons must be declared illegitimate, and the nuclear powers must disavow them in word and deed, if other countries are to continue to abstain from acquiring them. The new world order will become a farce if the 1995 extension conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a failure.
A new world order cannot rest on the centerpiece of the old: the nuclear arms race, and the ill-founded quest for the capacity to fight and win a war with nuclear weapons. The utility and putative rationale for that race are disproved. The challenge now is to reform nuclear weapons establishments their force structures and doctrines and devise security policies that rely only minimally and narrowly on nuclear deterrence.
By GEORGE PERKOVICH
George Perkovich directs the Secure Society program at the W. Alton Jones Foundation in Charlottesville, Virginia.
SOME NATIONS MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
It is ridiculous to talk of a new world order after a short war in which a large coalition, including the military forces of a number of major powers, defeated a mid-level developing nation with a paranoid dictator.
The United States is not the power it was in 1945, when it led the victors o World War II in defining a new world order. It is the largest debtor nation in the world, with enormous trade and budgetary deficits, and it produces only about 25 percent of global manufactured products, compared to 65 percent at the end of World War II.
A nation that requires billions from other nations to finance a war with a developing country cannot expect to impose its own order on the globe. A new order has to involve not only the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, but also Japan, Germany, and large developing nations such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, and Pakistan. So far no consultation has been initiated on the issue.
But a polycentric international system is already evolving. The North American Free Trade Zone, the European Economic Community, Japan, China, India, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and an updated version of the Soviet Union are centers of influence likely to contribute significantly to future international decision making, both cooperatively and competitively. A large number of other medium- tier powers will play a role as well.
The industrialized countries have recognized the declining utility of employing force against each other, but the same cannot be said about conflicts involving developing countries. Given the stages of evolution into nationhood, occasions are likely to arise that justify the use of force in developing nations' relations, as there were for developed nations in the last three centuries. The U.N. Charter lays down circumstances in which force is justified, and the end of the Cold War made it possible to demonstrate, in the Kuwait case, that the Security Council is capable of purposive action. But the case for action may not always be so clear-cut, and the council may not be able to agree on the use of force. In such an instance, defying the United Nations, even if a major power feels its interests threatened, would set a bad precedent and would be unjustified. Even as the international system evolves it is difficult to anticipate the formulation of unambiguous rules for using force.
If arms control is to be meaningful in the future system, it has to be universally applicable and nondiscriminatory. Double standards, such as those that allow some nations and not others to possess weapons of mass destruction, are a sure way to promote covert weapons proliferation and ambiguous strategies. Arms control should also start with the most heavily armed nations. Future acquirers of weapons of mass destruction may be more secretive than Saddam Hussein and may be more difficult to stop unless all nations with such weapons submit themselves to international safeguards.
This much can be said: the new world order cannot begin with billions of dollars of arms sales, backed by export credit guarantees, to West Asian countries. The new world order is apparently as far off as equality for women in Saudi Arabia.
By K. SUBRAHMANYAM
K. Subrahmanyam, chairman of the U.N. Study Group on Nuclear Deterrence, is a contributing editor of the Business & Political Observer in New Delhi.
THE RULE OF LAW
The idea of a new world order was widely proclaimed in 1989 as
political revolutions swept through Eastern Europe, accompanied by
remarkable progress on previously intractable conflicts in Afghanistan, Cambodia, southern Africa, and Nicaragua. The subsequent unification of Germany, which spontaneously progressed from taboo to axiom in the course of a few weeks and was legally accomplished within a year, crystallized a sense that a new pattern of international policies had taken hold.
The resulting euphoria was rapidly quenched, however, and the
impression of a historical watershed was clouded by the Persian Gulf crisis. Despite the unusual coalition that sponsored it, the campaign against Iraq was a traditional exercise in defeating aggression by military means. After being used to justify war, the "new world order attracted some of the sarcasm once reserved for the "Holy Roman Empire"-an entity that in Voltaire's memorable remark was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
Nevertheless, the idea of a new world order derives compelling
meaning from the continuing transformation of international security and economic relationships. The traditional confrontation in Central Europe has dissolved; the new security arrangement, although it has not yet been completely defined, will have to be more cooperative.
