Thursday, June 10, 2010

Operation Garden Plot / CONPLAN 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations)

 

Garden Plot / CONPLAN 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations)

Use of the military to support civil authorities stems from core national values as expressed in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 states, “Congress shall have power... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.” Article II, Section 3 states the President, “...shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the States respectively...,” providing the basis that Federal government support, including DoD assistance, is provided in support of State and local authorities.
The President is authorized by the Constitution and Title 10 (10 USC 331–334) to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence. After issuing a Cease and Desist Order, the President issues an executive order that directs the Attorney General and the SECDEF to take appropriate steps to disperse insurgents and restore law and order. The Attorney General is then responsible to coordinate the federal response to domestic civil disturbances. The restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act no longer apply to federal troops executing the orders of the President to quell the disturbance in accordance with Rules of the Use of Force (RUF) approved by the DoD General Counsel and the Attorney General.
USNORTHCOM Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations), is the plan for supporting state and local authorities during civil disturbances. This plan serves as the foundation for any CDO operation and standardizes most activities and command relationships. Tasks performed by military forces may include joint patrolling with law enforcement officers; securing key buildings, memorials, intersections and bridges; and acting as a quick reaction force. The JTF commander, a general officer, coordinates all DoD support with the Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG). DoD will usually establish a JTF headquarters near where the Attorney General’s local representative is based.
Garden Plot is the DoD Civil Disturbance Plan, the generic Operations Plan [OPLAN] for military support related to domestic civil disturbances. The department of the Army Civil Disturbance Plan (DA GARDEN PLOT), is the governing publication for planning, deployment, employment, and redeployment of federal military resources involved in countering domestic civil disturbances. Military assistance to Federal, State, and local government (including government of U.S. territories) and their law enforcement agencies for civil disturbances and civil disturbance operations, including response to terrorist incidents, are referred to cumulatively as "Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS)."
The DoD Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support (2005) defines Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) as, “DoD support, including federal military forces, the Department’s career civilian and contractor personnel, and DoD agency and component assets, for domestic emergencies and for designated law enforcement and other activities.” It notes that DSCA is also often referred to as Civil Support. There has been discussion in some DoD offices of distinguishing between the two terms: Civil Support as a total force construct with DSCA involving Federal support only and not include the National Guard in Title 32 or State Active Duty status. But as of 2008 they remained essentially synonymous.
Until the 2005 DoD Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, the term Military Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA) was essentially synonymous with Civil Support and served as an overarching construct that included three subordinate mission sets: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA), Military Assistance to Civil Disturbances (MACDIS) and Military Assistance to Civil Law Enforcement Agencies (MSCLEA). Defense Support of Civil Authority (DSCA) has replaced MACA. The term MACDIS has been replaced by Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO).
Civil disturbances are riots, 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 or likely to require the use of Federal Armed Forces pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15 of Title 10, United States Code.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA), subsequent amendments and policy decisions prohibits the use of federal military forces (to include Reserve forces) to perform internal police functions. PCA thus restricts the type of support DoD can provide domestic law enforcement organizations. There are a wide variety of exceptions to the PCA and the law essentially gives the President all the authority he needs to employ DoD forces inside the U.S. although there may appropriately be political consequence that would inhibit such employment.
The term posse comitatus [po.si komitei.tAs, -tius , [med. (Anglo) L., force of the county: see prec. and county.] applies to the 'The force of the county’; the body of men above the age of fifteen in a county (exclusive of peers, clergymen, and infirm persons), whom the sheriff may summon or ‘raise’ to repress a riot or for other purposes; also, a body of men actually so raised and commanded by the sheriff.
In the United States the posse comitatus was perhaps most important on the Western frontier (there known as a posse), but it has been preserved as an institution in many states. Sheriffs and other peace officers have the authority to summon the power of the county. In some counties it is a crime to refuse assistance. In general, members of a posse comitatus have been permitted to use force if necessary to achieve a posse’s legitimate ends, but state laws differ as to the legal liability of one who in good faith aids an officer himself acting beyond his authority.
Congress sought to terminate the prevalent use of federal soldiers in civilian law enforcement roles in the South during the Reconstruction Period following the Civil War. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 created general prohibition against use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement. The most renowned statutory exception has been traditionally referred to as The Insurrection Acts (10 USC 331–334) that were modified and renamed to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order by the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The new language clarifies Presidential authority to invoke the acts for situations resulting from natural disasters and other emergencies.
The President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to employ the Armed Forces 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 due to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population.
Military resources may be employed in support of civilian law enforcement operations in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories and possessions only in the parameters of the Constitution and laws of the United States and the authority of the President and the Secretary of Defense, including delegations of that authority through this Directive or other means.
The primary responsibility for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order in the civilian community is vested in the State and local governments. Supplementary responsibility is vested by statute in specific Agencies of the Federal Government other than the Department of Defense. The President has additional powers and responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States to ensure that law and order are maintained.
The mission at NORTHCOM is to anticipate events in the homeland and to be prepared to respond, to either prevent the attacks or defeat them if they occur and then to mitigate the consequences of those attacks should they occur. In addition, NORTHCOM has a secondary mission to provide defense support to civil authorities. It's an old mission that the Army used to lump together under the Garden Plot scenario, in that there was always a brigade that was prepared to respond to civil disturbances.
The secretary of the Army is the Executive Agent for DOD in matters pertaining to civil disturbances. The U. S. Army Director of Military Support (DOMS) is the action agent and the DOD point of contact in all such matters. The Secretary of the Army as the DOD Executive Agent, will, in the event of a civil disturbance within CONUS, exercise through the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, the direction of those forces committed to him by the military services. In the event of civil disturbances in U. S. territories and possessions and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico outside CONUS, the DOD Executive Agent exercises the direction of those forces assigned or committed to the commanders of unified or specified commands.
