FEMA: The Secret Government
by Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul

 

see more on FEMA   here 

Some people have referred to it as the "secret government" of the United States. It is not an elected body; it does not involve itself in public disclosures; and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars.

This government organization has more power than the President of the United States or the Congress. It has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial. It can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order.

No, it is not the U.S. military nor the Central Intelligence Agency; they are subject to Congress. The organization is called FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Originally conceived in the Richard Nixon Administration, it was refined by President Jimmy Carter and given teeth in the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Administrations.

FEMA had one original concept when it was created—to assure the survivability of the United States government in the event of a nuclear attack on this nation. It was also provided with the task of being a federal coordinating body during times of domestic disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes.

Its awesome powers grew under the tutelage of people like Lt. Col. Oliver North and General Richard Secord, the architects on the Iran-Contra scandal and the looting of America’s savings and loan institutions. FEMA has even been given control of the State Defense Forces, a rag-tag, often considered neo-Nazi, civilian army that will substitute for the National Guard, if the Guard is called to duty overseas.

The most powerful organization in the United States

Though it may be the most powerful organization in the United States, many people don’t know it even exists. But it has crept into our private lives. Even mortgage papers contain FEMA’s name in small print if the property in question is near a flood plain. FEMA was deeply involved in the Los Angeles riots and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the black helicopter traffic reported throughout the United States, but mainly in the West, California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado, are flown by FEMA personnel.

FEMA has been given responsibility for many new disasters including urban forest fires, home heating emergencies, refugee situations, urban riots, and emergency planning for nuclear and toxic incidents. In the West, it works in conjunction with the Sixth Army.

FEMA was created in a series of Executive Orders. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is bypassed.

Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed.

FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency—foreign or domestic.

Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA’s role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

FEMA’s powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate: The National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities; the 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy; the Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national.

These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979. Hurricane Andrew focused attention on FEMA. FEMA’s deceptive role really did not come to light with much of the public until Hurricane Andrew smashed into the U.S. mainland. What came out of the critical look was that FEMA was spending 12 times more for "black operations" than for disaster relief. It spent $1.3 billion building secret bunkers throughout the United States in anticipation of government disruption by foreign or domestic upheaval. Yet fewer than 20 members of Congress, only members with top security clearance, know of the $1.3 billion expenditure by FEMA for non-natural disaster situations. These few Congressional leaders state that FEMA has a "black curtain" around its operations.

FEMA has developed 300 sophisticated mobile units that are capable of sustaining themselves for a month. The vehicles are located in five areas of the United States. They have tremendous communication systems and each contains a generator that would provide power to 120 homes each, but have never been used for disaster relief.

FEMA’s enormous powers can be triggered easily. In any form of domestic or foreign problem, perceived and not always actual, emergency powers can be enacted. The President of the United States now has broader powers to declare Martial Law, which activities FEMA’s extraordinary powers.

Martial law can be declared during time of increased tension overseas, economic problems within the United States, such as a depression, civil unrest, such as demonstrations or scenes like the Los Angeles riots, and in a drug crisis. These Presidential powers have increased with successive Crime Bills, particularly the 1991 and 1993 Crime Bills, which increase the power to suspend the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and to seize property of those suspected of being drug dealers, to individuals who participate in a public protest or demonstration.

Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reigns of government to FEMA and appointing military commanders to run state and local governments. FEMA then would have the right to order the detention of anyone whom there is reasonable ground to believe will engage in, or probably conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage. The plan also authorized the establishment of concentration camps for detaining the accused, but no trial.

Three times since 1984, FEMA stood on the threshold of taking control of the nation. Once under President Reagan in 1984, and twice under President Bush in 1990 and 1992. But under those three scenarios, there was not a sufficient crisis to warrant risking Martial Law. Most experts on the subject of FEMA and Martial Law insisted that a crisis has to appear dangerous enough for the people of the United States before they would tolerate or accept complete government takeover.

The typical crisis needed would be threat of imminent nuclear war, rioting in several U.S. cites simultaneously, a series of national disasters that affect widespread danger to the populous, massive terrorist attacks, a depression in which tens of millions are unemployed and without financial resources, or a major environmental disaster.