The Soviet Union cannot afford under any political leadership to
sustain direct military confrontation against all the industrial
democracies. And to insure the safety and efficiency of their own
military operations, these democracies are compelled to accept the
Soviet Union as a partner in the global regulation of military
deployments. On the economic front, the relentless pressure of
internationalized activity is breaking down the isolation of national economies and forcing alignment with general market operations. These are the forces shaping a new international order.
The United States, like most countries, has yet to harmonize its
policies with these conditions. But the central principles are already apparent:
Military forces are to be configured only for the defense of
existing national territory.
Any change in political jurisdiction is to be accomplished by
legitimate methods of political consent.
Military power is to be projected only with the consent of the
whole international community, and only in defense of the above
principles.
Nuclear weapons are to be reduced to residual deterrent levels,
and other weapons of mass destruction are to be eliminated.
Market access is to be open, equitable, and inclusive, with
exceptions made only by general international consent.
Forms of national government are to be determined by national
consent, but subject to universal standards of human rights.
These principles are the presumptive core of what is meant by "the rule of law," the phrase President George Bush has used to explain the new world order. Implementing them will raise many practical
problems, because they impinge on other widely asserted concepts such as "sovereignty" and "national interest." Ultimately, however, the rule of law is in every nation's interest. When that is realized, accepted, and defined, the new world order will exist.
By JOHN STEINBRUNER
John Steinbruner director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Compiled by The Robinson Research Institute © 2001-2015
AMERICA - Think About This
Before this was America it was...
the land of the free, home of the brave.
It was already a nation where everyone lived in harmony with all life, had justice, liberty and lived in happiness and peace - they didn't have to pursue these things. It was a land where there was no pollution, the population did not have diseases, diabetes, obesity, animal slaughters or terrorists.
No one was without a home or starving ... all the waters were good and sweet, the dirt was even clean, there were more trees than one could count in ten lifetimes, your neighbors respected you and honored you even if you disagreed, there were no borders, there were no laws that prevented you from possessing weapons, when people would speak others would listen, there was no need to have an amendment for the freedom of speech, there were
no taxes, there were no wars with other countries, all food was natural, there were no industrial accidents, there were no corporations that enslaved people, you could go where you wanted when you wanted and no one asked you for your identification, there was no such thing as illegal immigrants, there were no arguments about religion or who's god was better than the others - there were no religions, no banks, no Wall St., no bail outs, health care was a personal responsibility, school began the day you were born and ended the day you entered the lands of the Grandfathers. This was the land of the free and home of the
brave for tens of thousands of years...until -
|
|
"Click The Image"
"Click The Image"
Click the image to sign our Guestbook
Environmental News
Home Energy
American Council Energy Efficient Economy
THE OTHER NEWS:
If this isn't in the News ~ maybe it should be.
KNOW YOUR FOOD: or Pick Your Poison
What is Monsanto so afraid of that they
oppose GMO labeling?
Read here: Natural Society
Do you want real food?
Check out these guys: Organic Consumers
Pesticides On Food
Learn More Here: Panna.org
Consumer Beware!