The Coast Guard, as well as the other Services, is required to maintain support plans. GARDEN PLOT is the name applicable to such service plans. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of operational commanders should reflect guidance herein. Military assistance to civil authorities is a peacetime matter, not to be confused with military support of civil defense (MSCD), which is a wartime function.
DOD task force operations to quell civil disturbances off military property can be initiated only by Presidential order. Cases of such initiation in the past occurred during the urban political and racial unrest in the Vietnam era when federal troops were deployed on a number of occasions. GARDEN PLOT operations may include terrorist incidents, though the FBI, not the Army, will then be the lead agent. In the event of civil unrest upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where in the Coast Guard has standing statutory responsibility, Coast Guard units will in all likelihood be legitimately involved in law enforcement operations well before any Presidential invocation of civil disturbance plans. The Coast Guard character for law enforcement and cooperation with civil authorities is much broader than that of DOD services. DOD services are subject to law enforcement restrictions that are not applicable to the Coast Guard. For policy reasons (i.e., to ensure unity of command and control), there may be instances when these restrictions are imposed upon Coast Guard personnel under a DOD task force commander's operational control.
Cooperation with other services in GARDEN PLOT operations is paramount and requires particular understanding of task force constitution and chains of command. Civil disturbance planning cannot be deliberate in that force mix and locales are obviously indeterminate. Guidance herein will provide a basis for Coast Guard participation and related area and district supplemental instructions or other directives. Actual Coast Guard participation will in all likelihood be the logical extension of traditional law enforcement functions.
The right of the United States to use federal forces to protect federal property and functions is an accepted principle of government. However, this use of federal forces is warranted only when the need for protection of Federal property or functions clearly exists and State or local authorities cannot or will not give adequate protection. Prior to the designation of a civil disturbance objective area and employment of federal forces by Presidential order, the Army may reinforce other federal forces defending federal property.
Elements of the U. S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (USAINSCOM) maintain liaison with federal, state, and municipal investigative and police agencies and on order of Department of the Army, collect and report civil disturbance information in response to requests from DA, the Personal Liaison Officer for the Chief of Staff, Army (PLOCSA), task force commanders, CONUS Army commanders, and other specified commands.
Military intelligence units have a very limited role during domestic support operations other than civil disturbance operations. U.S. Dep't of Defense, Reg. 5240.1-R, Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons (Dec. 1982)[hereinafter DOD 5240.1-R], does not apply to DOD intelligence components when they perform authorized law enforcement activities, including civil disturbance activities. In such cases, DOD intelligence components may collect, report, process, and store information on the activities of persons and organizations not affiliated with the Department in accordance with U.S. Dep't of Defense, Dir. 5200.27, Acquisition of Information Concerning Persons and Organizations Not Affiliated with the Department of Defense (7 Jan. 1980) and U.S. Dep't of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan (GARDEN PLOT) (15 Feb. 1991).
The Insurrection Act permitted the President to call the militia into Federal service to suppress insurrections and to enforce the law, including when State authorities were unable or unwilling to secure the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Rarely in U.S. history has this authority been employed. In fact, the National Guard has been federalized under the provisions of the Insurrection Act only ten (10) times since World War II.
U.S. Presidents invoked the Insurrection Act when a Governor requested such a decree or when State authorities were clearly unable or unwilling to secure the Constitutional rights of their citizens. When this authority is employed it takes control of a state’s National Guard from the Governor and places command and control within the Federal government. This requires the federalized National Guard forces to perform missions assigned by the federal government, where and when specified, which may not be consistent with a Governor’s direction that these forces conduct lifesaving, law enforcement or other critical emergency functions in support of the State emergency management agencies and incident commanders.
Controversy over civil rights and the unpopular war in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in one of the most turbulent periods in American histry. During this same time, major riots occurred in Los Angeles in 1965; Detroit in 1967; Chicago in 1968 during the Democratic National Convention; Santa Barbara, California, in 1970; East Los Angeles, California, in 1970 and 1971; and Attica, New York, in 1971, during a major prison riot. Violent rioting once again erupted across the country on April 29,1992, when four police officers were acquitted after being accused of beating a black suspect (Rodney King). Also in recent years, issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, and gun control have generated great public debate and resulted in many mass assemblies and demonstrations.
The Active Army has often led federalized forces of the various state ARNGs during periods of domestic disturbance, such as the several Garden Plot operations to restore order in major urban areas in the 1960s.
The ability of the Reserve Components to conduct operations to control civil disturbances was increased during fiscal year 1970; 375,000 National Guardsmen and 14,000 Army Reservists had been trained in riot control as the year closed. The Army National Guard conducted, at the expense of regular training, sixteen hours of refresher civil disturbance training. Some states also carried out civil disturbance command post exercises in conjunction with local and state civil authorities. The Army Reserve had three infantry brigades which were part of the federal military contingency force for the control of civil disturbances. These units also conducted sixteen hours of refresher civil disturbance training at the expense of primary training. This additional responsibility of the Reserve Components called for their immediate availability in times of natural disasters, civil disturbances, and other emergencies. The Army National Guard bore the brunt of these requirements because of its responsibility to the respective state governments. From July 1, 1969, to June 30, 1970, individual National Guard units were called in by state governors on ninety-two different occasions in thirty-one states and the District of Columbia. These included civil disturbances at Chicago, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Charleston, South Carolina; Berkeley, California; and Columbus and Kent, Ohio.
In response to the US invasion of Cambodia, student unrest broke out. Under Operation "Garden Plot," from 30 April through 04 May 1970 9th Air Force airlift units transported civil disturbance control forces from Ft Bragg to various locations throughout the eastern US. Such deployments were commonplace during the unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The 943d Rescue Group participated in Operation Garden Plot in support of Republican and Democratic conventions in 1972.
The anti-war and civil right protests picked up momentum in 1968. On 20 May 1972, the 10th Transportation Battalion assumed a secondary mission and provided 650 for a civil disturbance task force. The task force conducted garden Plot exercise on 6 and 7 September 1972 and 1st US Army commended the Soldiers for their professionalism. It conducted another Garden Plot Exercise from 18 to 20 January 1973. In February 1973, the US and North Vietnamese sign the Peace Accords in Paris and the US agreed to withdraw ground units from Vietnam. With troops out of the war, the need for a civil disturbance task force diminished. They conducted another Garden Plot Exercise on 28 June and 19 December 1973.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/garden_plot.htm

