Posted on 12/25/2007 7:06:18 PM PST by B-Chan
Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
Sources:
New America Media, January 31, 2006
Title: “Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps”
Author: Peter Dale Scott
New America Media, February 21, 2006
Title: “10-Year US Strategic Plan for Detention Camps Revives Proposals from Oliver North”
Author: Peter Dale Scott
Consortiium [sic], February 21, 2006
Title: “Bush's Mysterious ‘New Programs’”
Author: Nat Parry
Buzzflash
Title: “Detention Camp Jitters”
Author: Maureen Farrell
Community Evaluator: Dr. Gary Evans
Student Researchers: Sean Hurley and Caitlyn Peele
Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced on January 24, 2006 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps in the United States.
According to a press release posted on the Halliburton website, “The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.”
What little coverage the announcement received focused on concerns about Halliburton’s reputation for overcharging U.S. taxpayers for substandard services.
Less attention was focused on the phrase “rapid development of new programs” or what type of programs might require a major expansion of detention centers, capable of holding 5,000 people each. Jamie Zuieback, spokeswoman for ICE, declined to elaborate on what these “new programs” might be.
Only a few independent journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott, Maureen Farrell, and Nat Parry have explored what the Bush administration might actually have in mind.
Scott speculates [emphasis mine — B-chan] that the “detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.” He recalled that during the Reagan administration, National Security Council aide Oliver North organized the Rex-84 “readiness exercise,” which contemplated the Federal Emergency Management Agency rounding up and detaining 400,000 “refugees” in the event of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the U.S.
North’s exercise, which reportedly contemplated possible suspension of the Constitution, led to a line of questioning during the Iran-Contra Hearings concerning the idea that plans for expanded internment and detention facilities would not be confined to “refugees” alone.
It is relevant, says Scott, that in 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.” On February 17, 2006, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.”
Since September 11 the Bush administration has implemented a number of interrelated programs that were planned in the 1980s under President Reagan. Continuity of Government (COG) proposals — a classified plan for keeping a secret “government-within-the-government” running during and after a nuclear disaster — included vastly expanded detention capabilities, warrantless eavesdropping, and preparations for greater use of martial law.
Scott points out that, while Oliver North represented a minority element in the Reagan administration, which soon distanced itself from both the man and his proposals, the minority associated with COG planning, which included Cheney and Rumsfeld, appear to be in control of the U.S. government today.
Farrell speculates that, because another terror attack is all but certain, it seems far more likely that the detention centers would be used for post-September 11-type detentions of rounded-up immigrants rather than for a sudden deluge of immigrants flooding across the border.
Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg ventures, “Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next September 11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They’ve already done this on a smaller scale, with the ‘special registration’ detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantánamo.”
Parry notes that The Washington Post reported on February 15, 2006 that the National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) central repository holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a fourfold increase since fall of 2003.
Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the NSA’s domestic surveillance program, an NCTC official told the Post, “Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA.”
As the administration scoops up more and more names, members of Congress have questioned the elasticity of Bush’s definitions for words like terrorist “affiliates,” used to justify wiretapping Americans allegedly in contact with such people or entities.
A Defense Department document, entitled the “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support,” has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an “active, layered defense” both inside and outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to “transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the [...] U.S. homeland.” The strategy calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to “defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States.” The plan “maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us.”
But there are concerns, warns Parry, over how the Pentagon judges “threats” and who falls under the category of “those who would harm us.” A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity’s TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters.
In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already exists in the U.S. and has been in place since shortly after the September 11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order Number One, which empowered him to detain any noncitizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant. Today that order extends to U.S. citizens as well.
Farrell ends her article with the conclusion that while much speculation has been generated by KBR’s contract to build huge detention centers within the U.S., “The truth is, we won’t know the real purpose of these centers unless ‘contingency plans are needed.’ And by then, it will be too late.”