Three times FEMA has stood by ready for emergency In April 1984, President Reagan signed Presidential Directive Number 54 that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. The exercise was to test FEMA’s readiness to assume military authority in the event of a "State of Domestic National Emergency" concurrent with the launching of a direct United States military operation in Central America.

The plan called for the deputation of U.S. military and National Guard units so that they could take into custody an estimated 400,000 undocumented Central American immigrants in the United States who would be interned at 10 detention centers set up at military bases throughout the country.

The plan called for the suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to FEMA, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and the declaration of Martial Law.

The plan also advocated the rounding up and transfer to "assembly centers or relocation camps" of a least 21 million American Blacks in the event of massive rioting or disorder, not unlike the rounding up of the Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

The second known time that FEMA stood by was in 1990 when Desert Storm was enacted. Prior to President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, FEMA began to draft new legislation to set up operations within any state or locality without the prior permission of local or state authorities. Much of the mechanism being set into place was in anticipation of the economic collapse of the Western World.

The third scenario for FEMA came with the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King brutality verdict. Had the rioting spread to other cities, FEMA would have been empowered to step in. As it was, major rioting only occurred in the Los Angeles area.

The crux of the problem is that FEMA has the power to turn the United States into a police state in time of a real crisis or a manufactured crisis. Intelligence reports indicate that FEMA has a folder with 22 Executive Orders for the President to sign in case of an emergency. The crisis, as the government now sees it, is civil unrest.

For generations, the government was concerned with nuclear war, but the violent and disruptive demonstrations that surrounded the Vietnam War era prompted President Nixon to change the direction of emergency powers from war time to times of domestic unrest.

Diana Reynolds, program director of the Edward R. Murrow Center, summed up the danger of FEMA today and the public reaction to Martial Law in a drug crisis:

"It was James Madison’s worst nightmare that a righteous faction would someday be strong enough to sweep away the Constitutional restraints designed by the framers to prevent the tyranny of centralized power, excessive privilege, an arbitrary governmental authority over the individual. These restraints, the balancing and checking of powers among branches and layers of government, and the civil guarantees, would be the first casualties in a drug-induced national security state with Reagan’s Civil Emergency Preparedness unleashed. Nevertheless, there would be those who would welcome NSC (National Security Council) into the drug fray, believing that increasing state police powers to emergency levels is the only way left to fight American’s enemy within. In the short run, a national security state would probably be a relief to those whose personal security and quality of life has been diminished by drugs or drug related crime. And, as the general public watches the progression of institutional chaos and social decay, they too may be willing to pay the ultimate price, one drug free America for 200 years of democracy (sic)."

The first targets in any FEMA emergency would be Hispanics and Blacks; the FEMA orders call for them to be rounded up and detained. Tax protesters, demonstrators against government military intervention outside U.S. borders, and people who maintain weapons in their homes are also targets.

Operation Trojan Horse is a program designed to learn the identity of potential opponents to Martial Law. The program lures potential protesters into public forums, conducted by a "hero" of the people who advocates survival training. The list of names gathered at such meetings and rallies are computerized and then targeted in case of an emergency.

The most shining example of America to the world has been its peaceful transition of government from one administration to another. Despite crises of great magnitude, the United States has maintained its freedom and liberty. This nation now stands on the threshold of rule by non-elected people asserting non-Constitutional powers. Even Congress cannot review a Martial Law action until six months after it has been declared.

For the first time in American history, the reigns of government would not be transferred from one elected element to another, but the Constitution, itself, can be suspended.

The scenarios established to trigger FEMA into action are generally found in the society today, economic collapse, civil unrest, drug problems, terrorist attacks, and protests against American intervention in a foreign country.

All these premises exist; it could only be a matter of time in which one of these triggers the entire emergency necessary to bring FEMA into action, and then it may be too late, because under the FEMA plan, there is no contingency by which Constitutional power is restored.

Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995

 

---

Clinton's Executive Order 12919 (The Idaho Observer, May, 1997) gives the president the power to declare an emergency which instantly gives FEMA the authority to take control of the things listed in this article. EO 12919 is just one more clue that should tell Americans what "our" federal government has in store for all of us.—The Idaho Observer, website:

http://www.proliberty.com/observer

Ph. 208-777-7888; fax 208-777-2032
P.O. Box 1806, Post Falls, ID 83877
(Somewhat abridged. All underlines are by Midnight Herald for emphasis.)

