>Perspective: FEMA's role in apocalyptic narrative

A briefing on web-based conspiracist and apocalyptic interpretations of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

By Charles cameron, Senior Analyst, The Arlington Institute, Principal Researcher, the Center for Millenial Studies at Boston University.

chasc@arlingtoninstitute.org

This June 19, 1999 perspective can be viewed or downloaded from:

PDF format - http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hipbone/FEMA.pdf

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), August 30, 1999

!!#@!##@%!@#%

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), August 30, 1999.

People notice that the legal ground work exists that would allow the president to use FEMA as a central authority for the country and it's labeled "Apocalyptic". Attaching this label to any issue will make that issue difficult to discuss openly.

The issue depends on a few facts that can be verified. Do the executive orders exist that give the president the power to run the country with absolute power. Have the mechanisms been built in to FEMA that would allow the agency act as a central authority? If these mechanisms do exist and the a national emergency is declared, what is the procedure to return to out normal form of government?

The title "A briefing on web-based conspiracist and apocalyptic interpretations of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency" is an excellent example of injecting preception in to an issue to color any discussion that may follow.

There's more than one way to clip the 1st Amendment.

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), August 30, 1999.

This is pure smear. Mix fact with religion and science fiction, lable it "apocalyptic." Mix the allegations with a factual basis together with religious prophecy, and treat them both as dangerous and irrational.

I note that while the writer counsels FEMA field agents to avoid "mockery or summary dismissal of the apocalyptic point of view," that is precisely what the writer is doing, by example! The writer is performing a "summary dismissal" in that he mixes fictional and factually-based claims without distinction, and doesn't bother to offer a refutation. What about REX 84? That little gem was swept under the rug during the Iran Contra hearings: it is a real, historical event, deemed by the chairman of the Congressional Commitee, Inouye, to be too vital to "national security" for public discussion. Yet this, and other key features of FEMA -it's draconian continuity-of-government plans, it's receipt of "black budget" pentagon funds, and others- are "summarily dismissed" by associating them with apocalyptic beliefs, and popular science fiction. No mention is made of the "critical infrastructure protection" provisions in recent executive orders - the basis in fact for these widespread public concerns.

This is a hand job. It paves the way for religion to be dealt with as a pathology and a threat to public health, and political dissent to be categorized and treated as a similar "whacko" abberation. All with complete avoidance of fact-based any fact-based dialog.

When they say "our agents may be in danger," grab your gas mask and your bullet-proof fire-extinguisher!

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 30, 1999.

"This is pure smear. Mix fact with religion and science fiction, lable it "apocalyptic." Mix the allegations with a factual basis together with religious prophecy, and treat them both as dangerous and irrational."

Time Magazine tried that last year, I guess they didn't go enough of a good job for the gov. so now they're putting FEMA in charge.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 30, 1999.

And furthermore:

The comparison of the oh-so-innocent phrase "New World Order" (used by Hitler to describe his dream of European Unification, which has been accomplished posthumously) with the motto "U Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One") is an outrage. It betrays a frighteningly low assessment of their agents' intelligence, to compare a multinational globalist rulership-by-commitee with the original, unadulterated, design for the democratic Republic that was the United States of America. The latter was mean to be a UNION of SEPARATE STATES, with a strictly and severely limited Federal government. It was deliberately opposed to the centralization of power that we see in the current "U.S." monolithic state-entity, an entity that is now telling us we must give up our rights an amendment at a time -the 10th, the 4th, the 2nd...- the better to fit into some globalist "New World Order" that does not honor our right to property, association, speech, worship, etc., and does NOT limit the centralized government power which the Constitution's founders recognized as an invitation to tyranny and evil on the grandest scale imaginable.

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 30, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

As recently as June (I think), Horn's committee was giving a failing grade to FEMA (for goodness' sake!) Are these the guys we want to have in charge?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 30, 1999.

More about your friendly FEMA

http://www.heartsongs.org/FEMA.htm

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

Our old friends Ollie North and Ronald Reagan. Let's not forget all they've done for us. *sigh*

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 30, 1999.

I asked this once before, on another thread, but no one touched the question, so I'll try it again here: I haven't taken the time to do an actual poll, but it seems that the majority of people posting who expect Y2K related catastrophes, expect that most of the "unprepared" will lose their s--t big time, when those catastrphes occur. The question is, what would you suggest to be the alternative to martial law, when you have an entire nation disintergrating into panic?

And I'll add another question: In the absence of a civilian organization being authorized to coordinate martial law, the regular military hierarchy would have ultimate control. Do you see this as a better or worse situation?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 31, 1999.

The question is, what would you suggest to be the alternative to martial law, when you have an entire nation disintergrating into panic?

I say, who's fault will panic and national disintergration be in the first place, if they are to actually happen? Somebody is playing both sides against the middle; Y2K is somebody's Final Solution.

-- CS Man (csm@smoke.com), August 31, 1999.

NWO is real. Spend time at the UN site and read, read, read. Also, I forget the name of the book, but the UN has published a book outlining their agenda/vison. To call someone diluted or apocolyptic or whatever for believing that global governance and loss of nationalistic soverngty(sp) is either ignorant or a bold faced lie.