Get This Book:
Your Food and What's Been Done To It
NEWS:...Maybe
Above Top Secret
Info - Wars
Black Vault
New Dawn
The Secret Government
DisInformation
Timeline of CIA Atrocities
Educate Yourself
The New American
Rense Chronicles MainPage
Worldnet Daily
The Paperboy
Slate: Today's Papers
Today's Front Pages
ABC
AP Wire
BBC
Blaze
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
CNN
C-SPAN
Daily Beast
FOX
Huffington Post
Los Angeles Times
MSNBC
NBC
Newsweek
NPR
New York Daily News
New York Times
Reuters
San Francisco Chronicle
Sky News
UPI
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Washington Times
Legal Encyclopedia
Medical Encyclopedia
Military Information
Physician's Desk Reference
Atomic Clock
All The Sites
Search Google
Free Online Security Scan
SURVIVAL
Books On Survival
BC Camping
B.C.B. International
Coldwater Creek
Emergency Survival Skills & Supplies
Equipped to Survive
Freeze Dried Food & Emergency Preparedness
Henry Survival Rifle (AR7)
Military Issue Survival Kits
Outdoor Hub Survival Kits & Info
Survival Bug Out Bag
Survival Directory
Survival Equipment
Survival Gear & Equipment
Survival Gear & Skills You Should Know
Survival Information (Learning to depend on yourself)
Survival Mindset
Survival Shelters & More
Survival Supplies
Wilderness Survival
Wilderness Survival - Shelters
Wilderness Survival - Survival Goods
Affordable Log
Cabins
MILITARY LINKS
DOD Dictionary of Military Terms
Defense Link
Grunts Military
Military Career Guide Online
Military.com
Military History Online
Military Intelligence
Military Women Homepage
Military Women - Veterans
Military World
Selective Service
Veterans Administration
Operation Safeside
Vets Roll Call
Vietnam Veterans Memorial
MILITARY BRANCHES
Department Of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Marine Corp
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
NATIVE AMERICAN NEWS & CULTURE
Gathering of Nations
Indian Country News
Indianz.com
People's Path
Shundahai Network
Western Shoshone
United Native America
SCIENCE
Mother Jones
National Geographic
New Scientist
Popular Science
Scientific American
NATURAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
Agriculture News
Agriculture - Global Good News
EcoFarm Association
Environmental Health News
European Commission - Organic Farming
Food Safety News
Mother Nature Network
Natural News
Organic Farming
Organic Farming & Biodiversity
Organic News - Science Daily
Organic Research
Organic World
Planet Earth Online
Science Insider - Organic
Top Online Publications for Organic Farmers
BETWEEN THE PAGES
Arts & Culture
Books & Literature
Computer Software
Crime & Law Enforcement
Food & Recipes
Fuel Guage Report
Guinness World Records
Law & Legal Information Resources
Library of Congress
Medical Safety Alerts
PDR - Physicians Desk Reference
Pets & Animals
Robert's Rules of Order
Vital Records
World Time Zones - Map
NEWSPAPERS
U.S.A.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Arizona Republic
Baltimore Sun
Chicago Sun Times
Chicago Tribune
Dallas Morning News
Denver Post
Detroit Free Press
Houston Chronicle
Los Angeles Times
Miami Herald
Minneapolis Star Tribune
New Orleans Times
New York Daily
New York Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Rolling Stone
San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Seattle Times
USA Today
The Village Voice
Washington Post
Washington Times
ASIA
Asia Today
People's Daily - China
Sky News
Japan Times
Seoul Times
EUROPE & THE ISLES
The Guardian
Helsinki Times - Finland
International Herald Tribune
The Irish News
The Irish Times
London Times
London Telegraph
Market Watch
Newsday
The Onion
Pravda - Russia
The Herald Scotland
The Scotsman
Syndey Morning Herald
CURRENT GAS & OIL PRICES:
AAA: Gas Prices
AAA: Fuel Cost Calculator
DOE: Energy Historical Data
DOE: Gasoline/Diesel Fuel Update
DOE: Sources of Crude Oil
DOE: This Week In Petroleum
GasBuddy
MSN: Gas Prices by ZipCode
GasPriceWatch
How Gas Prices Work
Gas Prices Primer
Mapquest Gas Prices
Oil Price.com
USA Gas Prices Map
THE WORLD BANK
List of World Bank Group and IMF Libraries
The Homeland Security Act
Legislation Predicated on the Official Story of the 9/11/01 Attack
The Homeland Security Act (HSA) was pushed through Congress in
the months following 9/11, ostensibly to "organize a government that
is fractured, divided and under-prepared to handle the all-important
task of defending our great nation from terrorist attack."
The 484-page Act prescribed the biggest change in the federal
government in over 50 years. Its passage, on November 25, 2002,
consolidated more than 20 existing federal agencies into a single
Homeland Security Department, including the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Not since President Truman created the Department of Defense in 1947 has the federal government undergone such dramatic restructuring.
Attack on Civil Liberties
The purported aim of this consolidation was to detect and
eliminate emerging terrorist threats by removing information
firewalls between government agencies, and centralizing the
unprecedented flood of surveillance data made possible by the
USA PATRIOT Act.