Here are a few EXECUTIVE ORDERS associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a presidential pen (not subject to congressional review).

The USA has been in such an emergency since 9-11-01:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-4.html

#10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

#10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

#10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals, public and private.

#10998 allows the government to take over all food supplies and resources, public and private, including farms and equipment.

#11000 allows the government to mobilize American civilians into work brigades under government supervision; allows the government to split up families if they believe it necessary.

#11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions and facilities, both public and private.

#11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons: men, women and children, for government service.

# 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

#11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe", and establish new locations for populations.

#11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.

#11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all EOs into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

#11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in EOs, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

#11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative EOs issued over a fifteen year period.

# 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that WHEN A STATE OF EMERGENCY IS DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS CANNOT REVIEW THE ACTION FOR SIX MONTHS.

 

The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
by Jennifer Van Bergen
t r u t h o u t | 20 May, 2002

Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th. Recent criticism of Bush's admission that he had received warnings only weeks before September 11th has made it more important to understand the origins of the USAPA.

The USA PATRIOT Act - the so-called "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," a.k.a. the USAPA -- was enacted in the immediate wake of 9/11, riding a wave of fear that spread over the nation. This Act has caused much concern amongst civil rights advocates. The Administration, however, responded to such concerns by calling critics unpatriotic. Now, the White House has had a similar response to critics of Bush's recent admission of early warnings.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday: "I think that any time anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this president had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11, that crosses the lines."

Dick Cheney came out on Thursday with the statement that Democratic criticism of Bush's handling of pre-Sept. 11 terror warnings was "thoroughly irresponsible." Cheney added an ominous remark to his "Democratic friends ... that they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions."

Cynthia McKinney responded: "If committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for disclosure, today's revelations would have been hidden by the White House," she says. "Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those who have been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people."

House Minority leader Dick Gephardt said: "Our nation is not well served when the charge of 'partisan politics' is leveled at those who simply seek information that the American people need and deserve to know."

Oddly, following Democratic criticism of Bush's admission, came the weekend news that the White House now anticipates an even terrorist greater attack on American soil. Intrepid investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, best known for his reports claiming government's prior knowledge of 9/11, states that Fox TV cancelled his Saturday appearance on the Geraldo Rivera Show due to these reports.

These may be mere coincidences. Time Magazine just released a lengthy article by Michael Elliott, "How the U.S. Missed the Clues," in which he states: "Last summer the White House suspected that a terrorist attack was coming. But four key mistakes kept the U.S. from knowing what to do."

Whether the Administration could have anticipated 9/11 or not, the proponents of the USAPA were waiting to go long before that day. Similar antiterrorism legislation was enacted in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which however did little to prevent the events of 9/11, and many provisions had either been declared unconstitutional or were about to be repealed when 9/11 occurred.

James X. Dempsey and David Cole state in their book, "Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security," that the most troubling provisions of the pre-USAPA anti-terrorism laws, enacted in 1996 and expanded now by the USAPA, "were developed long before the bombings that triggered their final enactment."

Dempsey is the former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and Deputy Director at the Center for Democracy & Technology, and Cole is professor of law at Georgetown University and an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Looking back at the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, Dempsey and Cole declare that "the much-touted gains in law enforcement powers" under that Act, "produced no visible concrete results in the fight against terrorism." They add that the principles espoused in the Act "were shown in case after case to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in the fight against terrorism." And importantly, the authors comment that the United States government has not shown that the expanded powers it has asserted in the USAPA are necessary to fight terrorism.

Dempsey and Cole trace the origins of the national security trend back to the "intolerant approaches of the 1950s," when association with Communist or anarchist groups was made a ground for exclusion and deportation. Congress removed the guilt by association law in 1990, but it was revived only six years later by law enforcement proponents in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, immediately following the Oklahoma City Bombing.

More specifically, however, Dempsey and Cole show that it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)

The troublesome provisions proposed by Reagan and the first Bush included the resurrection of guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review.

