By Frank Moralez
Spring/Summer 2000
Under the heading of "civil disturbance planning", the U.S. military is
training troops and police to suppress democratic opposition in
America. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan
55-2, is code-named, "Operation Garden Plot". Originated in 1968, the
"operational plan" has been updated over the last three decades, most
recently in 1991. The plan was activated during the Los Angeles "riots"
of 1992, and more than likely during the recent anti-WTO "Battle in
Seattle."
Current U.S. military preparations for suppressing domestic civil
disturbance, including the training of National Guard troops and
police, are part of a long history of American "internal security"
measures dating back to the first American Revolution. Generally, these
measures have sought to thwart the aims of social justice movements,
embodying the concept that within the civilian body politic lurks an
enemy that one day the military might have to fight, or at least be
ordered to fight.
Equipped with flexible "military operations in urban terrain" and
"operations other than war" doctrine, lethal and "less-than-lethal"
high-tech weaponry, US "armed forces" and "elite" militarized police
units are being trained to eradicate "disorder", "disturbance" and
"civil disobedience" in America. Further, it may very well be that
police/military "civil disturbance" planning is the animating force and
the overarching logic behind the incredible nationwide growth of police
paramilitary units, a growth which coincidentally mirrors rising levels
of police violence directed at the American people, particularly
"non-white" poor and working people.
Military spokespeople, "judge advocates" (lawyers) and their
congressional supporters aggressively take the position that legal
obstacles to military involvement in domestic law enforcement civil
disturbance operations, such as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, have been
nullified. Legislated "exceptions" and private commercialization of
various aspects of U.S. military-law enforcement efforts have
supposedly removed their activities from the legal reach of the "public
domain". Possibly illegal, ostensible "training" scenarios like the
recent "Operation Urban Warrior" no-notice "urban terrain" war games,
which took place in dozens of American cities, are thinly disguised
"civil disturbance suppression" exercises. Meanwhile, President Clinton
recently appointed a "domestic military czar", a sort of national chief
of police. You can bet that he is well versed in Garden Plot
requirements involved in "homeland defense".
Ominously, many assume that the training of military and police forces
to suppress "outlawed" behavior of citizens, along with the creation of
extensive and sophisticated "emergency" social response networks set to
spring into action in the event of "civil unrest", is prudent and
acceptable in a democracy. And yet, does not this assumption beg the
question as to what civil unrest is? One could argue for example, that
civil disturbance is nothing less than democracy in action, a message
to the powers-that-be that the people want change. In this instance
"disturbing behavior" may actually be the exercising of ones' right to
resist oppression. Unfortunately, the American corporate/military
directorship, which has the power to enforce its' definition of
"disorder", sees democracy as a threat and permanent counter-revolution
as a "national security" requirement.
The elite military/corporate sponsors of Garden Plot have their reasons
for civil disturbance contingency planning. Lets' call it the paranoia
of the thief. Their rationale is simple: self-preservation. Fostering
severe and targeted "austerity", massive inequality and unbridled
greed, while shifting more and more billions to the generals and the
rich, the de-regulated "entities of force" and their interlocking
corporate directors know quite well what their policies are
engendering, namely, a growing resistance. Consequently, they are
systematically organizing to protect their interests, their profits,
and their criminal conspiracies. To this end, they are rapidly
consolidating an infrastructure of repression designed to "suppress
rebellion" against their "authority". Or more conveniently put, to
suppress "rebellion against the authority of the United States." And
so, as the Pentagon Incorporated increases its' imperialist violence
around the world, the chickens have indeed come home to roost here in
America in the form of a national security doctrine obsessed with
domestic "insurgency" and the need to pre-emptively neutralize it. Its'
code-name: "Garden Plot".
Recently, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon "acknowledged that the
Air Force wrongfully started and financed a highly classified,
still-secret project, known as a black program without informing
Congress last year." The costs and nature of these projects "are the
most classified secrets in the Pentagon."(1) Could it be that the
current United States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2 Garden Plot
is one such program financed from this secret budget? We have a right
to know. And following Seattle, we have the need to know.
As this and numerous other documents reveal, U.S. military training in
civil disturbance "suppression", which targets the American public, is
in full operation today. The formulation of legitimizing doctrine, the
training in the "tactics and techniques" of "civil disturbance
suppression", and the use of "non-lethal" weaponry, are ongoing,
financed by tax dollars. The overall operation is called Garden Plot.
And according to the bosses at the Pentagon, "US forces deployed to
assist federal and local authorities during times if civil
disturbancewill follow use-of-force policy found in Department of
Defense Civil Disturbance Plan-Garden Plot." (Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Standing Rules of Engagement, Appendix A, 1 October 1994.)
Origins of Operation Garden Plot
"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave."
Frederick Douglass
Rochester, New York is the former home of Frederick Douglass's, North
Star newspaper. In 1964, it erupted in one of the first large-scale
urban outbursts of the decade. Precipitated by white police violence
against the black community, the July uprising lasted several days,
subsiding only after the arrival of 1500 National Guardsmen. In "the
fall of 1964, the FBI, at the direction of President Johnson, began to
make riot control training available to local police departments, and
by mid-1967 such training assistance had been extended to more than
70,000 officials and civilians."(2)
On July 29, 1967, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11365,
establishing the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. It is
more commonly known as the Kerner Commission, named for it's chair,
former Major General, and then Governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner. The
creation of the commission came hot on the heels of the violence in
Detroit, a conflict which left 43 dead, several hundred wounded and
over 5,000 people homeless. Johnson sent troubleshooter Cyrus Vance,
later Secretary of Defense, as his personal observer to Detroit. The
commission issued its' final report, completed in less than a year, on
March 1, 1968.
Although the Kerner Commission has over the years become associated
with a somewhat benign, if not benevolent character, codifying the
obvious, "we live in two increasingly separate America's" etc., the
fact is that the commission itself was but one manifestation of a
massive military/police counter-insurgency effort directed against US
citizens, hatched in an era of emergent post-Vietnam "syndrome" coupled
with elite fears of domestic insurrection.While the movement chanted
for peace and revolution, rebellious, angry and destructive urban
uprisings were occurring with alarming frequency, usually the result of
the usual spark, police brutality, white on black crime. The so-called
urban riots of 1967-1968 were the zenith, during this period, of social
and class conflict. "More than 160 disorders occurred in some 128
American cities in the first nine months of 1967."(3)
The executive order establishing the commission called for an
investigation of "the origins of the recent major civil disorders and
the influence, if any, of organizations or individuals dedicated to the
incitement or encouragement of violence."(4) The work of the commission
was funded from President Johnson's "Emergency Fund." The executive
order sought recommendations in three general areas: "short term
measures to prevent riots, better measures to contain riots once they
begin, and long term measures to eliminate riots in the future."(5)
Their two immediate aims were "to control and repress black rioters
using almost any available means", (6) and to assure white America that
everything was in hand. Commission members included Charles B. Thorton,
Chairman and CEO, Litton Industries, member of the Defense Industry
Advisory Council to the DoD and the National Security Industrial
Association, John L. Atwood, President and CEO, North American Rockwell
Corporation ("Commission Advisor on Private Enterprise"), and Herbert
Jenkins, Atlanta Chief of Police and President of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.
During the early stages of staff recruitment, commission Deputy
Executive Director Victor H. Palmieri "described the process as a war
strategy"(7) and so he might given the overwhelming presence within the
commission and its' consultants of military and police officials. One
quarter of over 200 consultants listed were big-city police chiefs,
like Daryl F. Gates, former chief LAPD. Numerous police organizations,
including the heavily funded Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(financiers of SWAT), guided the commission's deliberations. No less
than 30 police departments were represented on or before the commission
by their chiefs or deputy chiefs.
A key player within the commission, "consultant" Anthony Downs, stated
at the time that, "it would be far cheaper to repress future
large-scale urban violence through police and military action than to
pay for effective programs against remaining poverty." (8) As for the
military, twelve generals, representing various branches of the armed
services appeared before the commission or served as contractors. The
commission's "Director of Investigations", Milan C. Miskovsky, was "on
leave as assistant general counsel of the treasury, and formerly
connected to the Central Intelligence Agency."(9)
The Kerner Commission's "study" of "civil disorder" lead directly to
(civilian) recommendations regarding the role of the military in
domestic affairs. The report dutifully "commends the Army for the
advanced status of its training." Further, it states that "the
Department of the Army should participate fully in efforts to develop
nonlethal weapons and personal protective equipment appropriate for use
in civil disorders." In addition, "the Army should investigate the
possibility of utilizing psychological techniques to ventilate
hostility and lessen tension in riot control, and incorporate feasible
techniques in training the Army and National Guard units."
Under the heading, "Army Response To Civil Disorders", the commission
report states that "the commitment of federal troops to aid state and
local forces in controlling a disorder is an extraordinary actAn Army
staff task group has recently examined and reviewed a wide range of
topics relating to military operations to control urban disorders:
command and control, logistics, training, planning, doctrine,
personnel, public information, intelligence, and legal aspects." The
results of the Army brass's study was subsequently, "made known to the
National Guard and to top state and local civil and law enforcement
officers in order to stimulate review at the state and local level."(10)
The Army Task Force which assisted the Kerner Commission issued its'
own report in early 1968. In it, the Pentagon took a multi-pronged
approach to solving the civil disturbance problem. "Expanding the
suggestion of Cyrus Vance, Military Intelligence -- working with the
FBI, local, county and state police forces -- undertook a massive
domestic intelligence gathering operationthe Senior Officers Civil
Disturbance Course was instituted at the Military Police Academy in
GeorgiaSecurity forces ranging from Army troops to local police were
trained to implement their contingency plansContingency plans, called
planning packets, were prepared for every city in the country that had
a potential for student, minority or labor unrest."(11)
In addition, "the Army Task Force that had designed this program took
on a new name, the Directorate of Civil Disturbance Planning and
Operations. The Army Task Force transformation into the Directorate
occurred during the massive rioting that broke out in black ghettos of
19 cities after the assassination of Martin Luther King in April
1968."(12) At that time "seven army infantry brigades, totaling 21,000
troops were available for riot duty. And a hugh, sophisticated computer
center kept track of all public outbursts of political dissent, thereby
furnishing the first of the Army Task Force's prescribed remedies:
intelligence."(13)
By June of 1968, the Directorate had become the Directorate of Military
Support, setting up shop in the basement of the Pentagon. "Better known
as the domestic war room, the Directorate had 150 officials to carry
out around-the-clock monitoring of civil disorders, as well as to
oversee federal troop deployments when necessary. At the cost of $2.7
million, this massive directorate also developed policy advice for the
secretary of the Army on all disturbances and maintained intelligence
packets on all major U.S. cities."(14)
Even though the full extent of US military intelligence activities
during this period is far from generally known, "by 1968, many Justice
Department personnel knew that the military was preparing to move in
massively if needed to quash urban riots, and some officials feared the
development of a large national military riot force. It was well known
among top officials that the Department of Defense was spending far
more funds than the Justice Department on civil disorder
preparationsindicative of the growing trend at the federal level toward
repression and control of the urban black rioters."(15)
By 1971, Senator Sam Ervin, later of Watergate reknown, had convened
his Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights which "revealed that Military
Intelligence had established an intricate surveillance system covering
hundreds of thousands of American citizens. Committee staff members had
seen a master plan - Garden Plot -- that gave an eagle eye view of the
Army-National Guard-police strategy."(16) "At first, the Garden Plot
exercises focused primarily on racial conflict. But beginning in 1970,
the scenarios took a different twist. The joint teams, made up of cops,
soldiers and spies, began practicing battle with large groups of
protesters. California, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, was
among the most enthusiastic participants in Garden Plot war games."(17)
As time went on, "Garden Plot evolved into a series of annual training
exercises based on contingency plans to undercut riots and
demonstrations, ultimately developed for every major city in the United
States. Participants in the exercises included key officials from all
law enforcement agencies in the nation, as well as the National Guard,
the military, and representatives of the intelligence
communityAccording to the plan, joint teams would react to a variety of
scenarios based on information gathered through political espionage and
informants. The object was to quell urban unrest"(18)
Unrest of a different sort took place on the evening of February 27th
1973. At that time, a group of Native Americans occupied a trading post
in the village of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota. By the 2nd of March the takeover had "triggered the army
contingency plan for domestic disturbances. Emergency Plans White -- now
coded as Garden Plot -- brought the Army into South DakotaThree army
colonels, disguised as civilians, and reconnaissance planes assisted",
while "the Justice Department used the army to conduct intelligence for
civilian law enforcement around Wounded Knee."(19) Information on other
instances in which Garden Plot was "triggered" over the intervening
years is presently locked in Pentagon vaults.