However, civil liberties groups have objected strongly to the
Homeland Security Act from the start, contending that it is
characterized by three disturbing trends: reduced privacy, increased
government secrecy and power and strengthened government protection of special interests. Allen Weinstein, president of the Center for Democracy in Washington, DC, has called it a "law of unintended consequences."
The Total Information Awareness Office has been the most
controversial of the Act's provisions.A Pentagon (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA) project legalized by the Homeland Security Act, TIA was given a startup budget of $200 million, and a mandate to achieve a state of "Total Information Awareness." Admiral John Poindexter, who was convicted of lying to Congress about his central role in the Iran Contra affair, was placed in charge of the IAO.
Poindexter had plans to create 300 million computer dossiers,
a file for every American, which would serve as repositories for data
"mined" from both public and private sources, including detailed
information on transactions, finances, education, medical history,
travel, personal communications, and public records from every branch
of government, including the CIA and FBI. Programs were also underway
to employ facial recognition and "gait recognition" technologies.
However, John Poindexter was widely criticized as an
inappropriate selection for the post of IAO director, because of his
criminal record. He resigned in August of 2003, amid a scandal around his involvement in a plan to launch an online futures system for betting on Middle East developments, advertised as a way to profit from assassinations and terrorist acts.
The unpopular Orwellian implications of "Total Information
Awareness," as well as charges that the program would violate the
Fourth Amendment, dampened the project's popularity on Capitol Hill. The Senate voted to cut funding for TIA on January 23, 2003, pending a Congressional report on the office's activities.
Congress, however, did rule that some data mining
technologies may be continued by intelligence agencies in secret, as long as they are not used on Americans within our borders.
Another proposed surveillance program, sponsored by Homeland
Security Department head Tom Ridge, known as TIPS (Terrorism
Information and Prevention System), was called by some a "snitch"
program because it planned to use information phoned in by neighbors and co-workers. It was removed from the Act before its passage, due to public outcry.
Despite these tenuous victories, civil liberties groups
aren't done fighting the Homeland Security Act. Among their major
concerns are the provisions of the Act which enable Presidential
Advisory committees to meet in secret without having to provide a
reason, contradictory to the open meeting provisions of Public Law
92-463 (aka Sunshine Act).
Also under the HSA, any person or agency who voluntarily
submits "critical infrastructure information" to a federal agency is
assured confidentiality of the information and the source, and the
supplier of the information cannot face prosecution based on
vulnerabilities that the information reveals, even if the
"vulnerabilities" are due to negligence, in which case no corrective
action is required.
There are also provisions which would make it illegal to cut
government-funded programs if any US jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. Both of these areas of provision seem to benefit corporate interests more than they provide any real protection to the American people.
Another area of the HSA makes provisions for the institution
of federally mandated vaccinations in case of "National Health
Emergencies." No evidence is required for the mandated vaccination programs. A hypothetical threat is sufficient.
Removed from the Act was a controversial provision immunizing
Eli Lilly and other manufacturers of "terrorist fighting" drugs from
liability for occurrences of autism or other known hazards of the
vaccines.
A further concern of civil rights defenders is that the HSA's
overly broad definition of "domestic terror" ("acts that appear to be
intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion") puts First Amendment rights at risk, and opens
political activists to accusations of terrorism.
On May 20, 2003, the IAO changed the name of the "Total
Information Awareness" program to "Terrorist Information Awareness," emphasizing in its report to Congress that it meant to collect information on dangerous terrorists, not ordinary Americans. However, the description of the program's activities remained essentially the same in the report. Funding has not been restored.
Further indication that the HSA is determined to conduct
massive surveillance on the American people is their
"deep involvement" (according to the ACLU), with Matrix,
a private, Florida-based company which makes data-mining software that can access billions of private-sector records on American citizens in seconds.
Tom Ridge approved $8 million in funding to help states
connect to Matrix's data banks.
This is of particular concern to Constitutional defenders,
because Fourth Amendment protection does not apply to personal data in the hands of the private sector.
Origins of the Act: The Council on Foreign Relations
One area of interest regarding the HSA is the question of its
origins. The American people were told that the Act was a direct
result of September 11. However, it's widely known that the
Hart-Rudman Commission, (officially the "US Commission on National Security for the 21st Century"), created under Clinton in 1998, actually authored the blueprint for what became the HSA, and
published it in a report called the "Road Map for National Security: Imperative For Change."