Despite the Reagan and Bush proposals and one-sided hearings, there was broad-based opposition to such legislation. According to Dempsey and Cole, "several members of the House Judiciary Committee, both Democrat and Republican, questioned the need for the legislation." Lawmakers repeatedly asked why new legislation was needed and how it would help. Administration witnesses literally refused to answer lawmakers' questions, finally causing Representative John Conyers to exclaim, "I've never seen this much law created as a result of prosecutions that we agree worked very effectively!"

"The legislation languished and seemed headed for defeat," say Dempsey and Cole. Until Oklahoma City.

The Oklahoma City bombing, for which there exists a significant body of evidence of a shadow government operation, was used as justification for the enactment of the very provisions lawmakers had previously found most constitutionally troublesome.

Included in the resulting 1996 Antiterrorism Act, although it had nothing to do with terrorism at all, was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's long-sought provision to limit the right of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the procedure whereby a person convicted by a state court can challenge that conviction in a federal court. The thing is, terrorism cases are brought in federal, not state, courts. "Senator Hatch wanted to make it more difficult for federal courts to order retrials of prisoners where state courts had violated the U.S. Constitution," according to Dempsey and Cole.

The USAPA clearly furthers the goals of making it more difficult for anyone to review or appeal government wrongdoing. It allows for indefinite detention of suspected (not "proven") alien terrorists, without probable cause of a crime, without a hearing or an opportunity to defend or challenge the evidence against them, when they have not even been proven to be a threat and have already established a legal right to remain here. The only process allowed the suspected alien is the "right" to go to federal court and sue the government for its actions.

The USAPA expands the Secretary of State's power to designate terrorist groups without any court or congressional review and allows for secret searches without probable cause. Dempsey and Cole state that these changes "go far beyond what was needed to respond to terrorism." Indeed, they point out that in many instances, "the changes are not limited to terrorist investigations at all, but apply across the board to all criminal investigations."

A good example of the kind of change brought about under the USAPA, which illustrates the underlying and pre-existing agenda of its proponents, is section 218, which amends a single phrase in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The purpose of FISA was to allow intelligence agencies to gather information about foreign powers without the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. The reasoning for this was that the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering is not to detect crimes but to gather information about foreign agents.

Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret physical searches, a designated official of the executive office had to certify that "the purpose" for the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 218 of the USAPA modifies that clause so that intelligence gathering need not be "the purpose," - in other words, it need no longer be the primary purpose, -- but may be only "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

This means that if an official can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence is a significant purpose of a surveillance action (the other purpose clearly being criminal investigation), he can avoid the requirement that he first show probable cause of criminal activity. It means the FBI, the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, can surveil you without probable cause, as long as they say the surveillance has something to do with a foreign intelligence investigation of some sort (which may otherwise not even involve you directly).

Because courts have consistently refused to "second guess" FISA surveillance certifications, there is effectively no judicial review of such activities. This small change has enormous ramifications. For all practical purposes, the section 218 USAPA amendment of FISA allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens (not just immigrants).

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress notes: "From the beginning, defendants have questioned whether authorities had used a FISA surveillance order against them in order to avoid the predicate crime threshold..."

In 1980, the 4th Circuit court stated in the landmark case of U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung that "the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Another circuit court declared in 1991 that "the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance."

In other words, courts have pretty consistently thrown out intelligence information gathered under FISA where it has been established that foreign intelligence gathering was not the primary purpose of the surveillance.

It is clear that intelligence agencies have wanted to change this law for some time. It is clear that they have been frustrated by the "primary purpose rule." However, it is not merely the result of intelligence agency wishes or a matter of history that this restriction has now been overridden. History shows that Congress has consistently resisted enacting these types of changes. History also shows that the Reagan and Bush I Administrations repeatedly attempted to push such laws through. Oklahoma City proved that only a "real" terrorist attack would convince Congress.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the proponents of this amendment know it is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. They have had many years to think about it and have repeatedly shown their willingness to enact carefully crafted, unconstitutional laws. They know the amendment allows intelligence to conduct criminal investigations on American citizens without adherence to basic constitutional protections. Furthermore, under the information sharing provision of section 203 of the USAPA, information gathered in this way can now be shared with other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, for whatever uses they want.

Most significantly, it is clear that the events of 9/11 gave the proponents of this amendment the opportunity they needed to slip it by Congress.