UPDATE BY PETER DALE SCOTT
The contract of the Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build immigrant detention facilities is part of a longer-term Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.” In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed similar emergency detention powers as part of a super-secret program of planning for what was euphemistically called “Continuity of Government” (COG) in the event of a nuclear disaster. At the time, Cheney was a Wyoming congressman, while Rumsfeld, who had been defense secretary under President Ford, was a businessman and CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.
These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any “national security emergency,” which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” Clearly September 11 would meet this definition, and did, for COG was instituted on that day. As the Washington Post later explained, the order “dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans.”
What these managers in this shadow government worked on has never been reported. But it is significant that the group that prepared ENDGAME was, as the Homeland Security document puts it, “chartered in September 2001.” For ENDGAME’s goal of a capacious detention capability is remarkably similar to Oliver North’s controversial Rex-84 “readiness exercise” for COG in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary “refugees,” in the context of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States.
UPDATE BY MAUREEN FARRELL
When the story about Kellogg, Brown and Root’s contract for emergency detention centers broke, immigration was not the hot button issue it is today. Given this, the language in Halliburton’s press release, stating that the centers would be built in the event of an “emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S.,” raised eyebrows, especially among those familiar with Rex-84 and other Reagan-era initiatives. FEMA’s former plans ‘for the detention of at least 21 million American Negroes [sic] in assembly centers or relocation camps’ added to the distrust, and the second stated reason for the KBR contract, “to support the rapid development of new programs,” sent imaginations reeling.
While few in the mainstream media made the connection between KBR’s contract and previous programs, Fox News eventually addressed this issue, pooh-poohing concerns as the province of “conspiracy theories” and “unfounded” fears. My article attempted to sift through the speculation, focusing on verifiable information found in declassified and leaked documents which proved that, in addition to drawing up contingency plans for martial law, the government has conducted military readiness exercises designed to round up and detain both illegal aliens and U.S. citizens.
How concerned should Americans be? Recent reports are conflicting and confusing:
• In May, 2006, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began “Operation Return to Sender,” which involved catching illegal immigrants and deporting them. In June, however, President Bush vowed that there would soon be “new infrastructures” including detention centers designed to put an end to such “catch and release” practices.
• Though Bush said he was “working with Congress to increase the number of detention facilities along our borders,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he first learned about the KBR contract through newspaper reports.
• Fox News recently quoted Pepperdine University professor Doug Kmiec, who deemed detention camp concerns “more paranoia than reality” and added that KBR’s contract is most likely “something related to (Hurricane) Katrina” or “a bird flu outbreak that could spur a mass quarantine of Americans.” The president’s stated desire for the U.S. military to take a more active role during natural disasters and to enforce quarantines in the event of a bird flu outbreak, however, have been roundly denounced.
Concern over an all-powerful [sic]federal government is not paranoia, but active citizenship. As Thomas Jefferson explained, “even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” From John Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts to FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, the land of the free has held many contradictions and ironies. Interestingly enough, Halliburton was at the center of another historical controversy, when Lyndon Johnson’s ties to a little-known company named Kellogg, Brown and Root caused a congressional commotion—particularly after the Halliburton subsidiary won enough wartime contracts to become one of the first protested symbols of the military-industrial complex. Back then they were known as the “Vietnam builders.” The question, of course, is what they’ll be known as next.
Additional links:
“Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,” Miami Herald, July 5, 1987
“Foundations are in place for martial law in the US,” July 27, 2002, Sydney Morning Herald
“Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-Era Controversy: Cheney’s Ties to Company Reminiscent of LBJ’s Relationships,” NPR, Dec. 24, 2003
“Critics Fear Emergency Centers Could Be Used for Immigration Round-Ups,” Fox News, June 7, 2006
“U.S. officials nab 2,100 illegal immigrants in 3 weeks,” USA Today, June 14, 2006
“Ahhh the good ol days”
Fond memories of “sars” and what not.
I hope we’re outta here by then. We shall see. Even the birth pangs leading up to such are likely to be less than wonderful.
The
WATCHMAN NEE effect?