In essence, the contemporary roots of militarized efforts to suppress
domestic rebellion lie in the US Army's master plan, Department of
Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot. Since at least 1968,
the military has expended millions of dollars in this effort. The plan
is operative right now, most recently during and after the Los Angeles
uprising of 1992. A view into details of this plan is possible by way
of an examination of United States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan
55-2, Garden Plot which is the "implementing" and "supporting plan for
the Department of the Army (DA) Civil Disturbance Plan - GARDEN PLOT --
dated 1 March 1984 (which) provides for the employment of USAF forces
in civil disturbances." It is specifically drawn up "to support the
Secretary of the Army, as DOD Executive Agent for civil disturbance
control operations (nicknamed GARDEN PLOT), with airlift and logistical
support, in assisting civil authorities in the restoration of law and
order through appropriate military commanders in the 50 States,
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and US
possessions and territories, or any political subdivision thereof." The
plan "is effective for planning on receipt and for execution on
order."(20)
U.S. Airforce 55-2 -- GARDEN PLOT
"The long title of the plan is United States Air Force Civil
Disturbance Plan 55-2, Employment of USAF Forces in Civil Disturbances.
The short title of this document is USAF Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2.
The nickname assigned by Department of the Army is GARDEN PLOT."
The plan opens with some basic "assumptions", namely that "civil
disturbances requiring intervention with military forces may occur
simultaneously in any of the 50 States, District of Columbia,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, US possessions and territories." And like
the current situation in Vieques, Puerto Rico, "civil disturbances will
normally develop over a period of time." In the event it evolves into a
confrontational situation, under Garden Plot, it is a "presidential
executive order" that "will authorize and direct the Secretary of
Defense to use the Armed Forces of the United States to restore law and
order."
According to the Air Force plan, the military will attempt "to suppress
rebellion whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the
United States, make it impractical to enforce the laws of the United
States in any state or territory by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings(10 USC 332)". Applying its' own version of equal protection
under the law, the military can intervene "when insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in a state so hinder
or obstruct the execution of the laws as to deprive individuals of
their Constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities or when the
insurrection impedes the due course of justice, and only when the
constituted authorities of the state are unable, fail or refuse to
protect that right, privilege, immunity, or to give that protection (10
USC 333)." In other words, the Army makes an offer of "protection" that
the citizenry can't refuse.
T.Alden Williams, in a sympathetic 1969 treatment of the Army in civil
disturbances, put it this way: "Where officials have not shown
determination, or have invited violence by predicting it, violence has
developed. Hence, it follows that with few exceptions, serious riots
are evidence of police failure and that, implicitly, it is at the point
of police failure that states and their cities redeem their national
constitutional guarantees and the Regular Army may be asked to
intervene."(21) Some redemption.
According to the Air Force plan's "Classification Guidance", the
roughly 200 page document "is UNCLASSIFIED and does not come within the
scope of direction governing the protection of information affecting
national security. Although it is UNCLASSIFIED, it is FOR OFFICIAL USE
ONLY as directed by AFR 12-30. This plan contains information that is
of internal use to DOD and, through disclosure, would tend to allow
persons to violate the law or hinder enforcement of the law."
Consequently, the plan's "operations orders and operating procedures
must be designed to provide the highest degree of security possible."
Therefore "the entire staff should identify known or suspected
opposition awareness of previous operations and operations plans",
while "procedures should be designed to eliminate the suspect sources
to the degree possible." And "in the event of organized oppositionsome
sort of advisory intelligence gathering capability should be assumed."
The Air Force document warns, under the heading of "Open Literature
Threat", presaging current military discourse on "info-war", that "any
information/document, though seemingly unclassified, which reveals
information concerning this Plan is a threat to OPSEC (operational
security)" This is especially true given the nature of the "Human
Intelligence (HUMINT) Threat." Recognizing that, "prior to and during
sustained military operations in Support of the Plan, the potential
HUMINT threat could be considerable", the plan recommends that "every
effort should be made to reduce vulnerability to this threat by
adhering to OPSEC procedures and safeguarding Essential Elements of
Friendly Information (EEFI)."
Under "Operations to be Conducted: Deployment", the Air Force plan
states that "a civil disturbance condition (CIDCON) system which has
been established to provide an orderly and timely increase in
preparedness for designated forces to deploy for civil disturbances
control operations, will be on an as required basis for USAF resources
for such operations as aerial resupply, aerial reconnaisance, airborn
psychological operations, command and control communications systems,
aeromedical evacuation, helicopter and weather support." The Air Force
does have some experience in this area. "In response to the US invasion
of Cambodia, student unrest broke out. Under Operation Garden Plot,
from 30 April through May 4, 1970, 9th Air Force airlift units
transported civil disturbance control forces from Ft. Bragg to various
locations throughout the eastern US."(22) In fact, two years earlier,
"Air Force Reserve C-119 and C-124 units participated in Garden Plot
operations set up to quell domestic strife that followed the
assassination of Martin Luther King."(23)
Although the section on "Counterintelligence Targets and Requirements"
is "omitted", the plan does specify its' targets, namely, those
"disruptive elements, extremists or dissidents perpetrating civil
disorder." A "civil disturbance" is defined as a "riot, acts of
violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, or other
disorders prejudicial to public law and order. The term civil
disturbance includes all domestic conditions requiring the use of
federal armed forces pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15, Title
10, United States Code." Conditions precipitating Garden Plot
activation are "those that threaten to reach or have reached such
proportions that civil authorities cannot or will not maintain public
order." As for legal authority, "the Constitution of the United States
and numerous statutes provide the President with the authority to
commit Federal military forces within the United StatesDOD Directive
3025.12 provides guidance in committing Federal armed forces."
The "application of forces should be in the following order: local and
state police, Army and (in support role) Air National Guard under State
control, Federal civil law enforcement officials, federal military
forces to include Army and (in support role) Air National Guard."
According to the plan, "State Adjutants General prepare civil
disturbance plans for the employment of National Guard units under
state control." Specifically, "as a general rule for planning purposes,
the minimum forces to be supported in any single objective area is
5,000. The maximum to be supported is 12,000 for any objective area
other than Washington, DC and 18,000 for Washington, DC." The
"objective areas" are "those specified by the Presidential Proclamation
and Executive Order in which the Secretary of Defense has been directed
to restore law and order", and as "further defined by the Letter of
Instruction issued to Task Force Commanders by the Chief of Staff, US
Army."
In order to avoid the unseemly implications of "martial law",
"requirements for the commitment of Federal military forces will not
result in the declaration of a National Emergency". In this regard, the
"Public Affairs Objectives" include the development of "procedures for
the public release of appropriate information regardingcivil
disturbance control operations." Media and other queries "concerning
employment of control forcesmay be locally answered by an interim
statement that the: Department of Defense policy is not to comment on
plans concerning the possible employment of military units and
resources to carry out assigned missions."
Concerning "Force Requirements", the plan states that, "US Army and
Marine Corps units designated for civil disturbance operations will be
trained, equipped and maintained in readiness for rapid deployment,
(with) ten brigades, prepared for rapid deployment anywhere in CONUS. A
Quick Reaction Force (QRF) will be considered to be on a 24 -- hour
alert status and capable of attaining a CIDCON 4 status in 12 hours"
Upon receipt of orders, "the Task Force Commander assumes operational
control of the military ground forces assigned for employment in the
objective area", including "specials operations assets." In case the
soldiers are unfamiliar with "urban terrain", the "Defense Mapping
Agency Topographic Center provides map services in support of civil
disturbance planning and operations."
The "Summary of the Counterintelligence and Security Situation" states
that "spontaneous civil disturbances which involve large numbers of
persons and/or which continue for a considerable period of time, may
exceed the capacity of local civil law enforcement agencies to
suppress. Although this type of activity can arise without warning as a
result of sudden, unanticipated popular unrest (past riots in such
cities as Miami, Detroit and Los Angeles serve as examples) it may also
result from more prolonged dissidence." USAF Garden Plot advises that
"if military forces are called upon to restore order, they must expect
to have only limited information available regarding the perpetrators,
their motives, capabilities, and intentions. On the other hand, such
events which occur as part of a prolonged series of dissident acts will
usually permit the advance collection of that type of information"
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC),
"provides training programs and doctrine for civil disturbance
operations to military services." The US Army Force Command (FORSCOM),
"organizes, trains, and maintains in readiness Army forces for civil
disturbance operations", while the Director of Military Support (DOMS),
"conducts, on a no-notice basis, exercises which direct headquarters of
uniformed services, appropriate CONUS command, and other DOD
components, having GARDEN PLOT responsibilities to assume a simulated
increased preparedness for specified forces." In addition, the DOMS,
"maintains an around-the-clock civil disturbance command center to
monitor incipient and on-going disturbances."
The document, the United States Air Force's "implementing plan" for the
US Army's Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot, goes on to detail
every aspect of military "suppression" of "rebellion against the
authority of the United States", including who pays, who bills and how
to secure "loans" to cover the costs "attributable to GARDEN PLOT."
Ominously, under "Resources Employed Without Presidential Directive",
the document states that when the "immediate employment of military
resources is required in cases of sudden and unexpected civil
disturbances or other emergencies endangering life or federal property,
or disrupting the normal processes of Government, expenses incurred
will be financed as a mission responsibility of the DOD component
employing the military resources."
Pentagon Directives
Department of Defense Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil
Disturbances (MACDIS) became effective on February 4, 1994 when signed
by then Defense Secretary William Perry. It states that, "the President
is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to
suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various
conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal
Government and the Department of Defense for civil disturbances are
important, do to the potential severity of the consequences of such
events for the Nation and the population." (24) Further, "the Secretary
of the Army, as DoD Executive Agent, shall provide guidance to the
other DoD Components, through DoD 3025.12-R, the DoD Civil Disturbance
Plan (GARDEN PLOT), or both, in accordance with this Directive".
DoDD 3025.12 makes it clear that "MACDIS operations are unprogrammed
emergency requirements for the Department of Defense", and that in
order to "ensure essential control and sound management of all military
forces employed in MACDIS operations, centralized direction from the
DoD Executive Agent (the Army) shall guide planning by the DoD
component." Thus, "MACDIS missions shall be decentralized through the
DoD Planning Agents or other Joint Task Force Commanders only when
specifically directed by the DoD Executive Agent."
According to the directive, the "Army and Air National Guard forces
have primary responsibility for providing military assistance to state
and local governments in civil disturbances." Accordingly, "the Army
National Guard State Area Commands (STARCs) shall plan for contingency
use of non-Federalized National Guard forces for civil disturbance
operations." The directive further outlines policy, guidelines, and
legal justification for "military assistance for civil disturbances",
including policy regarding domestic law enforcement, designating the
Army as "the principle point of contact between the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) for planning and
executing MACDIS."
The militarization of domestic "law enforcement" is founded, in part,
upon Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation with
Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, dated January 15, 1986, five years
after Congressional "drug warriors" passed the Military Cooperation
with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act. Referencing the 1971
version of DODD 3025.12 (above), Directive 5525.5 states that, "it is
DoD policy to cooperate with civilian law enforcement officials to the
extent practicalconsistent with the needs of national security and
military preparedness." (25) In addition, "the Military Departments and
Defense Agencies may provide training to Federal, State, and local
civilian law enforcement officials."