 

Rex 84

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, is a plan by the United States federal government to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of civil unrest or national emergency.

The Miami Herald reported on July 5, 1987:
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ... had drafted a contingency plan providing for the suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, and the appointment of military commanders to head state and local governments and to detain dissidents and Central American refugees in the event of a national crisis.[1]
According to scholar Diana Reynolds:
The Rex-84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Exercise Plan; otherwise known as a continuity of government plan), indicates that FEMA in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies, along with other NATO nations, conducted a civil readiness exercise during April 5-13, 1984. It was conducted in coordination and simultaneously with a Joint Chiefs exercise, Night Train 84, a worldwide military command post exercise (including Continental U.S. Forces or CONUS) based on multi-emergency scenarios operating both abroad and at home. In the combined exercise, Rex-84 Bravo, FEMA and DOD led the other federal agencies and departments, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Veterans Administration through a gaming exercise to test military assistance in civil defense.
The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was authorization for the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of martial law. [2]

Development

Rex-84 was written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both the NSC White House Aide and NSC liaison to FEMA, and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of "national preparedness" programs for FEMA. They patterned the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million "American Negroes", if there were a black militant uprising in the United States.[3]

Initial public reports

Rex 84 was mentioned during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987.[4][5]
Existence of a master military contingency plan, "Garden Plot" and a similar earlier exercise, "Lantern Spike" were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in "Garden Plot and the New Action Army."[6]


Similar programs

Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen regularly.[7] Plans for roundups of large numbers of persons in the United States in times of crisis are constructed during periods of increased political repression such as the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy Era.
For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of over 100,000 persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list.[8] This list contained many labor leaders, scholars, and public figures of the time.
In 2008, for the first time an active military unit has been given a dedicated assignment stateside for civil unrest containment. It is assigned to Northcom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[9]
The basic facts about Rex 84 and other contingency planning readiness exercises—and the potential threat they pose to civil liberties if fully implemented in a real operation—are taken seriously by scholars and civil libertarians.[10]

Operation Garden Plot is a general U.S. Army and National Guard plan to respond to major domestic civil disturbances within the United States. The plan was developed in response to the civil disorders of the 1960s and is now under the control of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It provides Federal military and law enforcement assistance to local governments during times of major civil disturbances.
Garden Plot was last activated (as Noble Eagle) to provide military assistance to civil authorities following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The Pentagon also activated it to restore order during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
Under Homeland Security restructuring, it has been suggested that similar models be followed.
"Oversight of these homeland security missions should be provided by the National Guard Bureau based on the long-standing Garden Plot model in which National Guard units are trained and equipped to support civil authorities in crowd control and civil disturbance missions." Testimony of Major General Richard C. Alexander, ANGUS (Ret.), Executive Director, National Guard Association of the United States, Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on Homeland Defense, April 11, 2002[1]

Operation Urban Warrior

Operation Urban Warrior is a United States Marine Corps (USMC) program created as an exercise meant to plan and test Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT), and Urban warfare in general. It was developed in the mid 1990s by the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory partly in response to growing problem on inner-city fighting, and especially made urgent following the incident in the October 3, 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.
Press materials from the Warfighting Lab in 1997 stated, "..the world is becoming increasingly urbanized and increasingly dangerous" and described a new fight zone called the "urban littoral' or coastal zone where most of the world's population will reside. "Parts of the urban littoral will contain all the classic ingredients for conflict. There will be social, cultural, religious and tribal strife between different groups. Many areas will have scarce resources, including the most basic ones like food and shelter as populations grow and resources shrink even further. The chances for conflict will naturally grow with it".[1]
Some preferred to call it the "three block war".[2] The concern that Marines would be made responsible for Humanitarian assistance, as evidenced by the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was part of the original planning of the program. According to a 1997 Defense Monitor Brief, the Marines were facing the burden of excessive tempo of operations related to humanitarian concerns. OPTEMPO. The importance of getting the military out of humanitarian relief was expressed in the 1997 Center for Defense Information brief.[3]


General information about the US Military's program on Urban Warfare

The program has been called one of the most important in the United States military. This is because, even though the U.S. is believed to have one of the best conventional military forces in the world, many of the more powerful weapons systems intended for use fighting in open places are useless in urban settings. This was the case in some forested regions of Europe, and in open deserts encountered during the Gulf Wars. Lines of approach through cities tend to be long and narrow, with sharp turns, civilians, street traffic and local commerce. This environment is one where heavy fighting vehicles like the M1 Abrams can neither maneuver well, nor avoid being seen from a long distance by potential hostiles, nor be certain that all ground surfaces will support vehicle weight.
Inhabitants may have any of a huge number of possible reactions, anger, resentment, disrespect and a strong potential for spontaneous protest, disorder, and uninitiated response. Those who are friendly may be desperate for assistance but afraid, increasing the risk of stampedes and other problems. Those who are hostile will be on their home ground, to have familiarity with the terrain, and decide to defend their home turf. Furthermore, those who use unconventional warfare will have found protection among inhabitants. To use options like airstrikes, artillery, and mortars against cities will have a high cost in missed targets and civilian casualties. History records many military operations involving cities, of which a large number degenerated into torturous situations with massive casualties. Stalingrad and Saigon are two modern examples, but the extreme risk involved in attacking cities was well known even to ancient strategists, including Sun Tzu but lost on the American military planners.
As the world's population becomes concentrated in cities, current and future fighting will likely to take place within them. This means that there will be an increase in the demand for infantrymen, on account of the fact that infantrymen are uniquely able to enter built-up areas, uproot and clear them, defend them, and even search the local residence. This is one reason why United States military leaders are making plans based on the reasonable assumption that the infantryman's role in combat operations will increase rather than decrease in the coming years. (See Land Warrior)
Urban Warrior is seen as having one primary purpose: to fight enemies in urban environments, part of Urban Warrior's purported purpose is to conduct and refine disaster relief and humanitarian assistance for use in the United States and abroad. Doing so supposedly involves gaining the support and trust of the local population by engaging in humanitarian efforts, a project the Marine Corps has more recently sought to distance itself from.
Some lessons learned from Urban Warrior were applied in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as to the occupation. Fighting in Najaf and Fallujah has once again made it clear that local irregular forces tend to have the advantage of home territory and plentiful local support. Religion, ideology, and culture may also play in the local insurgent's favor. Non-combatants often side with them because of nationalism, ethnic connections, general dislike or even hatred, of a foreign invading force. For example, this tendency became clear in Mogadishu, Somalia, when civilians chose to support the Habr Gidr militia as opposed to United Nations and U.S. forces, and in Fallujah, where most of the remaining civilians decided the invasion forces were less important than the insurgent defenders.
An experimental urban camouflage battle dress uniform (BDU) was developed and used during the Urban Warrior MOUT exercises of 1999. The pattern, sometimes called T-pattern or T-block, consists of three gray tones arranged in a geometric pattern, intended as a 'pattern breaker' to make Marine troops harder to locate when in such environments. Like all modern U.S. BDUs, it is made of a lightweight rip-stop material. The pattern was never officially adopted, and it has since been replaced by the new MARPAT camouflage pattern.

