Coup d’Etat in America?

In other words, the Clinton era legislation had already laid the legal and ideological foundations of
the "war on terrorism".

In the context of the war on terrorism, the so-called "exception" contained in the 1999
DAA legislation nullifies the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act:

"The new proposed exception to the Posse Comitatus Act would further expand a controversial measure adopted by Congress in 1996 that permitted military involvement in
"emergencies" involving chemical and biological weapons crimes.

Under that new measure, which was proposed by the Defense Department, the military would be authorized to deal with crimes involving any chemical or biological weapons — or any
other weapon of mass destruction — regardless of whether there is an "emergency." In addition, the new proposal would lift requirements that the military be reimbursed for the cost of its intervention, thus
likely increasing the number of requests for military assistance.

"Under this new provision," Nojeim said, "the mere threat of an act of terrorism would justify calling in military units. That represents a loophole large enough to
drive a battalion of army tanks through."

The defense authorization bill would also require the Pentagon to develop a plan to assign military personnel to assist Customs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
"respond to threats to national security posed by entry into the U.S. of terrorists or drug traffickers."

"the mere threat of an act of terrorism would justify calling in military units. That represents
a loophole large enough to drive a battalion of army tanks through." (ibid)

Despite this 1999 "exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act", which effectively invalidates
it, the Pentagon and Homeland Security, anxious to remove all ambiguities, are nonetheless actively lobbying the US Congress for the outright repeal of the 1878 legislation.

"new rules are needed to clearly set forth the boundaries for the use of federal military forces for homeland security. The Posse Comitatus Act is inappropriate for modern
times and needs to be replaced by a completely new law ...

It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it with a new law. ... The Posse Comitatus Act is an artifact of a different conflict-between freedom and slavery
or between North and South, if you prefer. Today’s conflict is also in a sense between freedom and slavery, but this time it is between civilization and terrorism. New problems often need new solutions, and a new set of
rules is needed for this issue.

President Bush and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using military forces for homeland security
and for enforcing the laws of the United States.

(John R. Brinkerhoff, former associate director for national preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), <A
href="http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm">http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm
)

Senator Joseph Biden (a Democrat), former Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
has also being waging, since the mid-1990s, a battle for the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. 

The Patriot Legislation

In turn, the Bush administration Patriot Acts have set the groundwork of a police state. In minute
detail, they go much further in setting the stage for the militarisation of civilian institutions.

The various provisions are very detailed and precise. The <A
href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:">USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001
entitled "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"
as well as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," ("PATRIOT Act II")
create the conditions for the militarisation of justice and police functions.

Even under a functioning civilian government, the PATRIOT Acts have already instated several features of
martial law. The extent to which they are applied is at the discretion of the military authorities.

The 2003 Patriot Act II goes much further in extending and enlarging the "Big Brother
functions" of control and surveillance of people. It vastly expands the surveillance powers, providing government access to personal bank accounts, information on home computers, telephone wire tapping, credit
card accounts, etc. (for further details, see Ratical.org at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA2.html#DSEAanalysis

The Northern Command (Northcom)

The Northern Command (Northcom)
(based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado)
was set up in April 2002 specifically in the context of the pre-emptive war on terrorism.

The creation of Northcom is consistent with the de facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the
position of a "Homeland Defense Command" leader "in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil", had already been envisaged in early 1999 by Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen. (<A
href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Posse_Comitatus_Law.html">http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Posse_Comitatus_Law.html
).

Following the Bush Administration’s decision to create Northcom, the White House instructed Justice
Department lawyers "to review the Posse Comitatus law in light of new security requirements in the war on terrorism." The 1878 Act was said to "greatly restrict the military’s ability to participate in
domestic law enforcement". (National Journal, Government Record, 22 July 2002) 

The role of Northern Command is defined in the Pentagon’s<A
href="http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/ddrraafftt_pubs/3_26fc.pdf"> "Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security (JP-26)"
 The latter constitutes a blueprint on how to defend the Homeland. Even in the case where the enemy is fabricated, and this is known at the highest levels of military-intelligence, a military coup
d’Etat would become operational in terms of the detailed command military/ security provisions contained in this document (click here to consult
JP-26)

Figure 1 Excerpt from J-36 <A
href="http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/ddrraafftt_pubs/3_26fc.pdf">Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security"
 (declassified public document)

height="697">

According to Frank Morales, "the scenario of a military take-over of America is
unfolding." And Northern Command is the core military entity in this takeover and militarisation of civilian institutions.

Northcom has a mandate to "defend the homeland" against this illusive "outside
enemy", which is said to be threatening the security of America. Amply documented, the outside enemy (Al Qaeda) is a "CIA intelligence asset". (There is an extensive bibliography on this
subject. (See See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
, http://globalresearch.ca//by-topic/sept11/
, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
)

Northcom Command Mission
includes a number of "non-military functions" including "crisis management" and "domestic civil support" implying "military support to federal, state and local authorities in the
event of a terror attack." 