The Hart-Rudman report called for the inception of a new,
independent "National Homeland Security Agency," which would
integrate various US Government agencies, including FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and Border Patrol.
Of the 14 members of the Hart-Rudman Commission, nine were
members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR roster has
included, over the years, almost every CIA director since Allen
Dulles, as well as most of the "neo-conservatives" who populate the Bush Administration, including Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Zoellich, George Tenet and Paul Wolfowitz.
Admiral Chester Ward, retired judge advocate general of the
US Navy and long-time CFR member, was quoted in Jim Marrs' book
"Rule By Secrecy" as saying that the one common objective of every
CFR member is to "bring about the surrender of sovereignty and the
national independence of the US... primarily they want the world
banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of the global government."
Vice President Dick Cheney has said "We created the Department of Homeland Security, brought together 180,000 federal employees from 22 agencies, for a single purpose: to better protect America."
One is forced to wonder exactly whom Dick Cheney is trying to
protect when one considers that his highly secretive Energy Task Force (which, FOIA petitions have revealed, conducted secret study sessions of maps of Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, refineries and terminals in March, 2001), would have been free to meet and generate any kind of document in utter secrecy after the HSA's ratification.
Though the HSA has endangered First and Fourth Amendment
rights and weakened more than a dozen privacy laws,
the Act's sponsors contend that the post-9/11 climate justifies these
intrusions, because, according to one Republican congressman,
"The President needs the freedom and flexibility to protect the Homeland."
In May of 2003, the Department of Homeland Security released
its report "Securing Our Homeland." In it, they reveal plans to
establish something they call the "DHS One Network." Described as "a single wide area network that will centrally connect all
directorates and offices within the department with one communication tool," the DHS One Network is slated for completion by December, 2004. Its slogan is "One plan, one team, one fight."
~ THE FEMA INTERNMENT CAMPS ~
FEMA Internment Camps (File One)
FEMA Internment Camps (File Two)
FEMA Internment Camps (File Three)
Global Research
Global Research
Rex 84: FEMA's Blueprint for Martial Law in America
This incisive article on the repeal of civil liberties first published by GR in August 2006, brings to forefront of debate the ongoing road map towards a Police State in America. (M.Ch, GR Editor)
We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.
REX 84
The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of
American citizens during times of emergency.
The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of
concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others
potentially harmful to the state.
The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed
the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently
reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987
” These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States
and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”
And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal
vehicle for martial law.
This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were
no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.
It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New
Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some
evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.
“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-
two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and
not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe“.
We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under
REX 84.
Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing
neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National
Guard troops in a national emergency.
Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal “ one step away from a complete takeover of the National
Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.”
The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something
Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.
Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of ” a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe” in the United States.
Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but,
instead, the people demanding the truth.
REX 84 AND FEMA
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm
MINDFULLY, 2004 – There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive
prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are
to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a
presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. . . The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.
Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84
program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.
FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential
Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.
The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners.
Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold thousands of people.
AGENDA 21
Depopulation of Rural Areas
FEMA Camps and Executive Orders
FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS:
Locations and Executive Orders
There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and
ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by
full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be
implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential
signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a
warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really
want to be on Ashcroft's list.
The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass
exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be
quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84
allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into
Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will
be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose.
Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the
program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the
federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state
and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders
already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework
for this operation.
The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from
the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of
the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the
largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The
Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold
approximately 2 million people.
Now let's review the justification for any actions taken...
Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for
nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential
pen:...
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control
of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum,
fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including
personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all
highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under
government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare
functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all
persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and
aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate
communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be
abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public
storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives
authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased
international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out
in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial
and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and
correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and
agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen
year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to
establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of
energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S.
financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides
that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress
cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank
Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983
conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of
individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and
military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention
of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global
audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President
Carter to incorporate the...
National Security Act of 1947
allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and
other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements
for manpower, resources and production facilities.
1950 Defense Production Act
gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.
Act of August 29, 1916
authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of
any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other
purpose related to the emergency.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or
national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation
in 1979.
Where are these camps?
CLICK HERE
|
|