Exercises in Chicago, May 1998

Eighty Marines from Camp LeJeune's 1st Battalion, 8th Marine, toured the city to enhance knowledge of urban infrastructure, touring a gas plant, water facility, underground tunnels, a few bridges and police and fire stations.

Exercises in the San Francisco East Bay, March 1999

A four day military exercise was planned and executed in Oakland, California in March 1999. A combined force of 6000 Marines and 700 sailors took control of the grounds and buildings of the defunct Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, California and a water force invaded the defunct Alameda Naval Air Station at Alameda Point on the second day as part of a national effort called Operation Sea Dragon.
After original plans to use the San Francisco Presidio were rejected by the National Park Service[4] based on the size of the spectacle and its inherent environmental damage, and a trial run at the Naval Post Graduate School beach in Monterey, California [5][6], Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and Alameda Mayor Ralph Appezzato welcomed the Marines to use Oakland, a nuclear-free zone city, and Alameda, as a proving ground for corp training on the suppression of urban populations in time of war.[7] The operations included hovercrafts, Harrier jets, Sea Knights, Sea Stallions, and Cobra and Huey helicopters. Five Navy ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Hornet and the Bonhomme Richard were brought in and opened for public view during the operations.

Quotations

"Our enemies, having watched Desert Storm on CNN, know they cannot engage the United States with conventional methods. These potential foes view cities as a way to limit the technological advantages of our military. They know that cities, with 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."
- Col. Mark Thiffault, Director, Joint Information Bureau, Urban Warrior

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

"Directive 51" redirects here. Directive 51 can also refer to Hitler's order for the fortification of the Atlantic Wall.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." [1] The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings,[2] although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007.[2]

Details

The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an "Enduring Constitutional Government" comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President," will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress.[3] Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have said that this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in that the three branches of government are separate and equal, with no single branch coordinating the others.[4][5] The directive, created by the president, claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency. It does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over. The directive further says that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of "National Continuity Coordinator" would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position was held under the Bush Administration by Frances Townsend, until her resignation on November 19, 2007, and Kenneth L. Wainstein[6]; the position is presently held by John O. Brennan.) The directive also specifies that a "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee", to be chaired by a senior director of the Homeland Security Council staff, and selected by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination". The directive ends by describing a number of "annexes", of which Annex A is described as being not classified but which does not appear on the directive's Web page:
"(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
"(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders."
The "National Continuity Policy, Annex A, Categories of Departments and Agencies", available from the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee website,[7] indicates that "executive departments and agencies are assigned to one of four categories commensurate with their COOP/COG/ECG responsibilities during an emergency".

[edit] Reception

The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress. While similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, with their texts kept secret, this is the first to be made public in part. It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies. The National Emergencies Act is not mentioned in the text of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
After receiving concerned communications from constituents, in July 2007 U.S. Representative and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio made an official request to examine the classified Continuity Annexes described above in a secure "bubbleroom" in the United States Capitol, but his request was denied by the White House, which cited "national security concerns." This was the first time DeFazio had been denied access to documents. He was quoted as saying, "We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America...I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee." After this denial, DeFazio joined with two colleagues (Bennie Thompson, chairman of the committee; and Chris Carney, chairman of the Homeland Security oversight subcommittee) in a renewed effort to gain access to the documents.

Martial law

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".
Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

Continuity of government -Continuity of Operations Plan

Continuity of government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event.
COG was developed by the British government during World War II to counter the threat of Luftwaffe bombing during the Battle of Britain. The need for continuity-of-government plans gained new urgency with nuclear proliferation.
Countries during the Cold War and afterwards developed such plans to avoid (or minimize) confusion and disorder in a power vacuum in the aftermath of a nuclear attack.


Continuity of Operations Plan

Continuity of Operations Plan refers to the preparations and institutions maintained by the United States government, providing survival of federal government operations in the case of catastrophic events.

History

A Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government Plan) has been a part of government operations since at least the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided (via executive order) various measures designed to ensure that the government of the United States would be able to continue operating after a nuclear war. These plans were classified for many years, partly under the assumption that knowledge of these plans would enable the Soviet Union to more effectively launch a nuclear attack. In addition, these plans were censored to prevent an uproar among the American public, who (proponents feared) might panic after the revelation that the government was planning for its own survival in a terrifying post-nuclear war environment. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, these plans lost their prominence both in government and in the public consciousness. The Continuity of Operations Plan has seen a return to relevance in the 2000s. After the September 11 attacks, many speculated that terrorists might attempt to destroy a large part of the central government and send the country into chaos. Much of the government's plans for post-nuclear war survival remain secret, and some of the measures that are known are controversial.[citation needed]
These measures included construction of underground facilities such as "Mount Weather", a hollowed-out putatively nuclear-proof mountain in western Virginia with a mailing address in Berryville, Virginia. The public can now tour one such facility, intended to house the entire United States Congress, on the grounds of the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. Other provisions of the plans included executive orders that designated certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary office holders are killed. There has been a formal line of succession to the presidency since 1792 (currently found in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, 3 U.S.C. § 19). This runs from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then through the Cabinet secretaries in a sequence specified by Congress.
The George W. Bush administration put the Continuity of Operations plan into effect for the first time directly following the September 11 attacks.[1] Their implementation involved a rotating staff of 75 to 150 senior officials and other government workers from every federal executive department and other parts of the executive branch in two secure bunkers on the East Coast. Friends, family and co-workers were only able to reach them through a toll-free number and personal extensions.
The Bush administration officially acknowledged the implementation of the plan on March 1, 2002.[2][3] Key congressional leaders said that they had no prior knowledge of this government-in-waiting.[4][5]
On July 18, 2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, was denied access to the classified version of the continuity of government plan. Though members can access classified information, this is the first time that documents had been denied.[6][7] As of August 2007, efforts by the committee to secure a copy of the plan continue.[8]
Since September 11, 2001, the newly created Department of Homeland Security has conducted three exercises to test continuity plans. The first, named "Forward Challenge '04", took place from May 12 to May 13, 2004, and included more than 40 government agencies.[9] The second major exercise took place from June 20 to June 24, 2005. Titled "Pinnacle", the exercise tested responses to various emergencies, including a hypothetical act of terrorism.[10] "Forward Challenge '06" was the third major exercise, and took place on June 19, 2006. It reportedly involved nearly 4,000 government personnel.[11]
In 2007, Professor Larry J. Sabato criticized the incomplete nature of the plan in his book A More Perfect Constitution. In particular, he objected to the fact that there is no Constitutional procedure for replacing U.S. House members in the case of a large-scale attack which could potentially kill a large number of representatives. In regards to the Continuity of Operations Plan, Sabato said it "failed outright" during the September 11 attacks.
The NORAD- and USNORTHCOM-sponsored exercise "Vigilant Shield 2008" took place from October 15 to October 20, 2007.[12]


Documents

A document named in italics supersedes the following document.