Apparently, military Judge Advocates (lawyers) have no problem with the
1878 Posse Comitatus Act, (18 U.S.C.1385) which states that: "Whoever,
except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the
Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or
the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two
years or both." Nor is there much concern shown for "the historic
tradition of limiting direct military involvement in civilian law
enforcement activities" cited by the military. For even though the
Posse Comitatus Act is cited within the Directive as "the primary
restriction on military participation in civilian law enforcement
activities", it is rendered null and void in deference to "actions that
are taken for the primary purpose of furthering a military or foreign
affairs function." In fact, "under guidance established by the
Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the
Defense Agencies concerned, the planning and execution of compatible
military training and operations may take into account the needs of
civilian law enforcement officials for information when the collection
of the information is an incidental aspect of training performed for a
military purpose."
United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances, dated
November 1985, is designed to provide hands-on "guidance for the
commander and his staff in preparing for and providing assistance to
civil authorities in civil disturbance control operations." (26) The
Army manual opens by noting that, "the DA Civil Disturbance Plan, known
as Garden Plot, provides guidance to all DOD components in planning
civil disturbance missions." Its' thirteen chapters cover, in depth,
every aspect of military "tasks and techniques employed to control
civil disturbances and neutralize special threats." Subjects include
the nature of civil disturbances, participants ("the crowd"), federal
intervention, information planning ("intelligence"), control force
operations, crowd control operations, threat analysis ("criminal
activists"), about which "law enforcement sources can provide useful
information", riot control agents, extreme force options, apprehension,
detention, and training.
According to the Army manual, "civil disturbances in any form are
prejudicial to public law and order." They "arise from acts of civil
disobedience", and "occur most often when participants in mass acts of
civil disobedience become antagonistic toward authority, and
authorities must struggle to wrest the initiative from an unruly
crowd." They are caused by "political grievances" and "urban economic
conflicts", or maybe even by "agents of foreign nations", but mostly,
"urban conflicts and community unrest arise from highly emotional
social and economic issues." And in a statement that resonates with the
"benign neglect" of some years ago, the manual points out that
disturbances may arise because "economically deprived inner-city
residents may perceive themselves treated unjustly or ignored by the
people in power."
Utilizing Garden Plot language, the manual states that "the president
can employ armed federal troops to suppress insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful assemblies, and conspiracy if such acts deprive the
people of their constitutional rights and a state's civil authorities
cannot or will not provide adequate protection." Never mind the
Congress or Constitution, "federal intervention in civil disturbances
begins with the issuance of a presidential proclamation to the citizens
engaged in the disturbance." In other words, the President reads "the
riot act" and "a control force" is sent in to "isolate the disturbance
area." The goal is to "isolate the people creating the disturbance from
those who have not yet become actively involved."
According to FM 19-15, the Army can gather intelligence on civilians if
their "activities can be linked directly to a distinct threat of a
civil disturbance that may involve federal forces." This is especially
important, given that "during civil disturbances many people engage in
unlawful behavior." Therefore, "when at all possible, civil law
enforcement agents are integrated with the military control force team
making apprehensions", and "if police are not available, military
personnel may search people incident to an apprehension." Useful
measures for "isolating an area include barriers, patrols, pass and ID
systems, and control of public utilities." Also, "imposing a curfew is
a highly effective control measure in many civil disturbances." Army
"saturation patrols", "integrated with civil police patrols", blanket
the area, creating "the psychological impression of the control force
being everywhere at once."
The Army field manual points out that when "control forces" resort to
"forceful measures" they can turn to a host of weaponry, including "the
M234, which is a nondeadly force measure, to the machine gun, which is
the most deadly force measure." The manual states that "machine guns,
7.62 millimeter and below, may accompany units on civil disturbance
missions." In addition, the "control forces" can utilize the M234
launcher, which is "a riot control weapon" mounted on an M16 rifle
which "fires a projectile that causes pain on impact." In addition,
"the riot shotgun is an extremely versatile weapon. Its appearance and
capability have a strong psychological effect on rioters."
The concept of martial rule, as distinct from martial law, is not
written, and therefore is an eminently more workable arrangement for
"law enforcement forces". That's because, as FM 19-15 points out,
"martial rule is based on public necessity. Public necessity in this
sense means public safety." According to the manual, U.S. state
authorities "may take such action within their own jurisdictions." And
yet, "whether or not martial rule has been proclaimed, commanders must
weigh each proposed action against the threat to public order and
safety. If the need for martial rule arises, the military commander at
the scene must so inform the Army Chief of Staff and await
instructions. If martial rule is imposed, the civilian population must
be informed of the restrictions and rules of conduct that the military
can enforce." Realizing the power of free speech, the manual suggests
that "during a civil disturbance, it may be advisable to prevent people
from assembling. Civil law can make it unlawful for people to meet to
plan an act of violence, rioting, or civil disturbance. Prohibitions on
assembly may forbid gatherings at any place and time." And don't
forget, "making hostile or inflammatory speeches advocating the
overthrow of the lawful government and threats against public
officials, if it endangered public safety, could violate such law."
During civil disturbance operations, "authorities must be prepared to
detain large numbers of people", forcing them into existing, though
expanded "detention facilities." Cautioning that "if there are more
detainees than civil detention facilities can handle, civil authorities
may ask the control forces to set up and operate temporary facilities."
Pending the approval of the Army Chief of Staff, the military can
detain and jail citizens en masse. "The temporary facilities are set up
on the nearest military installation or on suitable property under
federal control." These "temporary facilities" are "supervised and
controlled by MP officers and NCOs trained and experienced in Army
correctional operations. Guards and support personnel under direct
supervision and control of MP officers and NCOs need not be trained or
experienced in Army correctional operations. But they must be
specifically instructed and closely supervised in the proper use of
force"
According to the Army, the detention facilities are situated near to
the "disturbance area", but far enough away "not to be endangered by
riotous acts." Given the large numbers of potential detainees, the
logistics (holding, searching, processing areas) of such an
undertaking, new construction of such facilities "may be needed to
provide the segregation for ensuring effective control and
administration." It must be designed and "organized for a smooth flow
of traffic", while a medical "treatment area" would be utilized as a
"separate holding area for injured detainees." After a "detainee is
logged in and searched", "a file is initiated", and a "case number"
identifies the prisoner. In addition, "facility personnel also may use
hospital ID tags. Using indelible ink, they write the case number and
attach the tag to the detainees' wrist. Different colors may be used to
identify different offender classifications" Finally, if and when it
should occur, "release procedures must be coordinated with civil
authorities and appropriate legal counsel." If the "detainee" should
produce a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court, thereby
demanding ones' day in court, the Army will "respectfully reply that
the prisoner is being held by authority of the United States."
Training under FM 19-15/Garden Plot must be "continuous" and must
"develop personnel who are able to perform distasteful and dangerous
duties with discipline and objectivity." Dangerous to the local
citizenry given that "every member of the control force must be trained
to use his weapon and special equipment (including) riot batons, riot
control agent dispersers and CS grenades, grenade launchers, shotguns,
sniper rifles, cameras, portable videotape recorders, portable public
address systems, night illumination devices, firefighting apparatus,
grappling hooks, ladders, ropes, bulldozers, Army aircraft, armored
personnel carriers, and roadblock and barricade materials." Sounding a
lot like recent Urban Warrior war-games (below), the manual makes note
that although unit training must address "the sensitivity and high
visibility of civil disturbance operations", the "unit training must be
realistic." In this regard, "the unit commander should try to include
local government officials in field training exercises. The officials
can be either witnesses or participants. But care must be taken to
prevent adverse psychological effects on the local populace, especially
if tension is high."
United States Field Manual 100-19, Domestic Support Operations, dated
July 1, 1993, opens with a bit of military history: "Domestic support
operations are not new. They had their beginning with settlement of the
new world and organization of the colonial militia. With the
establishment of the United States and a federal military, the Army
routinely provided support to state and territorial governors as the
nation expanded westward." (27) Further clarifying the Army's role in
law enforcement, the manual states that "traditionally, nations have
raised and maintained armies to provide for the national defense",
whereas "today, the United States calls upon its Army to perform
various functions as well, for example, controlling civil disturbances"
Asserting that, "Congress has determined and the National Command
Authorities have directed that the military should become more engaged
in supporting domestic needs", FM 100-19 seeks to assist in this area
"by providing both operational and nonoperational support to law
enforcement", stressing that, "the Army can be a formidable force
multiplier for civil authorities." The goal of Army "force" is "to
restore law and order". And even though the military "may be used to
disperse unlawful assemblies and to patrol disturbed areas to prevent
unlawful acts", they will "remain under the military chain of command
during civil disturbance operations."
The Army is cognizant of the fact that, "federal military forces may
not give law enforcement assistance to civil authorities without
running afoul of The Posse Comitatus Act. However, Constitutional and
statutory exceptions to this prohibition do exist." For example, a
"Constitutional Exception" exists "when necessary to protect civilian
property and functions" during "a sudden and unexpected civil
disturbance" In addition, other "statutory exceptions (10 USC 371-380)
allow military personnel to provide limited support to civilian law
enforcement agencies (LEAs) indirectly. Under these laws, the military
may share certain information and provide equipment, facilities, and
other services to LEAs." Lastly, "in supporting OPLAN GARDEN PLOT,
intelligence personnel may conduct close and continuous liason with the
LEAs", especially, "the Attorney General (who) is responsible for
coordinating and managing all requests for federal military assistance
for civil disturbance operations."
The Marine Corps gets its' marching orders from Order 3000.8B,
Employment of Marine Corps Resources in Civil Disturbance (CD), dated
July 30, 1979, "scanned by MCCDPA Quant, during 1989-90 and are
uploaded as is". (28) The order opens with a reference to "DA OPLAN
Garden Plot", stating that US Marine "Garden Plot Forces" are composed
of "two battalions from the 2d Marine Division for employment in CD
missions." Taking no chances, the marines have assigned "one company to
be employed exclusively for U.S. Capitol security." According to the
Marine order, war-game training in civil disturbance suppression "will
be identified by the use of the exercise term Grown Tall." The "CIDCON"
(civil disturbance condition) alert is coordinated from the Operations
Coordination Group (OCG) at Marine Headquarters. It "initiates action",
utilizing, if necessary, "riot-control (chemical) agents by Garden Plot
Forces" (28) And while the air in Seattle still reaks of these
"agents", the military is sharpening its' skills in urban combat.
Urban Warrorior: Military Operations in Urban Terrain
"Training for war is the Army's top priority. With the exception of the
training required in OPLAN GARDEN PLOT, the Army does not normally do
specific training for domestic support missionsAs an exception to most
domestic support operations, OPLAN GARDEN PLOT requires that Army units
conduct civil disturbance training."
US Army Field Manual 100-19
"You know, you never hear of suburban war", said Zulene Mayfield of the
Chester (Pennsylvania)) Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL),
"always urban warwhy is that?"(29) She and scores of other American
citizens are up in arms over the recent series of urban war games
executed by the U.S. Marines and Special Forces in some 20 cities
across the U.S. Code named "Operation Urban Warrior", the military
exercises could very well be Garden Plot/Grown Tall maneuvers in
disguise. This past May 13th, "acting under the cloak of darkness, 100
Army Special Operations troops descended on two vacant public housing
complexes in three training exercises and terrified nearby residents
and surprised even the housing directorResidents of the areas around
the two projects, some of whom were notified hours beforehand of a law
enforcement training exercise, said they found the experience startling
and intimidating." (30) Defining the exercise as a "law enforcement
training exercise" was appropriate, given the fact that according to
witnesses, most of the troops were dressed as police.
"This is beyond reasoning, people are traumatized and terrified,
Vietnam vets are experiencing flashbacks", said Mayfield. Many in the
Chester community are angry "with the arrogance of all parties
involved", and are determined to "deal with the local government, which
has been totally unresponsive." This past June 1st the citizens of
Chester marched to Mayor Dominic Pileggi's house, who refused, or was
unable to answer questions about the military invasion. Targeting their
local Congressman Bob Brady, the public housing residents of Chester
are trying to get some answers as to why their community was subjected
to "no-notice" exercises using real ammunition and explosives. And
despite the military's disclaimer that they are using "less than
lethal" bombs and bullets, this is little consolation to the terrified
residents of Chester. As Mayfield sees it, "if they are using
disintegrating bullets, why are the windows blown out?"
