Camp FEMA Project
http://www.takebackwashington.com
BCST 8/27/06
C-SPAN BOOK TV - 9/11 COMMISSION INTERVIEW
9/11 ACCOUNTABILTY Vs. "The Case For Impeachment"
AUDIO (ABOUT 55 MINUTES)
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L002I060827-911-impeachment2.MP3
9/11 ACCOUNTABILITY....WE WHERE VERY UNJUDGEMENTAL
THE 9/11 COMMISSION....THESE GUYS ARE SHOCKING!!!!
AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001I060827-911-impeachment1.MP3
IT IS WORTH READING THESE DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO SEE A
POSSIBLE REASON SO MANY MILITARY BASES ARE CLOSING
THIS IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE...
IN OTHER WORDS- THIS IS NOT FROM THE 1940'S
America's Prison Camps
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/prison_camps.htm
Army Document Jan. 2005
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/prison_camps.pdf .pdf file
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/prison_camps.zip zipped Word file 35mb
Mirrored from Illuminati-News
http://www.illuminati-news.com/pdf/prison_camps.pdf
American Prison Camps Are on the Way
http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/
WATCH: TERROR STORM!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y
Former Congressman Warns Of Martial Law Camps In America
San Francisco Chronicle
Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
==================================================
U.S. APPROVES USE OF MILITARY AGAINST CITIZENS
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112191540/http://www.thewinds.org/1997/02/military_role.html
FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm
Compound / Range 3
This is the site with the latest info & pictures concerning the "Camp Grayling Range 3 area" speculated by some to be a citizen detention camp located on a Michigan military reservation.
Surely, this is a very real place...But, what is this place exactly, and does it serve as a sinister holding area for future government dissidents through Rex '84, Operation Garden Plot, & FEMA programs?
Decide for yourself...
http://www.geocities.com/stealth_shadow2005/index.html
Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Wed Aug 14 20:09:38 2002
68.98.68.169
Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.
By Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at
George Washington University.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, 14 August, 2002
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he
deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political
embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him
to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip
them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring
them enemy combatants.
The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and
reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas
Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become
clear and present threat to our liberties.
The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner
circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether
this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser
Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges
and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.
Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are
virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi
and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units.
Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating
Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.
This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered
that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The
Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its
declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority
in "a time of war."
In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan
to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The
administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was
no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla
is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts
that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.
Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen
whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.
Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological
terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend
which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent
to Ashcroft's new camps.
Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such
camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the
order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American
citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking
smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority,
once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.
We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his
predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered
by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself,
neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.
For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent
values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal,
where security must precede liberty.
Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has
become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.
Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens
to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist
attacks.
His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would
induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.
In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer,
Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would
cut down every law in England to get after the devil.
More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was
down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws
all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to
coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do
you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions
as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before
we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take
a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."
Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can
no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot
join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already
lost what we are defending.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article,
go to LA Times Rights and Permissions: Homepage .
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
==========================================================================