George W. Bush administration

Clinton administration

  • Federal Preparedness Circular 65, "Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP)", July 26, 1999
  • "Federal Response Plan" [FEMA 9230.1-PL], April 1999
  • Presidential Decision Directive 67, "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations", October 21, 1998
  • 41 Code of Federal Regulations 101-2, "Occupant Emergency Program", revised as of July 1, 1998
  • 36 Code of Federal Regulations 1236, "Management of Vital Records", revised as of July 1, 1998
  • Presidential Decision Directive 63, "Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)", May 22, 1998
  • Presidential Decision Directive 62, "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas", May 22, 1998
  • FPC 65 Federal Response Planning Guidance 01-94, "Continuity of Operations (COOP)", December 4, 1994

George H. W. Bush administration

  • PDD 67 National Security Directive 69, "Enduring Constitutional Government", June 2, 1992
  • FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 61, "Emergency Succession to Key Positions of the Federal Departments and Agencies", August 2, 1991
  • FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 62, "Delegation of Authorities for Emergency Situations", August 1, 1991
  • Federal Preparedness Circular 60, "Continuity of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government at the Headquarters Level During National Security Emergencies", November 20, 1990
  • NSD 69 National Security Directive 37, "Enduring Constitutional Government", April 18, 1990

Reagan administration

Section 202 The head of each Federal department and agency shall ensure the continuity of essential functions in any national security emergency by providing for: succession to office and emergency delegation of authority in accordance with applicable law; safekeeping of essential resources, facilities, and records; and establishment of emergency operating capabilities.
  • Executive Order 12472, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions", April 3, 1984
  • NSD 69 NSDD 55, "Enduring National Leadership" September 14, 1982

Carter administration

Truman administration

Hardware and facilities

The Continuity of Operations Plan involves numerous bunkers, special airplanes, and communication systems. Much of the information about them is classified, however information on various systems has been released by the government or described to the public by reporters and writers. Since many of the details are classified, the public information may be incorrect. Also they are subject to change without public notice so this list may not reflect current plans.

Facilities

During the Cold War, the United States constructed bunkers to help provide survivability to military command and government officials. Some have been decommissioned since the Cold War. The ones that are still considered to be in operation are listed here.
  • Cheyenne Mountain Directorate - This bunker is the former home of NORAD. Becoming fully operational on April 20, 1966, it is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Currently, the military has the goal of placing the operations center on "warm stand-by", meaning that the facility will be maintained and ready for use on short notice as necessary, but not used on a daily basis.[14] In the event of an emergency deemed serious enough, NORAD and USNORTHCOM would use the bunker for C4ISTAR of America's military.
  • Site R (Raven Rock) - Near Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, Site R is the emergency home for The Pentagon. Vice President Cheney is reported to have stayed here after the September 11 attacks.[15]
  • Mount Weather - The Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center is a government facility located near Bluemont, Virginia. It houses operations and training facilities above ground for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and contains an underground facility designed to house key components of the American government in the case of nuclear war. During the September 11 attacks, a line of government cars and limousines with police escort was seen heading from Washington D.C. to Mount Weather. It has been suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney has been at Mount Weather from time to time, as it is the quintessential "secure undisclosed location". Since September 11, 2001, Mount Weather has seen a dramatic increase in staffing and support. It is believed[who?] that Mount Weather has largely assumed the functions of the facility at the Greenbrier, which was to house the U.S. Congress in an emergency, since that shelter was decommissioned.

Airplanes


"Nightwatch" in flight
  • National Airborne Operations Center (codenamed Nightwatch) is a Boeing E-4 specially built to serve as a survivable mobile command post for the National Command Authority (NCA). Either the President or the Secretary of Defense may use it. It is also possible that the President would authorize the Vice President or others to use it, depending on the circumstances.
  • Looking Glass is USSTRATCOM's Airborne Command Post, designed to take over in case NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Directorate is destroyed or incapable of communicating with strategic forces. Beginning February 3, 1961, an Air Force Looking Glass aircraft was in the air at all times 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. On July 24, 1990, Looking Glass ceased continuous airborne alert but remained on ground or airborne alert 24 hours a day. On Oct. 1, 1998, the U.S. Navy replaced the U.S. Air Force. In addition, a battle staff now flies with the TACAMO crew.[16]
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Ships


The USS Wright (CC-2)
The USS Northampton (CLC-1) was converted into Command ship CC-1 between 1961.
The USS Wright (CVL-49) It was converted into Command ship (CC-2) between 1962 and 1963 and include the National Military Command System.
This building for telecommunication relay, to theater commands requiring powerful radio links, which could harbor the President of the United States and his staff in the event of nuclear war.
It was decommissioned in 1970.

Communication

Communication is vital during a catastrophic event. Generally, military communication links are considered more "survivable" since they are designed for extreme situations, such as nuclear war. The Defense Information Systems Agency is in charge of supporting command, control, communications, and information systems for the military and would support the NCA. It is assumed that the various bunkers and airplanes have been equipped with special communication equipment to survive a catastrophe.

  • Internet - The Internet began as the ARPANET, a program funded by the U.S. military. The Internet is designed with the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks, but due to the huge numbers of people using it, it would likely be jammed and unable to handle communication if it suffered a large amount of damage. During a localized emergency, it is highly useful. The loss of electrical power to an area can make accessing the Internet difficult or impossible, however.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

HR 1955

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with "homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization"[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.
The bill was introduced to the House on April 19 2007,[5] and passed on Oct 23, 2007.[6] It was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959.[7] The bill defines some terms including "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and "ideologically based violence,"[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12] The bill failed to become law during the 110th congress.[13]

Summary

The bill would have:
  1. Amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).[4]
  2. Directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to:




    1. Establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;[4]
    2. Establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States;[4]
    3. Conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.[4]
  3. Prohibited the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.[4]
  4.  
  5.  

Defined terms

  1. Violent Radicalization - the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.[8]
  2. Homegrown Terrorism - the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[8]
  3. Ideologically Based Violence - the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.[8]
  4.  
  5.  