In some cases the Army was asked to leave town. "In March 1997, the
City of Charlotte, NC, evicted the Army after the first night of a
would-be three night stand after public outcry. Likewise, the army cut
short its stay in Houston and Pittsburgh when its activities, which
typically involved fatigue-clad soldiers bearing arms and setting off
minor charges, prompted fears."(31) Angered by "the misrepresentation
of the proposed training exercise", Charlotte Mayor Patrick McCrory,
stated in a letter to President Clinton, that "on the night of March 4,
(1997) residents of the uptown neighborhoods were stunned by the sudden
appearance of 12 low-flying helicopters without lights, in possible
violation of FAA regulations. There were snipers on rooftops shooting
live ammunition at fake targets. Explosive devices were set off,
creating a tremendous amount of noise. Given these conditions and the
large number of military personnel in the area, neighborhood residents
were in fear. Many of them called 911 to get what scant information was
available, and many of them called me at home. I could hardly hear some
of them because of the noise." As a result of pressure generated by
outraged citizens of Charlotte, "we insisted the DOD cancel the
exercise scheduled for later that week and it is unlikely we would be
willing to host any future activities of this type."(32) It might have
also been related to the fact that some residents began "carrying
weapons in case the troops arrived."(33) Army Special Operations
spokesman Walter Sokalski offered up the lame "this Army saves lives.
We want to thank the communities for being a part of saving lives in
the future."(34)
The Army also got the cold shoulder in San Francisco this past February
as protests shut down a portion of the exercise which was to involve
"five ships, 6,000 sailors and Marines, and four days of simulated
combat using helicopters and F-18 bombers, tens of thousands of blank
rounds of small arms fire, and simulated explosions."(35) Other cities
which have experienced the little-or-no-notice drills include
Jacksonville, Florida, Chicago, the Corpus Christi area of Texas, New
York, Charleston, South Carolina, and Oakland, California, who unlike
their neighbors across the bay, welcomed the military. "If San
Francisco didn't want it, we're happy to accommodate," said Stacey
Wells, press secretary to Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown. (36)
Cities that were targeted for the war-games had a few things in common.
One was the near total lack of information or warning passed on to the
residents, including city officials, prior to the onslaught. Except for
the occasional police chief, (makes sense) no one was let in on the
planned "exercises", and when they were, they were sworn to solemn
secrecy! Another tendency was "the satchel full of cash" the military
used to bribe officials into compliance and pay for damages. For
example, even though the Army wasn't asked to pay for damages to an old
police building in Kingsville, Texas, because it was going to be torn
down anyway, the fire marshal and the other officials said the Army
promptly paid the police and fire departments for their time. "They
paid cash money. They had a satchel ready to go."(37) In another
instance, in early 1998 Army officials approached San Antonio, Texas,
Mayor Howard Peak, about training in San Antonio, but he refused to
give his consent because the Army would not divulge the details of the
operation. At that point, he said, "they tried to go around us and
offer money to people for their support, which was very
unfortunate."(38)
Since 1994, the U.S. Army Specials Operations Command, set up in 1989
and based at Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina, has conducted
(or tried to conduct) the series of "Operation Urban Warrior" training
exercises. The stated rationale for the Marine exercises is "the
expectation that future wars are increasingly likely to be waged on
city streets."(39) Part of the operation's stated mission and goals
include the enhancement of "domestic national security", with the goal
of conducting combat operations "in an urban environment against a
backdrop of civil unrest, and restore order."(40)
Col. Mark Thiffault, Director, Joint Information Bureau, Operation
Urban Warrior, stresses that "potential foes view cities as a way to
limit the technological advantages of our military. They know that
cities, and their narrow streets, confusing layout and large number of
civilian non-combatants, place limits on our technological superiority
and especially our use of firepower. We have to develop technologies
that allow us to win while minimizing collateral damage."(41)
The Urban Warrior Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE) recently took
place this past March 12th thru 22nd, examining "new concepts, tactics,
techniques and procedures, and technologies to meet the challenges of
conflict" in urban areas, where "by 2020, approximately seventy percent
of the world's population will live." Operation Urban Warrior internet
homepage recently made unavailable its website on "marines prepared for
protesters" (42) Too bad.
The theory and tactics of urban warfare, currently under vigorous
scrutiny by numerous sectors of the military, fall under the subject of
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). The primary U.S. Army
doctrinal publication on the subject, Field Manual 90-10, published in
August 1979, was recently updated to FM 90-10-1, An Infantryman's Guide
to Combat in Built-up Areas. Despite this reformulation, George J.
Mordica II, analyst for the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL),
feels it needs reworking. He states that "U.S. doctrine on combat
operations in urban areas is outdated". His recommendation, that
"tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) need to be developed as an
interim measure until doctrine can be written that supports armed
combat." (43) Mordica praises "a new publication, Marine Corps
Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-35.3, Military Operations on Urbanized
Terrain, published 16 April 1998 by the United States Marine Corps." He
thinks it's the most realistic. He also likes "the Marine Corps'
current Urban Warrior experiment", believing it to be a positive step,
offering "a different approach and fresh review of many of the
questions the Army needs to address."
One of these questions concerns weaponry, and on that issue Mordica is
dead serious: "Develop weapons based on the need to defeat the threat,
not on political considerations concerning whether such a weapon would
be used in a given situation." In addition, "a high-level review of the
ammunition necessary in urban combat must be conducted. The use of
high-explosive, high-explosive plastic, white phosphorus, and flechete
rounds need to be evaluated and considered for re-introduction into the
inventory in sufficient quantities for effective training. Satchel
charges, explosives, and bangalore torpedoes should also be
re-evaluated for use in urban conditions." White Phosphorus, used in
flares, as an incendiary and for smoke screens, comes in every size
from hand grenades to howitzer shells and is, according to the EPA,
extremely toxic to humans.(44)
In addition, Mordica and the Army Center believe that, "the training we
are using to prepare our soldiers for urban combat is not realistic
enough to present the full spectrum of command and control, along with
the psychological impact, close combat, and logistical problems
associated with this kind of combat." Maybe they should get in touch
with Firearms Training Systems, Inc. They're the experts in "virtual
killing", recently consummating a "cooperative research and development
agreement" with the Office of Naval Research to "commercialize" an
"advanced training systems product line", all in the hopes of
"enhancing military and law enforcement training." (45) Realistic
training is critical, after all, according to Mordica, "the sugar
coated version of urban combat will not reflect the truth. Battles in a
city are savage, and many times do not allow for the precautions
normally taken in the field concerning refugees, civilian casualties,
evacuation of friendly and enemy wounded and dead, and prisoners of war
(POWs)." Now, "does this mean the Army cannot hold itself to a high
moral code", asks Mordica. Well, "no" he replies, but "the political
realities of urban combat have created a terminology that tends to
place limitations on how to conduct these operations...these terms
bring civility to urban combat operations." (46)
US Marine Corps Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) "X-Files" (47)
contain "tactics, techniques and procedures" which deal with "urban
attacks" (3-35.1), "urban defense" (3-35.2), "urban patrolling"
(3-35.6), and "urban sustainability" (3-35.12). Unfortunately, "these
files are accessible from the MILNET only". According to the Marine
Corp Warfighting Lab, "the X-files are pocket-sized, useful, clear
information" that "convey a synthesis of learning from experiments with
MOUT tactics, techniques, and procedures, and some enabling
technologies -- that can help us fight and win battles on urbanized
terrain."
The Rand Corporation recently published a book by author R.W.Glenn,
entitled, Marching Under Darkening Skies: The American Military and the
Impending Urban Operations Threat (1998). In it, the author examines
the state of "U.S. Military preparedness to undertake military
operations in urban terrain (MOUT)." Glenn's number one recommendation,
like his associates at CALL, is that "the four services should adopt
Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-35.3 as the initial
foundation"(48)
The 1998, MCWP 3-35.3, Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain, is
written "with emphasis on the ground combat element", (49) attempting
to provide a "level of detailed information that supports the
complexities of planning, preparing for, and executing small-unit
combat operations on urbanized terrain." Issued by the Commanding
General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Lieutenant
General J.E.Rhodes, the 367 page publication covers a range of subjects
including modern urban warfare, offensive and defensive operations,
logistics and combat support, organization, combat skills, and
weaponry, with a series of appendixes on attacking and clearing
buildings, fighting positions, subterranean operations (subways and
basements), mines and demolitions. The publication makes clear that
urbanized areas are "an incredibly complicated and fluid environment",
which "may be significant sources of future conflict." Noting that,
"cities historically are where radical ideas ferment, dissenters find
allies, mixtures of people cause ethnic friction, and discontented
groups receive media attention", the author(s) of MCWP 3-35.3 want it
to be known that into this milieu, the marines "are deployed as part of
naval expeditionary forces (NEFs) that maintain a global forward
presence for rapid crisis response", during which "urban intervention
operations must often be planned and executed in a matter of hours or
days (rather that weeks or months) to take advantage of the internal
turmoil surrounding a developing crisis."
Under the heading "Military Operations Other Than War", the
"Warfighting Publication" states in Chapter 7 that "one of the most
likely missions that U.S. Marines will undertake abroad will be
military operations other than war (MOOTW). These missions typically
will take place in the Third World." During MOOTW, "it is important to
remember that political considerations permeate at all levels." I
wonder what political considerations came into play regarding urban
warfare and the "third world" in the city of Los Angeles?
Operations Other Than War: Los Angeles 1992
"The fact that most things went right, despite the speed at which the
situation developed, validated the Department of Defense (DOD) Civil
Disturbance Plan (Operation GARDEN PLOT). However, refinements in
doctrine must be made to account for the nature of joint civil
disturbance operations in Operations Other Than War, (wherein) emerging
doctrine must pay particular attention to unique threats and closer
relationships the military must have with civilian law enforcement
agencies." This, according to a lengthy 1993 "newsletter" disseminated
by the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, entitled, "Civil Disturbance - LA Riots." (50)
According to the Center, "Civil Disturbance Operations is one facet of
the U.S. Army's vital mission to conduct Operations Other Than War. The
Los Angeles civil disturbance operation presented a unique opportunity
for the U.S. Army" While "Army doctrine deals with civil disturbances
in the context of Mass Acts of Civil Disobedience", it's important to
remember that "given the nature of the criminal element in our nation's
cities, it is reasonable to expect a propensity for greater violence
and more focused resistance from organized criminal elements during
future civil disturbances."
CALL analysts point out that "an important issue that came to the
forefront during the civil disturbance operation was that the DOD
GARDEN PLOT plan does not contain sufficient guidance on procedures for
the Army to execute selective mobilization." Correcting this oversight,
"the Department of the Army revised plan will implement guidance for
the Army, incorporating the Army Mobilization and Operations Planning
and Execution System (AMOPES) under selective mobilization."
It's true. Getting the troops out onto the streets of Los Angeles
proved to be problematic. And there were other concerns. As the CALL
analysts point out: "A military force bristling with heavy weaponry and
combat equipment will antagonize a citizenry unaccustomed to military
involvement in civil affairs. Heavy weapons invite violations in Rules
of Engagement (ROE) that could inflame public sentiment." In other
words, "be sensitive to the traditional American disquiet of standing
armies and martial law." In fact, as National Guard deployment
occurred, "some first-line leaders applied arming order levels based on
their perceptions of the threat, despite lack of reasons justifying an
elevated arming status." This was no surprise to many residents of Los
Angeles who are accustomed to "elevated" LAPD "arming status"
Some history. Back in 1991, former Clinton Secretary of State (1996),
Warren Christopher, then a private citizen, chaired an "independent
citizens commission" concerned with "arming orders", brutality and
"bias" in the Los Angeles police department. Back in 1965, Christopher
was the vice chair of ex-CIA chief McCone's study of the conflagration
in Watts, L.A. The Christopher Commissions' more recent report, pure
damage control, was released in July 1991, four months after the video
seen round the world. It stated that, "the Commission found that there
is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use
excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written
guidelines of the Department regarding force." It concluded that the
failure to control these officers and their rampant "rules of
engagement" was a "management problem."(51)
As luck would have it, Christopher was coincidentally enmeshed within
the walls of police officialdom when South Central Los Angeles blew up
once again. On Wednesday, April 29, 1992, the four L.A. cops who were
charged with assaulting Rodney King, fracturing his skull in nine
places, were found not guilty by an all-white Simi Valley jury.