LOL.
There is that . . . something I have thought of, and prayed about, BTW.
Rumors of large scale Federal detention centers have been circulating on the internet for years.
If Clinton tried that crap there would be calls for impeachment, while President Bush wants it, it’s okay.
Sad.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
‘‘(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.—
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to—
‘‘(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that—
‘‘(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
‘‘(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
‘‘(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection,
violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that—
‘‘(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
H. R. 5122—323
‘‘(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
‘‘(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
‘‘(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A)
as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days
thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.’’.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.—Section 334 of such title
is amended by inserting ‘‘or those obstructing the enforcement
of the laws’’ after ‘‘insurgents’’.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT.—The heading of chapter 15 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
‘‘CHAPTER 15—ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO
RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER’’.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(A) The tables of chapters
at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code,
and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and
inserting the following new item:
‘‘15 Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order ....................................... 331’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections
333 and inserting the following new item:
‘‘333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.’’.
(b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 152 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section: See also: http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002496845.html
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – LOCAL RESPONSE
April 24, 2007 – 7:24 p.m.
The nation’s governors and National Guard leaders oppose a provision inserted into the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill last year redefining when the president can take command of the National Guard during domestic emergencies. No member of the House or Senate is claiming responsibility for the provision, which amends the Insurrection Act of 1807.
Governors are in an uproar because the little-noticed provision was inserted into the authorization bill (PL 109-364) without consulting governors, adjutant generals or law enforcement officials across the country.
As result, all of the nation’s governors are in support of a bill (S 513) introduced Feb. 7 by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., that would repeal the language inserted into the defense authorization bill.
“This is a serious problem,” Gov. Michael F. Easley, D-N.C., told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Easley said the new language in the defense authorization measure unnecessarily expands the president’s authority to call up the National Guard and undermines the governors’ abilities to do their jobs. “This should not be a tug of war between the governors and the president,” said Easley, who is the NGA co-lead on National Guard.
But a tug-of-war it’s become.
According to a draft letter from the Department of Defense’s general counsel, obtained by Congressional Quarterly, the department opposes Leahy’s Insurrection Act Rider appeal bill. The draft letter is from William J. Haynes II, Defense general counsel, and it’s addressed to Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.
“If this legislation is enacted, it would affect the Department detrimentally by revoking a congressionally granted authority for the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to preserve life and property and by limiting the president’s authority to call upon the Reserves to restore order, repel invasions or suppress rebellions,” Haynes wrote in th draft letter.
While there are only eight cosponsors of Leahy’s bill, there has been no apparent opposition, one Senate aide said.
The administration’s alleged insistence that the president’s authority to command the guard be clarified and expanded came after much debate over the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Leahy, Judiciary Committee chairman, said the way the provision was slipped into the defense authorization bill is not appropriate. “It’s not just bad process, it’s bad policy,” he said. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., said the new provision is “ill-conceived, unnecessary and dumb.”
In addition some say the president had all the authority he needed to command the guard during Katrina, and the new language wasn’t necessary to expand authority he already possessed.
“The president’s authority under the law before [the defense authorization bill was enacted] gave the president just as much power as he has under the new law,” said Stephen Dycus, a professor at Vermont Law School who has spent years studying the Insurrection Act. “Under either measure, I think the president has all the statutory power that he wants that he could need to respond to a terrorist attack or to a natural disaster.”
Dycus said the provision “was probably stuck in as a fig leaf to cover the president’s failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.”
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, agreed that the provision may have been a face-saving move for the administration. But Fidell said someone in Congress should own up to inserting the language. “A provision that no one will defend is a provision that doesn’t belong in the U.S. Code,” Fidell said.
The original language in the Insurrection Act states that the president may use the armed forces to suppress any “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if state and local law enforcement are unable to protect citizens.
Section 1076 of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill changes the title of the Insurrection Act to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.” The bill also was expanded by allowing the president to exercise this right to include, “a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.” S 513 would repeal those changes.