Criticism and reaction

Points of criticism

The bill has provoked controversy on several fronts.
One is the perceived overly broad and vague definitions of "force", “home grown terrorism” and “violent radicalization” (section 899A). Critics charge that the vagueness in these definitions would permit the government to classify many types of venerated American political activity, such as civil disobedience, as terrorism. Critics frequently cite Section 899A, which reads, in part: "The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force ...to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives",[20] as particularly problematic. They argue that major societal reforms, which are now accepted but were perceived at the time as threatening to the government, such as civil rights, suffrage, and others, would be classified as terrorism.[21][22][23][24]
Another source of concerns centers around a series of “Congressional findings” (Section 899B) from a House Subcommittee held on November 6, 2007 and chaired by Rep. Jane Harman, the bill's sponsor.[25] The Subcommittee heard testimony, which equated the 9/11 Truth Movement with terrorist propaganda [26] and the committee's findings specify, among other things, that terrorism exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security, (item 2), that the Internet has aided in facilitating home grown terrorism (item 3) and that preventing home grown terrorism cannot be accomplished through traditional law enforcement efforts. (item 6).[27][28]
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) has tracked the bill carefully.[29]
Old bill language includes: Legislation to create a “National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” (HR 1955) died a quiet death with the conclusion of the last Congress. Much maligned reports (BORDC) as a $22 million boondoggle, the idea to create yet another government entity to study an overblown threat already addressed by the $44 billion-a-year U.S. intelligence community, not to mention countless think tanks and authors, was the brainchild of Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. A few years ago local police and the FBI broke up a prison-based plot to bomb synagogues in the name of jihad in her district. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced a companion measure, but it was doomed by a lack of specificity on who the commission’s targets were to be, among other problems. The internet has become suspect as "part of the problem" according to the bill. It remains unclear whether Rep. Harman will reintroduce a similar bill in the new Congress.

Political reaction

Then-presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said he believed the bill to be "unconstitutional" and has referred to the bill as a "thought crime bill".[30]
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), [31][32] addressed the bill in he House on Dec. 5, 2007 saying:
"This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system."
In North Carolina, Republican Congressional candidate BJ Lawson has made the bill a theme in his campaign against Democrat David Price, who voted in favor of the bill.[33][34]

Media reaction

The Baltimore Sun published an opinion article by Professor Emeritus Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, titled "Here come the thought police."[35]; [36]
The Pioneer Press published an article by Professor Peter Erlinder, pointing out disturbing parallels to the House Un-American Activities Committee.[37]
Conservative commentator Devvy Kidd writes: "Since the bill doesn't specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government.... Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime."[38]
In an interview aired on Democracy Now, Academic and author Ward Churchill said: "HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech...."[14]
Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens.” [39]
The Hartford Advocate, noting that all of Connecticut's Representatives had voted for the bill, sought to interview one of them, but reported that none of them would comment on the record, personally or through a spokesperson, about their reasons for voting in favor. The Advocate concluded that the problem with the bill was "not that the bill threatens anything specific, but that it’s far too vague."[40]
San Francisco Chronicle, By Lewis Seiler, Dan Hamburg. Discusses HR 1955 in the context of the Homeland Security concept of Endgame. Garnered several hundred readers comments when it was originally published. HR 1955 is an important topic that continues to be largely absent from mainstream media as of Nov 23, 2008. President elect Obama, served on Liebermann's Homeland Security committee in the US Senate wherein the Senate bill version Titled: S-1959 continues to be discussed, absent mainstream scrutiny, but has garnered widespread internet-web scrutiny (accessed on Nov 23, 2008). "[41]
New York Times, editorializes that the internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but don’t tell the Senate’s Homeland Security chair, Joseph Lieberman, who believes the internet promotes terrorism (S. 1959). For example, he demanded that YouTube censor it’s videos and YouTube complied by removing 80 videos, but Joe isn’t satisfied. The Times concludes “Cutting off free speech is never the right answer”. (accessed on Jan 2, 2009). "[42]
The internet, if considered to be "new media" includes this offering by OpenCongress.org, a project of the Sunlight Foundation and PDF. All 26 comments about S. 1959 dating from 2008. "[43]

Institutional reaction

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying: "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."[44]
The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers issued a joint statement opposing the Bill: "The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Details about their objections can be read here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill and issued this Fact Sheet.
The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: "the legislation could attack First Amendment rights by mandating the government to clamp down on free speech online, among other things."[45]

Responses to criticism

Harman replied by letter to criticisms from the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative office. Caroline Fredrickson asserted "the bill should read 'intentionally aiding and abetting' violent radicalization, 'because otherwise you’re really looking at what someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing.'" Harman defended the resolution, saying: “HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief. The hearing record makes that abundantly clear. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution.”[46]
Harman chaired a November 6, 2007 hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on “Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.” In her statement before the hearing Harman tied its subject to Resolution 1955.[47]
In December 2007 the United States House Committee on Homeland Security released a "fact sheet" entitled "Understanding HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"[48] which elaborates on the rationale and purpose of the bill and includes a "Myth vs. Fact" section offering rebuttals to the perception that the bill would "criminalize constitutionally-protected behavior" or "lead to Internet censorship".

Main Core

Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States, which contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security.[1] The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources,[2] is collected and stored without warrants or court orders.[3] The database's name derives from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."[4]
The Main Core database is believed to have originated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982, following Ronald Reagan's Continuity of Operations plan outlined in the National Security Directive (NSD) 69 / National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 55, entitled "Enduring National Leadership," implemented on September 14, 1982.[5]
As of 2008 there are reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats,[6][dead link] often for trivial reasons,[7][dead link] whom the government may choose to track, question, or detain in a time of crisis.[8][dead link]
The existence of the database was first reported on in May 2008 by Christopher Ketcham and in July 2008 by Tim Shorrock.[9]

United States Northern Command

United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM, or informally just NORTHCOM) is a Unified Combatant Command of the United States military. Created on October 1, 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, its mission is to protect the United States homeland and support local, state, and federal authorities. The support that USNORTHCOM provides to civil authorities is limited by the Posse Comitatus Act which limits the role of the U.S. military in civil law enforcement.
USNORTHCOM’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) includes air, land and sea approaches and encompasses the United States, and its territories[1], Canada, and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles (930 km). It also includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. The commander of USNORTHCOM is responsible for theater security cooperation with Canada and Mexico.
USNORTHCOM is composed of several standing Joint Task Forces (JTFs) previously assigned to United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM): Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region, Joint Task Force-Civil Support, Joint Task Force Alaska, and Joint Task Force North. USNORTHCOM service components include U.S. Fifth Army/ARNORTH, First Air Force/AFNORTH, MARFORNORTH, and United States Fleet Forces Command.
USNORTHCOM headquarters has approximately 1,200 uniformed and civilian members, and few permanent forces. Forces from all branches of the U.S. military may be assigned to the Command as needed to complete its mission.
Commander, U.S. Northern Command is concurrently Commander of the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The two are co-located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado. General Ralph Eberhart was the first CDRUSNORTHCOM.
The current commander of the U.S. Northern Command is Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., USN.