Suddenly, and predictably, all hell broke loose, at first in a small
area at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues. It was at
that point that the "crowd swelled to 150, jamming and jostling the
police skirmish line", when mysteriously, "the LAPD retreated" (52),
thus insuring, that within this power vacuum, violence would erupt.
Factor in the arson for profit, eyewitness testimony regarding
strangers throwing molitovs, the California National Guardsman arrested
by traffic cops on the first night of the "riot", in whose car were the
makings for just such a bomb (53), and one begins to glimpse the
insidious nature of the LA-Garden Plot "operation", in which
provocation may have been the basic "tactic, technique and procedure"
of urban warfare.
Eventually the organized chaos stretched 32 miles, from Hollywood Hills
to Long Beach. Numerous reports chronicled the slowness of law
enforcement response, including the National Guard. The violence which
ensued lasted 5 days, leaving 54 dead and thousands injured. Thirteen
thousand people were arrested, and contrary to popular portrayals of
the "riot', nearly half of those arrested were Latino. Damage was
estimated at $1 billion. It was unquestionably the most costly civil
disturbance in U.S. history. And yet, despite all of the destruction,
the Major who commanded the California National Guard troops at the
time stated that, "the Los Angeles riots were a tremendous success for
the military."(54) Some success story. The New York Times reported
mysteriously on 5/7/92 that "police may have ignored basic riot plan."
Or maybe not. After all, scorched earth policies are as American as
apple pie.
It was private citizen Warren Christopher who was on hand to help
coordinate the "civil-military collaboration". With the police in
retreat and the National Guard in disarray, he promptly "advised Mayor
Bradley to call in the federal troops."(55) According to the post-riot,
Harrison Report, authored by Army General William H. Harrison, "Mr.
Warren Christopherfirst broached the subject of federal troops to the
Mayor's staff when he became concerned about the slowness of the
California National Guard deployment on the streets."(56) As a
consequence of his "concern", and a Presidential Executive Order on May
1st federalizing the National Guard, "the 3d Battalion, 160th Infantry
(Mechanized), 40th Infantry Division, California National Guard was
ordered to mobilize."(57) At the same moment, the Joint Task Force -
Los Angeles (JTF-LA) was formed.
The Executive Order federalizing California National Guard units also
authorized active military forces to assist in the "restoration of law
and order". As a result, "JTF-LA was assembled from US Army and Marine
forces." (58) Under "Operation Garden Plot, military forces established
intelligence exchange with suburban police departments, local city
command posts, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the LAPD
emergency operations center, the city command center, the sheriffs
office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms." In addition, "Garden Plot units used a
variety of government-owned, off-the-shelf purchased, and personally
owned equipment to effectively conduct operations. Additional
communications equipment included such things as cellular phones,
facsimile machines, and police scanners." (59) The Garden Plot "units"
remained on the streets of the city of Los Angeles for a month, until
the 29th of May.
The Military Field Commander of the California National Guard during
the uprising was Major General James D. Delk, now retired. In 1995, he
wrote a book about it, attempting to deflect criticism of National
Guard "readiness and performance", criticism being spearheaded,
interestingly enough, by the Army's, Harrison Report. The book,
entitled, Fires and Furies: The L.A. Riots, was published by a Palm
Springs, California outfit called ETC Publications. In 1996, the U.S.
Army's Foreign Military Studies office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
published a review of the book, authored by senior military analyst
Colonel William W. Mendel, in which he states that Delk's book is a
"case study in urban warfare". According to Mendel, "Fires and Furies
is a warning to U.S. military leadership about the complex
civil-military issues that face military commanders and their troops in
an operations other than war (OOTW) environment." He stresses that, "in
civil disturbance operations, it is clear that the police agencies will
not be able to handle the situation alone. Soldiers will be called upon
to support -- again." According to Mendel, the book "demonstrates that
traditional ways of thinking about civil disturbances and the ways that
the U.S. military goes about riot control training could be archaic",
demonstrating, "the military's failure to confront the compelling
issues of military operations other than war." Indeed, as Col. Mendel
states, "the readerwill be well served by Delk's identification of
critical issues concerning civil disturbances and urban war"(60)
Delk wrote a much earlier piece in 1992 while still fresh from battle.
Citing the standard "source", the "Department of Defense Civil
Disturbance (Garden Plot) Plan", which he dates "15 February 1991"
(61), he goes on to relate what it was like to be "in those
neighborhoods which are carefully avoided by most law-abiding
citizens." Citing "countless incidents of taunts and provocations by
gang members", in which "there was considerable risk taking" on the
part of he and his men, he goes on to conclude that "battle-focused
training served us much better than the civil disturbance training we
used to practice." In fact, as Delk put it, "our role was more akin to
low-intensity conflict (or urban warfare) than riot control."
Delk's fingering of "gangs" dovetailed nicely with the Los Angeles
Police Department's timely circulation of an "intelligence" memo,
disseminated only a few days after the smoke cleared, stating that
gangs under Muslim leadership were aiming to kill cops and start a war.
(62) How convenient! Who wants to start a war? Maybe the racist LA cop
who "would love to drive down Slausonwith a flame throwerwe would have
a barbecue." Or his buddy, risking life and limb, who stated, "if you
encounter these negroes shoot first and ask questions later."(63)
Since the mid-1980's US military strategists have sought to define
"military operations other than war" (MOOTW) doctrine. Their aim: to
rationalize and justify increasing application of military "expertise"
to a wider array of operations, to grow the list of situations
vulnerable to military penetration. Strikingly, this process parallels
a similar development in some urban domestic police forces. In New York
City, for example, Mayor Giuliani's "quality of life" police crackdown
against poor communities, low-wage workers, youth, jay-walkers etc.,
began by creating new laws and enforcing old ones in order to
criminalize the behavior of more and more New Yorkers. In fact, in
1995, "broken windows" police guru George Kelling stated that, "the
NYPD's legal staff is scrambling to identify other sources of authority
to arrest people."(64) It's "total war" on the homefront, The
calculated extention of the continuum of military/police "total force"
options within America is leading to a type of "total war" on the
homefront.
US Joint Chiefs of Staff pronouncements on the subject of "military
operations other than war" are contained in Joint Publication 3-07,
Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War, dated June 1999.
(65) The document states that " the wide range of MOOTW provides the
National Command Authorities with many possible options during
unsettled situations", including "options", like domestic civil
disturbance, which are "not always conducted outside the United
States." Although distinct from overt war-making, the Chiefs believe
that MOOTW is "an extension of warfighting doctrine." Its' major
feature is that it is "sensitive to political considerations", where
the requirement is to "understand the political objective and the
potential impact of inappropriate actions." To this end, MOOTW requires
"restraint in order to apply appropriate military capabilities
prudently", and "perseverance" which allows for "protracted application
of military capability in support of strategic aims." The broad listing
of MOOTW "types of operations" includes "military support to civil
authorities" under which civil disturbance operations are conducted.
The latest Army OOTW formulation is contained in Field Manual / FM
100-20. In 1990, it was called Military Operations in Low-Intensity
Conflicts and was designed, in part, to cover covert destabilization of
such nations as Nicaragua and El Salvador during the Reagan years. FM
100-20 is now known as Stability and Support Operations. The "new FM
100-20 amplifies and explains OOTWIt addresses how we might execute
peace enforcement and deal with ethnic conflict and failed states. It
also adds depth to explanations of insurgency and counterinsurgency
operations"(66)
Colonel John B. Hunt, U.S. Army retired, extended the concept of OOTW
in an article in an October 1996 issue of Military Review. (67)
Recognizing that OOTW is "a concept in flux", he argues that the Army
has not taken seriously "OOTW concepts and doctrine", concepts which
are in "disarray". Further, Hunt believes that "the Army, as an
institution has not fully accepted the doctrine", stating that, "we
still are not fully agreed on what to call it." Exasperated, he says
the Army "must name, not war -- not peace, situations." Continuing his
obsession with naming, in a section entitled, "what's in a name?", Hunt
asserts that "in addition to OOTW, the Army has used names such as
low-intensity conflict (LIC), stability operations and operations short
of war to describe these operations." According to Hunt, "one problem
the names share is that the subject is a political-military situation."
Ah, there's the rub! Hunt continues, "OOTW's goal is to persuade an
enemy to change his behavior." According to Hunt, "OOTW's essence is
that such missions are primarily political processes that are sometimes
accompanied by violence." Therefore, OOTW "emphasizes the primacy of
the political instrument of national power." Or to paraphrase
Clausewitz's characterization of war, the continuation of politics by
other means.
As Colonel Hunt sees it, "the domestic mobilization insurgency
strategy, requires a persuasive, political approach." That is why Hunt
believes that "OOTW's chief approach to war is the incorporation of
political strategy", an approach that offers "a way to act politically,
using military participation and support to solve a problem." And yet,
it must be recognized that "OOTW's chiefly political methods" operate
in a climate which is characterized by the "inequality of power",
wherein, according to Hunt, "smaller, weaker actors cannot hope to
defeat a larger, more modern power by direct military action. Their
only hope for success is to combine political, informational, economic
and military means." Consequently, Hunt predicts that "future war will
almost certainly be some amalgamation of wars of attrition and
annihilation with OOTW's political-informational methods" and that
"prospects for success are higher through using the safer and cheaper
OOTW methods of politics, propaganda and terrorism." To the point.
Homeland Defense: Domestice Military Czar
"Terrorism is multifaceted and differs from group to group and incident
to incident.Yet the single common denominator is that it is a
psychological weapon, intended to erode trust and undermine confidence
in our government, its elected officials, institutions or policies.
What makes a WMD terrorist incident unique is that it can be a
transforming event."
Frank J. Cilluffo,
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Council on Foreign Relations, Roundtable on Terrorism
"I personally believe that the next decade is a decade of homeland defense"
John Hamre
Deputy Secretary of Defense
In January 1999 the New York Times stated in an editorial that "there
have been discussions in the Pentagon, but no decision, about creating
a new domestic military command to combat terrorism. That would erode
the long-established legal principle that America's armed forces should
not be involved in domestic law enforcement." (67) While the military
has, according to the Times report, "no intention of usurping civilian
control", under the euphemistic banner of "homeland defense", the
Pentagon "decided to ask President Clinton for the power to appoint a
military leader for the continental United States."(68)
Recent testimony before a congressional committee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice stressed that, "in order to
institute a more systematic and integrative approach to protecting the
Continental United States from threats such as WMD terrorism, critical
infrastructure protection and missile defense, it may be worthwhile to
create a new Commander-in-Chief (CINC) USA. The CINCUSA would be
responsible for all Department of Defense related strategies and
activities related to homeland defense issues and would serve as a
focal point and facilitate coordination within the Department of
Defense and between the many federal, state and local law enforcement,
intelligence and medical communities with related responsibilities."(69)
White House officials "reacted favorably, characterizing the proposed
step as a relatively minor adjustment of the lines of military
authority and organization." President Clinton, whose nominal approval
was required in order to move ahead with the appointment of the
domestic military chief, commenced to "weighing the issue carefully",
promising a response. His objectivity in the matter was doubtful all
along given his authorship of various directives on the matter,
including in particular, Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection
Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May
1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39, a June 1995 presidential
"counter-terrorism" edict which provides guidance in distinguishing
"crisis management" from "consequence management".