"the preparation for, prevention of, deterrence of, preemption of, defense against, and response
to threats and aggression directed towards U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure; as well as crisis management, consequence management, and other domestic civil support." 
(See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm
)

Northcom has what David Isenberg describes as <A
href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL05Aa03.html">"a Creeping Civilian Mission"
. Since its inception, it has been building capabilities in domestic intelligence and law enforcement. It is in permanent liaison with the DHS and the Justice Department. It has several hundred FBI and CIA officers
stationed at its headquarters in Colorado. (National Journal, 1 May 2004). It is in permanent liaison, through an advanced communications system, with municipalities and domestic civilian law
enforcement agencies around the country. (See Isenberg, op cit
) 

Meanwhile the CIA, which has a unit operating out of Northcom, has extended its mandate to issues of
"domestic intelligence".

In other words, Northcom’s "command structure" would be activated in the case of a code
red terror alert. But Northcom does not require, in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 DAA, a terror alert, an attack or a war-like situation to intervene in the country’s civilian affairs.

To prepare for new "law enforcement" missions for the military within America, overseen by the Northern Command, the Center for Law and Military Operations, based in
Charlottesville, Virginia has published a "useful" Handbook entitled "Domestic Operational Law for Judge Advocates." According to Frank Morales, the Handbook:

 "attempts to solidify, from a legal standpoint, Pentagon penetration of America and it’s ’operations other than war,’ essentially providing the U.S. corporate elite with
lawful justification for its class war against the American people, specifically those that resist the "new world law and order" agenda." (Frank Morales, Homeland Defense and the Militarisation of
America, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html
)

According to Morales: "the ’war on terrorism’ is the cover for the war on dissent." (Ibid)

The jurisdiction of the Northern Command now extends from Mexico to Alaska. Under ("bi-national") agreements signed with neighboring countries, Northern Command can
intervene and deploy its forces and military arsenal on land, air and sea in Canada (extending into its Northern territories), throughout Mexico and in parts of the Caribbean. (See <A
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/northcom.htm
) 

Taken together, the existing legislation grants the military extensive rights to intervene in any
"emergency situation", in practice, without the prior approval of the Commander in Chief.

Concluding Remarks

America is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in its history.

An Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack is being contemplated as a "trigger mechanism" for
carrying out a Coup d’Etat.

Whether it is going to be carried out is another matter. The statements of the Bush administration
regarding the possibility of a red code alert must, nonetheless, be taken seriously.

The coded terror alerts and "terror events" which have been announced by DHS are part of a
disinformation campaign carried out by the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and Homeland Security.

US intelligence is not only involved in creating phony terror warnings, it is also firmly behind the
terror groups, providing them with covert support.( See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
)

Documented by official police sources, at least two of the DHS’s high profile post 9/11 terror alerts
were fabricated. (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
)

Media Disinformation 

A Coup d’Etat which suspends civilian institutions is not only contemplated, it has become a talking
point on network TV; it is openly debated as a "solution" to "protecting American democracy" which is said to be threatened by Islamic terrorists.

The implications of a red code alert are trivialised. Through media disinformation, citizens are being
prepared and gradually conditioned for the unthinkable. 

This ongoing militarisation of America is not a project of the Republicans.

The "war on terrorism" is part of a bipartisan agenda. Successive
US administrations since Jimmy Carter have supported the Islamic brigades and have used them in covert intelligence operations.

"Triggering Civilian Casualties"

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and
even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military
Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
).

Both "the war on terrorism" as well as the domestic war on terrorism are consistent, from the point of view of military planning, with the logic of Operation Northwoods,
Civilian casualties are used to as "a war pretext incident", to galvanize public support for a military intervention. 

Mentioned time and again by DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, a "second 9/11 attack" is contemplated; Al Qaeda, we are told, is preparing

 "...a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process."

What we are not told is that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. and that Al Qaeda remains a US sponsored "intelligence asset."

"Useful Crisis"

The assumptions and rhetoric behind Homeland Security are nothing new. They echo an earlier statements by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

 "…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat."

It is worth mentioning that Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Islamic brigades, created by the CIA
at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989). (See Brzezinski at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html
)

More recently, General Franks, the CENTCOM general who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed in an October 2003 interview to the role of what he called a 
"massive casualty-producing event". (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
, see also http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
).

Franks identifies with cynical accuracy the precise Homeland Security scenario whereby military rule might be established in America using, as in Operation Northwoods, civilian
casualties as a trigger mechanism:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to
question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (quoted in Ibid, emphasis added)

General Franks’ statement seems to accurately reflect the mood within the US Military and Homeland Security as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to
provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country"
is an ongoing operational assumption. It has become part of the broader "Washington consensus". It is a "talking point" not only in the corridors of the Pentagon, Langley and Homeland Security, but
also in the mainstream media.