Related legal changes

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 lifted many restrictions placed on the military to support civilian administration by the Posse Comitatus Act, however the US Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that significant portions of the MCA were unconstitutional. The "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" H.R. 5122 (2006) effectively nullified the limits of the Insurrection Act [2] when it was passed; however, the bill was amended in 2008.
On Oct. 1, 2008, the 3rd Infantry Division (United States)’s 1st Brigade Combat Team was assigned to U.S. Northern Command, marking the first time an active unit had been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The force will be known for the first year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, and will serve as an on-call federal response force for terrorist attacks and other natural or manmade emergencies and disasters. [3].

United States Department of Homeland Security

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a Cabinet department of the United States federal government with the primary responsibilities of protecting the territory of the U.S. from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters.
Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism.[4] On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. Additionally, the border enforcement functions of the INS, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service were consolidated into a new agency under DHS: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Federal Protective Service falls under the National Protection and Programs Directorate.
With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.[5] Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Council. Other agencies with significant homeland security responsibilities include the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy.
The creation of DHS constituted the biggest[clarification needed] government reorganization in American history, and the most substantial reorganization of federal agencies since the National Security Act of 1947, which placed the different military departments under a secretary of defense and created the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency. DHS also constitutes the most diverse merger of federal functions and responsibilities, incorporating 22 government agencies into a single organization.[6]

Structure

The Department of Homeland Security is headed by the Secretary of Homeland Security with the assistance of the Deputy Secretary. The Department contains the components listed below.[7] Not all subcomponents are listed; see the linked articles for more details.
Agencies:
(Passports for U.S. Citizens are issued by the United States Department of State, not the Department of Homeland Security.)
Advisory groups:
  • Homeland Security Advisory Council – State and local government, first responders, private sector, and academics
  • National Infrastructure Advisory Council – Advises on security of public and private information systems
  • Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee – Advise the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
  • Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council – Coordinate infrastructure protection with private sector and other levels of government
  • Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities
  • Task Force on New Americans – "An inter-agency effort to help immigrants learn English, embrace the common core of American civic culture, and become fully American."
Other components:


Organizational chart showing the chain of command among the top-level officials in the Department of Homeland Security, as of July 17, 2008.

Nomenclature

In an August 5, 2002 speech, President Bush said: "We're fighting ... to secure freedom in the homeland."[8] Prior to the creation of DHS, American presidents had referred to the U.S. as "the nation" or "the republic", and to its internal policies as "domestic".[9] Also unprecedented was the use, from 2002, of the phrase "the homeland" by White House spokespeople.[9]


The Homeland Security Advisory System scale

Homeland Security Advisory System

On March 12, 2002, the Homeland Security Advisory System, a color-coded terrorism risk advisory scale, was created as the result of a Presidential Directive to provide a "comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people." Many procedures at government facilities are tied in to the alert level; for example a facility may search all entering vehicles when the alert is above a certain level. Since January 2003, it has been administered in coordination with DHS; it has also been the target of frequent jokes and ridicule on the part of the administration's detractors about its ineffectiveness. After resigning, Tom Ridge stated that he didn't always agree with the threat level adjustments pushed by other government agencies.[10]
In January 2003, the office[clarification needed] was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and the White House Homeland Security Council, both of which were created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Homeland Security Council, similar in nature to the National Security Council, retains a policy coordination and advisory role and is led by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.[11]

Creation of DHS


Seal of the Office of Homeland Security, the predecessor to DHS
In response to the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to coordinate "homeland security" efforts. The office was headed by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who assumed the title of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. The official announcement stated:
The mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.[11]
Ridge began his duties as OHS director on October 8, 2001.
The Department of Homeland Security was established on November 25, 2002, by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It was intended to consolidate U.S. executive branch organizations related to "homeland security" into a single Cabinet agency. The following 22 agencies were incorporated into the new department:[12]

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer addresses Dick Cheney (center), then Vice President of the United States, Saxby Chambliss (center right), a U.S. senator from Georgia and Michael Chertoff (far right), then United States Secretary of Homeland Security in 2005
Prior to the signing of the bill, controversy about its adoption centered on whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency should be incorporated in part or in whole (neither were included). The bill itself was also controversial for the presence of unrelated "riders", as well as for eliminating certain union-friendly civil service and labor protections for department employees. Without these protections, employees could be expeditiously reassigned or dismissed on grounds of security, incompetence or insubordination, and DHS would not be required to notify their union representatives.
The plan stripped 180,000 government employees of their union rights.[13] In 2002, Bush officials argued that the September 11 attacks made the proposed elimination of employee protections imperative.[14]
Congress ultimately passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 without the union-friendly measures, and President Bush signed the bill into law on November 25, 2002. It was the largest U.S. government reorganization in the 50 years since the United States Department of Defense was created.
Tom Ridge was named secretary on January 24, 2003 and began naming his chief deputies. DHS officially began operations on January 24, 2003, but most of the department's component agencies were not transferred into the new Department until March 1.[11]

President George W. Bush signs the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004.
After establishing the basic structure of DHS and working to integrate its components and get the department functioning, Ridge announced his resignation on November 30, 2004, following the re-election of President Bush. Bush initially nominated former New York City Police Department commissioner Bernard Kerik as his successor, but on December 10, Kerik withdrew his nomination, citing personal reasons and saying it "would not be in the best interests" of the country for him to pursue the post. On January 11, 2005, President Bush nominated federal judge Michael Chertoff to succeed Ridge. Chertoff was confirmed on February 15, 2005, by a vote of 98–0 in the U.S. Senate. He was sworn in the same day.[11]
In February 2005, DHS and the Office of Personnel Management issued rules relating to employee pay and discipline for a new personnel system named MaxHR. The Washington Post said that the rules would allow DHS "to override any provision in a union contract by issuing a department-wide directive" and would make it "difficult, if not impossible, for unions to negotiate over arrangements for staffing, deployments, technology and other workplace matters."[14]
In August 2005, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer blocked the plan on the grounds that it did not ensure collective-bargaining rights for DHS employees.[14]
A federal appeals court ruled against DHS in 2006; pending a final resolution to the litigation, Congress's fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for DHS provided no funding for the proposed new personnel system.[14] DHS announced in early 2007 that it was retooling its pay and performance system and retiring the name "MaxHR".[11]
In a February 2008 court filing, DHS said that it would no longer pursue the new rules, and that it would abide by the existing civil service labor-management procedures. A federal court issued an order closing the case.[14]

Seal


Seal of the Department of Homeland Security.