Gregory T. Nojeim, legislative counsel on national security for the
American Civil Liberties Union, concerned about the Pentagon proposal
and its' impact on law enforcement stated that, "it's hard to believe
that a soldier with a suspect in the sights of his M-1 tank is well
positioned to protect that person's civil liberties." Nonetheless, for
at least the past three years the Pentagon has organized and planned
for "homeland defense." During that time, Defense Secretary Cohen
signed off "on a plan to create a Joint Task Force for Civil Support",
in which military forces would be involved in various types of
"anti-terrorist" law enforcement operations, reporting "to the
Department of Justice, which has the lead not only in law enforcement
but in coordinating the domestic response to terrorism."(70) Actually,
Cohen stated that "the joint task force to coordinate military actions
would be ready to respond in the event of an attack on American soil,
but under the direction of a civilian agency like the Federal Emergency
Management Agency."(71)
On October 8, 1999, Pentagon foresight was rewarded when Admiral Harold
W. Gehman Jr., NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT), was
put in charge of defending the homeland. According to script, President
Clinton "approved these new changes made by the Pentagon's top
officials as part of a routine revision of the responsibilities and
roles of its nine commands scattered across the globe." According to
this "routine revision", Admiral Gehman's new job "is to coordinate
military actions should an enemy target this country" Again, "the idea
has been criticized by civil libertarians who argue that any homeland
defense plan might open the door for the military to assume the role of
domestic police, which is prohibited by law." In reference to the
appointment of a domestic military chief, ACLU Attorney Nojeim stated
that "our concern is that there be a bright line drawn between law
enforcement and the military. This not only blurs that bright line",
warned Nojeim, "but virtually guarantees further involvement of the
military in civilian law enforcement activity."(72)
As for legal considerations, "by law, the military cannot make arrests
or act in civil law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed after
the Civil War to rein in the military, bars federal troops from doing
police work within United States borders."(73) Comforting words from
the New York Times. Unfortunately, not true. Strictly speaking, the Act
refers only to the Army and the Air Force, not to the Marines or the
National Guard in "state status". In fact, militarism is becoming
increasingly imbedded within domestic law enforcement. Incredibly, "the
paper of note" also declared that "the division of powers that bars the
military from domestic law enforcement is similar to that between the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The former does surveillance work at home and the latter abroad."
Apparently, this division of powers did not prevent an innocent
Redford, Texas teenager, 18 year old Esequiel Hernandez Jr., not far
from home, from being shot dead by Marines on a "drug interdiction"
mission along the border. As for the FBI, the bureau in the 1990's has
nearly doubled its overseas presence, having opened offices in more
than 20 foreign countries. In addition, FBI Director Freeh recently
stated that "the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency have taken
several steps to improve cooperation between agencies, including the
exchange of deputies, exchange of personnel assigned to each agency's
counterterrorism center, joint meetings, and joint operational and
analytical initiatives. At the field operational level, the FBI
sponsors 18 Joint Terrorism Task Forces in major cities to maximize
interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal, State, and
local law enforcement."(74)
The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, (18 U.S.C. 1385), often cited as a
barrier to domestic military activity, reads as follows: "Whoever,
except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the
Constitution or Act of congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or
Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or
both." Under the so-called "drug war", "exceptions" to the Posse
Comitatus Act have proliferated. "Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia,
who specializes in National Security issues, said another exception
became law in the Reagan Administration when Congress permitted Posse
Comitatus to be waived in the event of nuclear terrorism." Congress
later widened the exception in a "little known provision" sponsored by
then Senator Nunn. Known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Bill, the Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 gave "the Pentagon
power to step in domestically in the event of chemical and germ
attacks."(75) The military, for its part, is making the very same
arguments.
US Army Colonel Sean J. Berne argues in a recent article for Military
Review entitled, "Defending Sovereignty: Domestic Operations and Legal
Precedents", that although "there continues to be considerable concern
over the legal authority and limits of using the Armed Forces in
domestic actions", and that some would even "argue against virtually
any involvement by the military in domestic operations, that
involvement is key to safeguarding national security and guaranteeing
the continued freedom of our citizens." Berne asserts that "under
specific circumstances, use of military forces in domestic operations,
while controversial, is not only appropriate, but legal and warranted."
The Colonel has little patience for "preconceived notions concerning
civil-military relations based on incomplete information." While those
who object to the military becoming the police usually cite, among
other things, the Posse Comitatus Act, it is not, according to Colonel
Berne, "the final word on the subject." He states that "based on
emergency situations and emerging threats to national security,
Congress passed a number of exceptions clearing the way for
significantly increased involvement by the Armed Forces in domestic
activities."
These "exceptions" to Posse Comitatus, or to put it in more precise
language, these new missions for the military inside America, include
"Title 10, US Code, Sections 331-335 dealing with civil disturbances
and insurrection." These sections, and other "exceptions", according to
Berne, "also provide the Executive and Legislative branches with a
standing force involved with domestic law enforcement on a day-today
basis." Now, while "at first blush it would appear these amendments
could be in conflict with the intent of the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act by placing a
potentially unchecked military in a position to infringe on Fourth and
Fifth Amendment right", we'll, don't be afraid, take comfort in the
notion that our "Congress went to great lengths to ensure
thatcivil-military relationships would not be subverted." And besides,
"no case has been found involving criminal prosecution of anyone for
Posse Comitatus violations."(76) So, lets get our heads screwed on
right, cause after all, as Colonel Thomas R. Lujan, lead attorney
("staff judge advocate") for US Special Operations Command said back in
1997, "our nation can ill afford to have the effectiveness of its
military assets artificially constrained by a misunderstanding of the
law."(77)
Along those same lines, the Air Force's Air University offered a 1998
course entitled "The Posse Comitatus Act: Consideration of its
Contemporary Value/Appropriateness." An abstract of the course states
that "this project will review the history of the Posse Comitatus Act,
the rationale for its existence, contemporary exceptions, and explore
the logic for its continued existence and enforcement. If it is
determined the Act is no longer necessary, consideration will be given
to making a recommendation for modification or elimination of the
Act."(78) Finally, the US Army Peacekeeping Institute summed it up this
way in a slide entitled: "The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385)." It's
simple: "Exceptions: Military Purpose Doctrine, Sovereign Authority,
Civil Disturbances."(79)
This past year, President Clinton appointed Richard A. Clark his
national counter-terrorism coordinator, his point man on domestic
counter-insurgency. Earlier this summer, Clark wrote a piece for the
journal Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement, entitled, "The
Intelligence Threat Assessment Function and the New Threats".(80)
During the Bush Administration, he was a staff member of the National
Security Council and has remained there ever since. Sitting in Oliver
North's old office at the NSC, Clark is trying mightily to "coordinate
everything from the Pentagon and its evolving plans to defend the
United States against terrorists down to local police and fire
departments."(81) At a recent National Governors Association conference
attended by "emergency planners" from 45 states, Clark said that, "in
the future, they will look for our Achilles' heel, and it's here - here
in the homeland."(82) At the conference, Clark and Attorney General
Reno outlined various ways in which that "defense" is coming together,
including congressional approval for President Clinton to recall
(involuntarily) 200,000 reservists for up to 270 days. The National
Guard and Reserve Units have been designated as among the "first
responders" in the event of an "incident".
On May 22, 1998, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen announced "the
stationing plan for 10 recently announced rapid assessment elements
using National Guard personnel." According to Cohen, the Guard teams,
at a cost of some $50 million, "are part of Department of Defense 's
overall effort to support local, state and federal civil authorities in
the event of an incident involving the use of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) on U.S. soil." The teams, placed in the regions
designated by FEMA, are stationed in California, Colorado, Georgia,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington. The plan is that within 4 hours time they "will be able to
deploy rapidlyand pave the way for the identification and arrival of
follow-on federal response assets." According to Cohen, they "will act
as the tip of the national military spear." In support of this plan,
Cohen called for the "total force" "integration" of the National Guard
and "other Reserve components" into "a national WMD preparedness
strategy." (83) New York's Governor George Pataki, enamored over the
new role of the New York National Guard, which had been "developing the
doctrine of homeland defense over the past year and a half", stated on
July 20, 1998 that "with the Guard stronger than ever, the creation of
this unit is a right step at the right time."(84) New York is part of
FEMA Region II, which consists of New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Some months earlier the DOD released Department of Defense Plan for
Integrating National Guard and Reserve Component Support for Response
to Attacks Using Weapons of Mass Destruction, spelling out the
particulars on the subject of National Guard/Reserve "integration".
Among its numerous chapters, a section entitled "Response Elements:
Civil Disturbances" states that "the potential for lawlessness and
disorder will exist following any WMD incident. Units designated with
on-street civil disturbance missions need to have awareness level
training on WMD incidents."(85) In this regard, the report references
not only the Posse Comitatus Act (Title 18, Sections 1385) and the
Insurrection Act (Title 10, Sections 331-335), but also DOD Directive
3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances. Lt. General Edward
Baca, chief of the National Guard Bureau, stated in 1998 that the Guard
was ready to implement homeland defense initiatives. "We are now in the
process of determining what the threats are so that doctrine can be
developed to meet those threats."(86) While the "threats" may require
determination, the process of militarizing law enforcement to meet the
"threats" is clear.
On the 3rd of March, 1998, Army Brig. Gen. Roger Schultz, deputy for
the Director of Military Support, the DOD agency that coordinates
"assistance" to local law enforcement, stated that "we don't know when
and we don't know the place, but we will be attacked." Gen. Schultz
"sees a nation and citizenry not fully prepared for attacks", and the
new Guard program "will help educate the public about its
vulnerability." But even more, Schultz wants to make the point that
"the task we're going to be training Guard and Reserve soldiers and
airmen on is related to our warfighting. We're not just investing in a
domestic response, we're investing in a commander in chief's
requirement to go to war."(87)
This past April 27-29, 1999, the US military's Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) held its' Modeling and Simulation Advisory Council and
Distributed Simulation Working Group Meeting at the Joint Warfighting
Center, Fort Monroe, Virginia. The session took up the issue of
"homeland defense" in a series of briefings (slide shows). One such
briefing, entitled, Army Force XXI - New Analysis Requirement,
explicitly lists elements of "homeland defense" including "domestic
preparedness, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), terrorism, civil
disorder, evacuations, natural disasters." Stating that "examples of
M&S in Support of Domestic Preparedness" include "operation Test
Visualization (OTV)", the briefing explains that OTV "provides real
time and playback capability for live or simulated exercises" which
"law enforcement agencies agree is needed," Currently, they are busy at
work "with the San Bernadino Sheriff's Department and Boeing to provide
training and analysis for Shoot House exercises." These "Soldier
Station" scenarios include "MOUT, non-lethal weapons and Land
Warrior/Force XXI" elements, as well as "complete search and capture
scenarios for the San Bernadino Sheriff's Department." Hands-on
"incident command operations" with the San Bernadino Sheriff's
Department completed in February 1999 consisted of a "single
jurisdiction, multi-agency response to civil disorder."(88)
In January 1999, the Washington, DC based Center for Strategic and
International Studies released a study entitled Defending the U.S.
Homeland, which calls for the Pentagon to "develop, deploy, and operate
a wide range of defensive measures for the protection of the U.S.
homeland." The Center, founded in 1962, is a public policy research
institution that maintains resident experts on all the world's major
geographical regions. It also covers key functional areas, such as
international finance, U.S. domestic and economic policy, and U.S.
foreign policy and national security issues. On January 1, 1999, none
other than former Congressman Sam Nunn assumed the position of chairman
of the CSIS Board of Trustees. At that time the Center made known its'
differences with President Clinton's proposals to defend the homeland,
stating that "the President's program is useful to cope with isolated
terrorist attacks involving biological or nuclear weapons. However, it
fails to address the need for the Pentagon to be prepared for taking
the lead should a rogue state smuggle such weapons into the United
States." The study's author, Fred C. Ikle, former Under Secretary of
Defense in the Reagan Administration, pointed out other inadequacies,
such as "inadequate or insufficiently understood legal authorities for
a military role in homeland defense", although Ikle believes that
"legislation can overcome this deficiency." Towards that end, a future
CSIS study intends to "address the legal aspects of the military's role
in homeland defense." Dr. Ikle, a CSIS "distinguished scholar", is
currently also a director of the National Endowment for Democracy.
The Centers' Global Organized Crime Project is chaired by William
Webster, former Director of the CIA and FBI. CSIS "Senior Advisor"
Arnaud de Borchgrave serves as Project Director. The Project membership
lists numerous former intelligence and defense chiefs including former
directors Woolsey, Soyster, Schlesinger, Brown, Gates, Deutch, Rumsfeld
and Cohen (prior to his current appointment), as well as CSIS
"scholar", Walter Laqueur, cochair, International Research Council, and
holder of the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy.