Democrats and Republicans

Some people think that a change in direction will occur if the Democrats win the 2004 presidential
elections. Yet the Democrats are not opposed to the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor are they opposed to the militarisation of civilian institutions, as evidenced by their initiative to repeal the Posse
Comitatus Act.

While there are substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats, Bush’s National Security
doctrine is a continuation of that formulated under the Clinton Administration in 1995, which was based on a "strategy of containment of rogue states". 

In Fall 2003, the Democrats released their own militarisation blueprint, entitled "Progressive
Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy":

 "This 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to
dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values." (See Mark Hand, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAN403A.html

The militarisation of America is a project of the US corporate elites, with significant divisions within
the corporate establishment on how it is to be achieved. 

The corporate establishment and its associated thinks tanks and semi-secret societies (The Bildeberg,
Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.) is by no means monolithic.

Influential voices within the elites would prefer a "softer" police state apparatus, a
"democratic dictatorship" which retains the external appearances of a functioning democracy.

The Democrats’ "Progressive internationalism" is viewed by these sectors as a more
effective way of imposing the US economic and military agenda Worldwide. For instance, the Kerry-Edwards ticket is supported by billionaire George Soros, who has waged a scathing denunciation of George W. Bush and the
Neocons.

While the US Congress and the bi-partisan consensus constitutes the facade, the Military (and their
Intelligence counterparts) are, from the point of view of the corporate elites, mere foreign policy "pawns", to use Henry Kissinger’s expression, acting on behalf of dominant business interests.

The Wall Street financial establishment, the military-industrial complex, led by Lockheed Martin, the
big five weapons and aerospace defense contractors, the Texas oil giants and energy conglomerates, the construction and engineering and public utility companies including, the biotechnology conglomerates, are indelibly
behind the militarisation of America.

Elections or no Elections?

The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest, which supports American (and British) economic
and strategic interests. Its underpinnings are supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

While a Coup d’Etat triggered by a code red alert is a distinct possibility in the months ahead,
we must understand that the militarisation of civilian institutions in America is an ongoing process.

The Coup d’Etat entrenches the militarisation process. It suspends civil liberties and the antiwar
movement outright. It makes any form of reversal back to civilian forms government much more difficult to achieve.

Militarisation, however, as distinct from an outright Military Coup d’Etat, does not exclude the
electoral process.

Under a Kerry-Edwards administration, the military-intelligence apparatus —which constitutes the
backbone of the "war on terrorism" and of the police state— would remain functionally intact. So would Northern Command and the various Big Brother functions of the Department of Homeland Security.

One can indeed speculate on what might happen from now until the November presidential elections.

Whether the elections take place or not, the contours of a functioning police state under the facade of
Constitutional government have already been defined:

• the Big Brother surveillance apparatus,

• the militarisation of justice and law enforcement,

• the disinformation and propaganda network,

• the support to terrorist organizations,

• political assassinations and torture manuals,

• concentration camps,

• extensive war crimes and the blatant violation of international law,

• etc.

On the economic front, we can expect militarisation to accelerate the gamut of neoliberal economic
reforms both nationally and internationally (In the later case, they would be implemented under the auspices of the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation).

Militarisation will be accompanied by a new deadly wave of privatization of public services, urban
infrastructure would be transferred to private companies, local economies including small scale enterprises and agriculture would be further destabilized and deregulated, etc, leading to increased levels of unemployment
and the impoverishment of millions of people. 

Militarisation is an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

Related articles:

Bush Administration "Guidelines" for Postponing or Canceling the November Presidential Elections by Michel Chossudovsky, 10 July 2004, <A
href="http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407C.html">http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407C.html

The Criminalization of the State, by Michel Chossudovsky, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
February 2004

Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America by Frank Morales, Global Outlook, Issue 3, Winter 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR312A.html

"Homeland Defense" and the Militarisation of America by Frank Morales, 15 September 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html

Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by
November, by Maureen Farrell, April 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FAR404A.html

Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election by Webster Griffin Tarpley, 10 July 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TAR407B.html

Rumor Becomes Fact as Bush Administration Asks for Authority to Suspend the Election by Michael C. Ruppert , 13 July 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP407A.html

Bush backers discuss canceling elections, Emergency Rule and Martial Law, by Webster G. Tarpley 12 July 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/407A.html

FBI points finger at the CIA: Terror Alert based on Fabricated Information, 14 February 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html

Bush’s Christmas Terror Alert, by Michel Chossudovsky, 24 December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312D.html

Manufacturing Hysteria: Bogus Terror Threats and Bush’s Police State, by Kurt Nimmo, 31 December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM312A.html

Orange Code Terror Alert based on Fabricated Intelligence, by Michel Chossudovsky 3 January 2004. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO401A.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407B.html