A DHS press release dated June 6, 2003[15] explains the seal as follows:
The seal is symbolic of the Department's mission – to prevent attacks and protect Americans – on the land, in the sea and in the air. In the center of the seal, a graphically styled white American eagle appears in a circular blue field. The eagle's outstretched wings break through an inner red ring into an outer white ring that contains the words "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF" in the top half and "HOMELAND SECURITY" in the bottom half in a circular placement. The eagle's wings break through the inner circle into the outer ring to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security will break through traditional bureaucracy and perform government functions differently. In the tradition of the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle's talon on the left holds an olive branch with 13 leaves and 13 seeds while the eagle's talon on the right grasps 13 arrows.
Centered on the eagle's breast is a shield divided into three sections containing elements that represent the American homeland – air, land, and sea. The top element, a dark blue sky, contains 22 stars representing the original 22 entities that have come together to form the department. The left shield element contains white mountains behind a green plain underneath a light blue sky. The right shield element contains four wave shapes representing the oceans alternating light and dark blue separated by white lines.
The seal was developed with input from senior DHS leadership, employees, and the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts. The Ad Council – which partners with DHS on its Ready.gov campaign – and the consulting company Landor Associates were responsible for graphic design and maintaining heraldic integrity.

Headquarters

Since its inception, the department has had its temporary headquarters in Washington, D.C.'s Nebraska Avenue Complex, a former naval facility. The 38-acre (15 ha) site has 32 buildings comprising of 566,000 square feet (52,600 m2) of administrative space.[16] In early 2007, the Department submitted a $4.1 billion plan to Congress to consolidate its 60-plus Washington-area offices into a single headquarters complex at the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus in Anacostia, Southeast Washington, D.C. The earliest DHS would begin moving to St. Elizabeths is 2012.[17]
The move is being championed by District of Columbia officials because of the positive economic impact it will have on historically depressed Anacostia. The move has been criticized by historic preservationists, who claim the revitalization plans will destroy dozens of historic buildings on the campus.[18] Community activists have criticized the plans because the facility will remain walled off and have little interaction with the surrounding area.[19] On January 8, 2009, the National Capital Planning Commission approved the Department of Homeland Security’s plans to move into the campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital.[20]

Ready.gov

Ready.gov program logo
Soon after the formation of Department of Homeland Security, the Martin Agency of Richmond, Virginia worked pro bono to create "Ready.gov", a readiness website. The site and materials were conceived in March 2002 and launched in February 2003, just before the launch of the Iraq War.[21][22][23] One of the first announcements that garnered widespread public attention to this campaign was one by Tom Ridge in which he stated that in the case of a chemical attack, citizens should use duct tape and plastic sheeting to build a homemade bunker, or "sheltering in place" to protect themselves.[24][25] As a result, the sales of duct tape skyrocketed and DHS was criticized for being too alarmist.[26] The site was promoted with banner ads containing automatic audio components on commercial web sites.

National Incident Management System

On March 1, 2004, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was created. The stated purpose was to provide a consistent incident management approach for federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, all federal departments were required to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their individual domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation program and activities.

National Response Framework

In December 2004, the National Response Plan (NRP) was created, in an attempt to align federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident management. The NRP was built on the template of the NIMS.
On January 22, 2008, the National Response Framework was published in the Federal Register as an updated replacement of the NRP, effective March 22, 2008.

Cyber-security

The DHS National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) is responsible for the response system, risk management program, and requirements for cyber-security in the U.S. The division is home to US-CERT operations and the National Cyber Alert System.[27][28] The DHS Science and Technology Directorate helps government and private end-users transition to new cyber-security capabilities. This directorate also funds the Cyber Security Research and Development Center, which identifies and prioritizes research and development for NCSD.[28] The center works on the Internet's routing infrastructure (the SPRI program) and Domain Name System (DNSSEC), identity theft and other online criminal activity (ITTC), Internet traffic and networks research (PREDICT datasets and the DETER testbed), Department of Defense and HSARPA exercises (Livewire and Determined Promise), and wireless security in cooperation with Canada.[29]
On October 30, 2009, DHS opened the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. The center brings together government organizations responsible for protecting computer networks and networked infrastructure.[30]

Criticism

Excess, waste, and ineffectiveness

The Department of Homeland Security has been dogged by persistent criticism over excessive bureaucracy, waste, and ineffectiveness. Congress estimates that the department has wasted roughly $15 billion in failed contracts (as of September 2008).[31] In 2003, the department came under fire after the media revealed that Laura Callahan, Deputy Chief Information Officer at DHS with responsibilities for sensitive national security databases, had obtained her advanced computer science degrees through a diploma mill in a small town in Wyoming. The department was blamed for up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of government credit cards by DHS employees, with purchases including beer brewing kits, $70,000 of plastic dog booties that were later deemed unusable, boats purchased at double the retail price (many of which later could not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in "data storage".[32][33][34][35]

Data mining (ADVISE)

The Associated Press reported on September 5, 2007, that DHS had scrapped an anti-terrorism data mining tool called ADVISE (Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement) after the agency's internal Inspector General found that pilot testing of the system had been performed using data on real people without required privacy safeguards in place.[36][37] The system, in development at Lawrence Livermore and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory since 2003, has cost the agency $42 million to date. Controversy over the program is not new; in March 2007, the Government Accountability Office stated that "the ADVISE tool could misidentify or erroneously associate an individual with undesirable activity such as fraud, crime or terrorism." Homeland Security's Inspector General later said that ADVISE was poorly planned, time-consuming for analysts to use, and lacked adequate justifications.[38]
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)