See, they are already after me. Just look what they did to my fonts. WTH.
Finally someone is taking a fresh approach to ending homelessness in America.
A “progressive” approach if you will.
If the conversation at our Christmas dinner was anywhere near truth, I wonder what the real cost to the taxpayer might be.
A guest claims that in Iraq KBR operates dining services for which they receive $27.00 per individual meal served, AND the U.S. government provides the food.
If you think the government does not have the power to protect this country from all enemies and threats both foreign and DOMESTIC......
Read the Constitution.
Secondly, GWB would be the last person on the planet that I would fear.
Hillary is another story.
Certainly, government power can be used for tyranny......No doubt about it. It could happen, but it won't happen for long, and we have guns. In fact, this is why we have guns.
Post 9/11, this country has faced a variety of problems, both internal and external. It is the governments responsibility to make sure they can handle any contingency. If that makes you nervous, it should.
If this makes you angry, you are simply ignorant of the reality that we all expect our government to be ready for anything. In fact, we demand it.
Ack! The DUmmies were right!
Run!
Are these detention camps to be built somewhere close to where they have all these white buses stored and ready for deployment.... I think a bunch have been located somewhere out in the barren acreage of Texas.
‘In fact, this is why we have guns.’
Exactly my point.
We, the people, not the Gov’t have the power and are the first defenders here. The Gov’t does not need more power.
‘If this makes you angry, you are simply ignorant of the reality that we all expect our government to be ready for anything. In fact, we demand it.’
Lol. Thus the difference between us. You depend on Gov’t, I’ll depend on myself. Lol.
That sounds about right...
It reflects the costs of doing business in a war zone. This is why KBR is doing it. They are the best at it and yes, they do get paid.
But just think about cooks who make well over 200K a year, and that is less than a truck driver.
27 dollars is reasonable when you consider just how much money it takes to do what they do, and most importantly where they do it.
Hillary’s going to use them to imprison FReepers.
If the Goracle becomes President, the camps will be used for global warming deniers.
Until they realized that having so many smelly hippies confined together presented a bio-hazard.
We elect people to do things for us, and one of those things is now called homeland security.
One day, I hope it is not needed as much, but that day is not coming for a long, long time.
Like I said, it should worry you that it is necessary, but getting PO'd about it is a waste of energy.
When you put the ducks in order, the first duck is each and every American who depends on some government agency to keep the bad guys from trashing Christmas dinner. Whether you know it or like it is not the issue. The issue is that the reality of a dangerous world exists and there are indeed serious dangers that could cause or lead to a chaos in the public that could destroy the country if not controlled immediately. Everyone depends on the economy for survival. Everyone depends on government services, whether you admit it or not. There are multiple intertwined levels of dependency and security that are all necessary.
I don't think there are any more free territories where you can go and be free of government. Perhaps when we get our domestic space program in order, you can go to Mars Colony or some such. You really remind me of my younger brother. He shares your fears, and wastes a great deal of time and energy complaining about his freedoms, or lack of same. Yet he has not lost anything that he can point out, except that he can no longer shoot his guns because the city limits now extend to his property. He nearly was arrested and charged for all sorts of violations, and it has driven him nearly mad.
I tell him the same things I'm telling you. In the interim, you are stuck here, and that government needs to be watched like a hawk, but the basis for it also needs to be understood.
We have a damn good process for that, and it works. That process is not broken.
Have a nice day.....
I respectfully disagree with your constant love and want of more Gov’t and authority.
You have a nice day as well.
Given the nature of war today any government would be sorely remiss in not preparing for the possibilities.
This war is for all the marbles. It's not 1968. It ain't cute to skip around for the smiling MSM employees chanting Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh is going to win. Not this time.
Nothing less focuses the mind as well to discern the difference between loyal opposition to your government's defense policy and outright sedition and treason.
And Jihadists especially should clearly understand that thars' pain on them thar' paths to martyrdom and not just for themselves, for their supporters also.
IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.