Although the Project believes that "the rise of transnational organized
crime is an unfortunate by-product of globalization", its' Terrorism
Task Force believes that "zealots are arriving on the scene not with
traditional political objectives but with more unique idiosyncratic,
religious, or personally psychotic purposes." Its' members include
former FEMA head Lt.Gen.Julius Becton, U.S. Army, (retired) and Joshua
Lederberg of Rockefeller University.(89)
Stating that "rogue nations or transnational actors may be able to
threaten our homeland", a 1997 report by the National Defense Panel,
entitled Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century,
advises that "the terrorist threat to the United States is a complex
issue which, as it encroaches upon U.S. territory, transitions from a
Defense and State activity to one managed primarily by the Department
of Justice or local law enforcement." (90) Towards this end, the
Attorney Generals' office has established a National Domestic
Preparedness Office within the FBI. Various Presidential directives
issued over the past two years put the FBI in the lead of
counterterrorism activities. At the same time, "the mythic G-men, who
once concentrated exclusively on solving crime, are today focusing on
crime prevention as never before", making use of greatly "increased
investigatory and surveillance powers that have come with its' new
role."(91) Another sign of the FBI's expanded "homeland" mission, to go
along with its overseas activities, is the massive infusion of funding
it has received. Annual funding for the FBI's Counterterrorism program
has grown from $78.5 million in 1993 to $301.2 million in 1999. In 1995
the FBI's Counterterrorism Center, located at FBI Headquarters became
operational.
And thus, as President Clinton recently put it, does "the last big kind
of organizational piece"(92) on "homeland defense" fall into place. And
while many citizens fear greater involvement of the military in
domestic law enforcement, there is no need for concern, for as Defense
Secretary Cohen earnestly put it to Ted Koppel and the American public
the other night, "the military has no plans for a take-over"(93) Some
reassurance.
Military Coup
The winner of the 1992 "Strategy Essay Competition" sponsored by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was a National War College
student paper entitled, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of
2012."(94) Authored by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., the brief, well
documented work is a fictional, "darkly imagined excursion into the
future." It is written from the perspective of an imprisoned senior
military officer about to be executed for opposing the military
takeover of America. Accomplished through "legal" means, the coup is
portrayed as the "the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992",
including "the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses",
especially law enforcement.
Author Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, is the Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate, US Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
According to Dunlap's fictional protagonist, "Prisoner 222305759", the
passage of the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement
Agencies Act of 1981, which actually took place, was "specifically
intended to force reluctant military commanders to actively collaborate
in police work." For Dunlap's hero, the Act "was a historic change of
policy", in which "Congress initiated the use of national defense as a
rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically
the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement." This
deepening involvement in police work led, according to Dunlap, to the
"devastation of the military's martial spirit", making them unable to
"prepare for war", which emphasizes "firepower", not "studied
restraint" and "legitimate authority". The end result: "a military that
controls government", but "ironically, can't fight." A somewhat dubious
proposition, nevertheless, according to Dunlap's scenario,
militarization of domestic police forces around the country did mean
that, "the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities
to support the coup."
As the tale is told, the "politicization of the military", resulting
from its' forays "into the political process to an unprecedented
degree" as the most well endowed and "trusted arm of government", lead
inevitably to an "erosion of civilian control of the military".
According to the "fictional" scenario, heightening and seemingly
unsolveable social and economic woes fostered in the American people a
dependency on the spit-n-shine of military know-how. "Exasperated with
democracy", Dunlap laments, the American peoples' "assumptions about
the role of the military in society began also to change." Whereas in
the past, "Americans had a traditional and strong resistance to any
military intrusion in civilian affairs", they "were now rethinking the
desirability and necessity of that resistance." They were giving in to
the "all too seductive", "cost effective solution", namely, the
military solution.
At that point, in 2012, "the military's alienation from its civilian
leadership" asserts itself, when an unscrupulous military dictator
("General Brutus") is able to get himself, via the "Referendum Act",
appointed "Military Plenipotentiary". Our hero, we are lead to believe,
is never again to see the light of day. Sad story. And there you have
it. Now, the real story is that while Dunlap's "essay" is creating
quite a buzz in military circles, you hear next to nothing in the
national media. I wonder why that is. Imagine, an Air Force legal
officer writes a thesis at the prestigious National War College
hypothesizing the conditions that would lead to a coup -- something
officers never mention in public and barely even whisper in private --
and wins the top writing prize and publication in the Army's leading
professional journal. Imagine that.
An article by Thomas E. Ricks in the January 1993 issue of The Atlantic
Monthly, entitled, "Colonel Dunlap's Coup", refers to the
"fictionalized essay" as a "conservative document", and one that "is
likely to be widely discussed within the U.S. military." He believes
this is so because it represents "the kind of unfettered thinking" that
the military is encouraging. In fact, the kind of thinking "that it
wants for a professional magazine it is now developing." It should be
noted that in the article, Ricks also takes note of "last year's
military deployment to Los Angeles, dubbed Operation Garden Plot by the
Marines."
Germane to the subject of a military coup, Richard H. Kohn, former
chief of Air Force History, 1981-1991, recently launched his own
"scathing attack on what he saw as the military's alienation from its
civilian leadership." (95) Kohn is currently a professor of history at
the University of North Carolina and heads up the Triangle Institute
for Security Studies, a non-profit foundation based in North Carolina.
Recently, the Institute released a study in which it noted "a sharp
divergence found in views of military and civilians" (96). According to
a New York Times report (9/9/99), the recently completed "$500,000
study that will ultimately produce at least 20 academic papers",
revealed that "a deep gap over politics and values has opened over the
last two decades between the nations' increasingly conservative
military elite and prominent civilians without military service." A
"credibility gap" of a new type. Not to worry though, Defense Secretary
Cohen is committed "to somehow prevent a chasm from developing between
the military and civilian worlds." Interest in the study's findings, of
"a widespread unhappiness in the military with current trends in
civilian society" has created quite a buzz. "In meeting rooms and
corridors, the first findings were the hot topic" at the September 1999
annual meeting of the American Political Association in Atlanta. A
Triangle Institute conference held in October 1999 in Caughny,
Illinois, focused exclusively on "civilian-military issues" and the
consequences of the growing "gap".
Conclusion
Finally, a word on those who truly are "exasperated with democracy."
Back in 1959, Samuel P. Huntington, cited above in Dunlap, Summers and
Ricks, authored The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of
Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge University Press). By 1975,
Huntington was putting his talents to good use by authoring the final
report of David Rockefellers' Trilateral Commission. Titled, The Crisis
of Democracy (New York University Press, 1975), the report is a
blue-print for counter-revolution. It supplies the ultimate logic for
the existence of Garden Plot. It explains a military and police in
training to pre-empt democracy and defend the rule of the rich.
Its' infamous text is quite instructive regarding the latest phase of
corporativist fascism within the American military-industrial complex.
Characterizing popular resistance and "civil disturbance" as a kind of
"distemper" among the clamoring masses, the report recommends
obliterating democracy in America. According to the report, the remedy
to the ongoing corporate "crisis in authority", (suffered most recently
in Seattle), is to enforce, according to Huntington, "a greater degree
of moderation in democracy". Believing that popular resistance to
military and police enforced corporate rule "stem from an excess of
democracy", the report goes on to enumerate ways and means of shrinking
democracy in America.
The democratic space which is under the corporate gun is the space
within which popular movements fighting for change, for freedom and
justice exist. The establishment attack is multi-level and
multi-dimensional, directly effecting all people, but its earliest and
most bloody stage is its' attack on the poor, particularly people of
color. This is where fascist ideology is in full effect, assisting in
the open violence against the people. In this regard, Huntingtons'
report declares that "in the past, every democratic society has had a
marginal population, of greater or lesser size, which has not actively
participated in politics. In itself, this marginality on the part of
some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it has also been one of the
factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively."
This "effectiveness" is real, not only for the "violent underclass"
which is facing marginalization, militarized police and the daily
machinations of genocide, but for anyone who confronts the rule of
racist corporate capital and its militarized new world order. The mass
of likely suspects is growing. Accordingly, refuting a basic tenet of
American social identity, Huntington coldly states that there are
"desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy",
and that "a value (like democracy) which is normally good in itself is
not necessarily optimized when it is maximized."
And as for those who resist the attack on their freedoms: the
military/police solution. For after all, according to the corporate
military chiefs and their legions of industrialist soldiers, "democracy
is only one way of constituting authority, and it is not necessarily a
universally applicable one." In other words, as militarism and a
culture of violence grow, American democracy becomes obsolete. Bring in
the troops. Code-name it "Garden Plot. And oh yes, card carrying
charter members of the 1975 Trilateral Commission included "riot
experts" Warren Christopher and Cyrus Vance.
In sum, the convergence of the military and the police, in the
interests of corporate sponsored social control, both here and abroad,
follows quite logically from popular American obeisance to their needs.
With one half of all federal resources devoted to the generals and
their assorted industries of death, it was only a matter of time
(timing), given the needs and sick desires of the corporate rich, that
the cop on the street would one day become a special-ops soldier,
trained to discourage dissent and to suppress protest, if necessary,
violently.
This convergence is taking place amidst or because of an unprecedented
level of corporate greed, wherein the majority of Americans are no more
than slaves to enforced (managed) scarcities and indignities imposed on
them by global American capitalist rule, a rule maintained through
force. While resistance is growing within the remnant of democracy, US
militarism, with its' fraudulent legalisms and terminologies of
deception, its' brainwashing "doctrine" and hellish weaponry, is
gearing up to meet that threat, refining its' technologies of social
control. (97)
Operation Garden Plot is a metaphor for US militarism entering the new
millenium. Its' anti-democratic essence, which is to silence, to
suppress, and to stifle freedom has become generalized, like a
spreading mushroom cloud. New military and police missions at home,
along with global "peacekeeping" and "other than war" interventions
abroad, are about more than rationalized budgets or the instincts of a
profit hungry industry. Militarist "total force" ideology is naked
counter-revolution mandated by corporate America. It aims, in its
insane drive for power and profits, to suffocate all life. Its'
pathology spares no one. That's the meaning of globalization.
Consequently, the expanding dialectic of US corporate-militarism is
creating new polarities, along with new avenues of resistance to the
"war machine"
"No one will fully comprehend the historical implications and strategy
of fascist corporativism except the true fascist manipulator or the
researcher who is able to slash through the smoke screens and disguises
the fascists set up."
George Jackson, June 21, 1971
ReSearch and Destroy
2000
Sources:
New York Times, "Pentagon Misused Millions in Funds, House Panel Says", July 22,1999, pg. A-1.
James W. Button, Black Violence, The Political Impact of the 1960's Riots, Princeton University Press, 1078, pg.116.
Button, pg.121. Also, see, Cyrus R.Vance, Final Report of Cyrus
R.Vance, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Concerning the
Detroit Riots, July 23 Through August 2, 1967.
Michael Lipsky and David J. Olson, Commission Politics: The Processing
of Racial Crisis in America, Transaction Books, 1971, pg.161. The
Executive Order is reprinted in US Riot Commission Report, Bantam
Books, 1968, pgs.534-535.
Lipsky and Olson, pg.163, citing pg.198 of a transcription of Lyndon B. Johnson, "Statement by the President", July 29, 1967.
Button, pg.107.
Lipsky and Olson, pg.165.
Anthony Downs, Opening Up the Suburbs: An Urban Strategy for America,
Yale University Press, 1973, pg.176. Downs, a Chicago based commission
"consultant", believed that the key to effective urban
counter-insurgency was the notion of "spatial deconcentration", or the
"adequate outmigration of the poor" from the cities. Downs wrote
Chapters 16 and 17 of the Kerner Report which deal with "housing". He
is the leading exponent of "deliberate dispersal policies" designed to
"disperse the urban poor more effectively". The origins of
"homelessness" (state repression) lie here.
Lipsky and Olson, pg.168.
Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Washington, DC, March 1, 1968, pgs.279-281.
Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lubow, "Bringing the War Home", New Times
Magazine, 1975, pg.20. Also, see Ron Ridenhour, "Garden Plot and the
New Action Army", CounterSpy, 1975.
Ridenhour and Lubow, pg.20.
Ridenhour and Lubow, pg.20.
Button, pg.133.
Button, pg.133.
Ridenhour and Lubow, pg18.
Donald Goldberg and Indy Badhwar, "Blueprint for Tyranny", Penthouse Magazine, August 1985, pg.72.
Goldberg and Badhwar, pg.72.
Joan M. Jensen, Army Surveillance in America, 1775-1980, Yale
University Press, 1991, pgs.257-258. This excellent historical account
actually does what it says, tracing American "internal security
measures" right back to the "founders".
United States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot,
Headquarters, United States Air Force, June 1, 1984. (roughly 200
pages, not paginated)
T. Alden Williams, "The Army in Civil Disturbance: A Profound
Dilemma?", pg.161, in ed. Robin Higham, Bayonets in the Streets,
University of Kansas Press, 1969.
Federation of American Scientists, Military Analysis Network, "Garden Plot", Nov.1998.
US Air Force News Service, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, "Air Force 50th
Anniversary: April History", March 25, 1997, pg.2. In fact, Garden Plot
may have been operative prior to and during the assassination of Martin
Luther King Jr. William F. Pepper, a long time associate of the King
family, and attorney for the late James Earl Ray, claims that the
orders to kill King, which were delivered to Special Forces operatives
in Memphis, were tied to the Garden Plot operation. Pepper states that
the orders to kill King "appeared to come from the office of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and were issued under the umbrella of the anti-black
terrorist operation Garden Plot which was a part of the overall U.S.
Command antiriot operation CINCSTRIKE which was activated with the
outbreak of any major riot." (Orders To Kill, Carroll and Graf
Publishers, 1995, pg.424)
Department of Defense Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil
Disturbances (MACDIS), February 4, 1994.
(http://web7.whs.osd.mil/text/d302512p.txt)
Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation With Civilian
Law Enforcement Officials, January 15, 1986.
(http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/referenc/briefngs/wmd/DODD5525.5DoDCooperationwithCivilianLawEnforcementOfficials.htm)
United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, November 25,
1985.
United States Army Field Manual 100-19, Domestic Support Operations, Headquarters, Department of the Army, July 1, 1993.
Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Order 3000.8B,
Employment of Marine Corps Resources in Civil Disturbance, July 30,
1979.
Interview with author.
And 31. Philadelphia Inquirer, "Army Uses Chester Public Housing For Training Exercises", May 18, 1999.
Mayor Patrick McCrory, Letter to President Clinton Protesting Army
Urban Combat Exercises, Office of the Mayor, Charlotte, North Carolina,
March 1997.
Corpus Christi Caller Times, "Army Trains Spurs Conspiracy Fears", February 16, 1999.
Philadelphia Inquirer, "Army Uses Chester Public Housing For Training Exercises", May 18, 1999.
And 36. Reuters News Service, Nando Media, "Marines Get Cold Shoulder in San Francisco, Welcomed in Oakland", 1999.
And 38. Austin American Statesman, "Invasion, South Texas" April 4, 1999.
39. Jacksonville, Florida Times Union, "100 Marines in Jackson, Florida, Urban Control Exercises", July 24,1998.
40. and 41. Operation Urban Warrior Homepage, www.defenselink.mil/specials/urbanwarrior/
Urban Warrior Advanced Warfighting Experiment,
www.mcwl.quanticousmc.mil/mcwl/uw.html, see also, Marine Corps
Warfighting Lab: Capable Warrior, www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/
George J. Mordica II, Analyst, Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL),
"It's a Dirty War, but Somebody has to do it". (n.d.) See also on the
subject of MOUT, General Charles C. Krulak, "The Strategic Corporal:
Leadership in the Three Block War", Marines Magazine, January 1999,
Robert F. Hahn II and Bonnie Jezior, "Urban Warfare and the Urban
Warfighter of 2025", Parameters Magazine, Summer 1999, Interview with
Lt.General John Rhodes, head of US Marines Combat Development Command,
on the subject of "future warfighting", Janes Defense Weekly,
Vol.29-No.5, James Kitfield, untitled article dealing with "urban
warfare as the inevitable wave of the future", Air Force
Magazine,Vol.81-No.12, December 1998.
The Vieques Times, "President's Panel Not Satisfied with Navy's ?Safety' Reports",
Volume 129, August 1999, 153 Flamboyan Street, Vieques, Puerto Rico, 00765.
www.viequestimes.com The people of Vieques, Puerto Rico have a lot of experience
dealing with US military weaponry.
United States Office of Navy Research, Technology Transfer, Industrial Outreach Division,
Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division,
www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/industrial/wtet.htm
46. Mordica.
US Marine Corps X-Files, "are an evolving body of knowledge that will
be refined and inserted into the Marine Corps Combat Development System
when the Urban Warrior experiments are concluded."
www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/mcwl/home/xfiles/xfiles.html See also USMC
"Urban Warfare Joint Cultural Intelligence Seminar, Summary Report"
4/13/99,www.ootw.quantico.usmc.mil/cultural_seminar_urban_warfare.htm
48. R.W.Glenn, Marching Under Darkening Skies: The American Military and the Impending
Urban Operations Threat, Rand, 1998. (quotes from RAND Abstract, DOC.NO.MR-
1007-A)
49. Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-35.3, Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain,
Department of the Navy, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, Washington, DC,
April 16,1998. "Point of contact": Major Mark Sumner DSN 278
-6228.www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/mcwp/htm/mcwp3353.htm
50. Operations Other Than War, Volume III, Civil Disturbance -- L.A. Riots, 93-7,
November 1993, Center for Army Lessons Learned, Combined Arms Command,
Director: Colonel Roger K. Spickelmier, Writers: Capt. Curt Hoover, Dr.
Lon R. Seglie, Contributors: the California National Guard.
Law Enforcement News, "LENS' 1991 People of the Year: The Christopher
Commission", Vol. XVIII, No. 351, January 31, 1992, John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York.
Alex Constantine, Blood, Carnage and the Agent Provocateur: The Truth
About the Los Angeles Riots and the Secret War Against L.A.'s
Minorities, The Constantine Report, Volume One, Los Angeles, 1993.
Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Caught Off-Guard: A Culver City
guardsman was arrested during riots", May 6, 1992, cited in
Constantine.
Major General James D. Delk, "Military Assistance in Los Angeles", Military Review, September 1992.
Colonel William W. Mendel, US Army, (retired), book review of Fires and
Furies, by James D. Delk, US Army Foreign Military Studies Office
(FMSO), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1996. See also by Mendel, "Combat in
Cities: The LA Riots and Operation Rio", FMSO, July 1996, by Major
Christopher M. Schnaubelt, "Lessons in Command and Control from the Los
Angeles Riots", Parameters Magazine, Summer 1997, by Peter Morrison,
Riot of Color: The Demographic Setting of Civil Disturbance in Los
Angeles, Rand, June 1993, by William V. Wenger, "The Los Angeles Riots:
A Batallion Commanders' Perspective", Infantry, Jan-Feb. 1994, by
Wenger and Frederick W. Young, "The Los Angeles Riots and Tactical
Intelligence", Military Intelligence, Oct-Dec.1992.
Mendel
Field Manual 100-19, Domestic Support Operations.
and 58. The Federation of American Scientists, "Garden Plot".
Mendel.
Delk.
Constantine, pg.41, citing Mike Davis, "L.A.: The Fire This Time", Covert Action Information Bulletin, Spring 1992.
Law Enforcement News.
George Kelling, "How to Run a Police Department", City Journal (Manhattan Institute), Autumn, 1995.
Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War, Joint
Publication (JP) 3-07, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Headquarters, Department
of Defense, Washington, DC, June 1999. Also, see US Marine Corps OOTW
Center for Excellance, http://www.ootw.quantico.usmc.mil/index.htm
Lieutenant Colonel John B. Hunt, US Army (retired), "OOTW: A Concept in Flux", Military Review, September-October 1996.
Hunt.
New York Times, Editorial, 1/23/99.
New York Times, pg. A21, 1/28/99.
Statement of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director, Global Organized Crime
Project, Co-Director, Terrorism Task Force, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, and U.S.
Preparedness, to the Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the U.S. House Committee on
Governmental Reform and Oversight, October 2, 1998.
New York Times, 1/28/99.
and 72. New York Times, pg. A16, 10/8/99.
New York Times, 1/28/99.
Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
The Threat to the United States Posed by Terrorists, before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
February 4, 1999.
New York Times, 1/28/99.
Colonel Sean J. Berne, U.S. Army, Defending Sovereignty: Domestic
Operations and Legal Precedents, Military Review, March-April 1999.
Thomas R. Lujan, Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army, Parameters, Autumn 1997.
United States Air Force, Air University, course title: The Posse
Comitatus Act: Consideration of Its Contemporary Value/Appropriateness,
Summer 1998. See also, Air Force Institute of Technology, A Historical
Analysis of the Posse Comitatus Act and Its Implication For The Future,
Scientific and Technical Information Network, Defense Technical
Information Center, January 9, 1997, which states that the purpose of
their analysis is "to show that the Posse Comitatus Act is an
unnecessary hindrance to the modern criminal justice system."
U.S.Army Peacekeeping Institute, (slide) Posse Comitatus Act, 1999.
Richard A.Clarke, The Intelligence Threat Assessment Function and the
New Threats, Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement, Vol.7, No.3,
Frank Cass Publishers, Winter 1999.
New York Times, pg.A3, 2/1/1999.
Dallas Morning News, 2/9/99.
News Release, Regional Rapid Assessment Element Stationing Plans
Announced, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington DC,
May 22, 1998. See also, Reserve Component Employment Study 2005,
Defense Technical Information Center, July 1999, which studied "the
full range of military missions from homeland defense to major theater
wars (MTWs)", including the formation of a "joint reserve component
virtual information operations organization." The new reserve
cyberdefense unit "would consist of individuals with information
technology skills who could perform their duties from dispersed
locations rather than working as a single consolidated unit at a
specific training center." According to Federal Computer Week, July 26,
1999, "the unit would communicate from existing reserve centers and
other DOD facilities across the country that have access to the Secret
Internet Protocol Routing Network."
Major Paul Fanning, New York Selected for Anti-Terrorist Unit, Guard Times, Vol.6, No.3, May-June 1998.
DoD Tiger Team, Department of Defense Plan for Integrating National
Guard and Reserve Component Support for Response to Attacks Using
Weapons of Mass Destruction, January 1998.
LTG Edward Baca, Commander, National Guard Bureau, Interview with National Guard Review, Winter 1998.
Paul Stone, Guard, Reserve To Take On New Role, American Forces Press Service, March 1998.
TRADOC, M&S Advisory Council Meeting, Joint Warfighting Center,
Fort Monroe, Virginia, Army Force XXI -- New Analysis Requirements,
April 27-29, 1999.
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Press Release, Domestic
Bio, Nuclear Attacks Foreseen, 1/22/99. See also Global Organized Crime
Project (www.csis.org).
National Defense Panel, Report to the Secretary of Defense,
Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, December
1, 1997.
Sam Skolnik, "A New Mission for G-Men", Legal Times, November 9, 1998.
New York Times, 1/28/99.
Defense Secretary William J. Cohen, ABC-TV Nightline, October 12, 1999.
Charles J. Dunlap, "The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012", Parameters Magazine, Winter, 1992-93, pgs. 2-20.
Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr., The New World Strategy, Simon and
Shuster, 1995, pg.199-200, citing Richard Kohn, The Public Interest,
Spring 1994.
New York Times, 9/9/99, pg. A20.
See, An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control, European
Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Scientific and Technical
Options Assessment (STOA), 6 January 1998.
(http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm )
DOC] The War at Home File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML
... 128 American cities in the first nine months of 1967."(3 ... in every size from hand
grenades to howitzer shells and is ... suspect in the sights of his M-1 tank is well ...
www.southbaymobilization.org/homepage/warathome2000.doc - Similar pages
2000