The fact is that powers through out history have actively strived for a "New Order" of single governance. From Alexander to Napoleon to Hitler to you name it, they all wanted a single world order. It's been going on ever since the tower of Babel, except NOW the world has the means(technology, military, economic interdependacies, etc.) to actually get really, really, close.

I could care less. They can try, will fail as always. Only ONE can establish a true NWO and he's due back soon, to kick ass and take names. Got popcorn?

BTW, keep your accusations of tinfoil and all that shit, it's getting old and is implied considering the topic. Just sit back and wallow in self absorbsion.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 31, 1999.

CS Man,

But that wasn't the question.

History is full of examples of where the people were corralled into particular courses of action. WW II and the American Revolution are two good examples.

America was extremely isolationist, in the days prior to WW II. The American powers at the time, vexed the Japanese continuously by issuing belicose statements regarding what the Japanese regarded as their sphere of dominance(Asia) and then left our fleet (except the carriers) wide open to a pre-emptive strike. I think the powers of the time knew that would be too juicy a target for the Japanese to resist (although I think they underestimated the success the Japanese attack would have) and that the back of American isolationism would be broken, once the attack occured.

In the years prior to the American Revolution, it was primarily rich merchants, who were feeling the bite of British dominance, because of excessive taxation. Incidents like the Boston Tea Party were done to harry the British into a martial law situation, so that the average colonist would feel the opression, as well.

Once corralled, however, the question becomes, are there any alternatives left?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 31, 1999.

Cygnus XI,

Who were you talking to? I hope it wasn't me, because I regard the term "Tinfoil" as a slur against all G.I.s and never use the word.

I also did not touch on the NWO subject. I wasn't even thinking about that. My question was to the people who have expressed worries about panic among the citizenry, but still express horror at martial law plans. Many of the people I'm adressing don't even buy into the NWO idea, or at least I've never read where they've expressed such an idea.

I only imply or mince words when I'm attempting to be comical. Rest assured, that if I'm asking a serious question, I don't hold back.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 31, 1999.

A little TAI background...

http:// www.arlingtoninstitute.org/

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

The Arlington Institute is a non-profit policy and research institute founded in 1990 by futurist John L. Petersen to study transitional dynamics and the future. We are specialized generalists--we believe that effective thinking about the future is impossible without casting a very wide net, so we encourage systemic, non-linear approaches to planning. We strive to be agents of change by moving new concepts into the policy arena and creating intellectual frameworks for understanding them.

We help equip leaders from all types of disciplines with broad perspectives on emerging patterns and probable futures by:

 Tracking and evaluating major scientific, technological, social, demographic, and environmental forces that drive change.
 Conducting future-focused studies and initiatives.
 Exploring how trends might crosscut in significant ways.
 Cataloging potential "Wild Cards"-low probability but high impact events.
 Helping leadership translate information-from data to scenarios-- into mental maps by which to guide decision making and build sophisticated organizational visions.

Because of our interest in systemically looking at the future, we have become particularly knowledgeable about identifying and preparing for wild cards that could have profound global impact. It is within the context of studying potential future surprises that we arrived at the Year 2000 Problem, and more specifically, the social implications of Y2K to which we are fully dedicated throughout 1999 and into 2000.

Understanding Global Rapid Transitions

1. TAI believes that we are at an extraordinary time in human history. High rates of change in many converging areas and sectors (technology, social values, population, environment, science).

2. We believe that in the coming years humanity will have to deal with a series of major events that have the common characteristics of being, global in scope, potentially disastrous, and intrinsically out of control.

3. These "wild cards", in some cases born out of collisions of titanic global forces, will come rapidly, tasking humanity's ability to effectively respond to them.

4. These potential events (e.g. rapid climate change, growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, cyberterrorism, etc!) do not have analogues in our history. We don't have the experience or tools for dealing with them.

5. Humanity therefore has an extraordinary imperative (and opportunity): Invent a new way to think about these kinds of problems, develop new problem solving approaches, design new tools.

6. An unusual opportunity for learning exists with the Year 2000 problem (Y2K), for it is the first of these types of problems. But it is different than the rest because we know that it is coming and have the time to learn from it.

7. Y2K is a prototype that offers us the opportunity to evolve to a new level of understanding and sophistication by learning how to deal with a global, predetermined, highly complex, systems problem.

8. The major uncertainty in Y2K and other possible wild card events is how people will react to them. The social response is the biggest unknown--and area for the greatest opportunity for development.

9. TAI therefore has undertaken a major project--Project Y2K--to learn, better than any other institution  how social systems may respond to the Y2K issue. In so doing we will provide an unequalled service to many thousands of institutions and millions of individuals who are trying to decide how they will respond to the intrinsic uncertainty of Y2K.

10. At the same time, we will actively treat Y2K as a learning opportunity--a chance to track the behavior of huge groups of people, understand what influences that behavior, attempt to anticipate what might happen, and extract fundamentals out of the experience. We will build the basic framework of a new approach to large-scale problem solving that will involve new perspectives, new methods, new tools, and new understandings of the behavior of worldwide systems.

11. Project Y2K is therefore the first of what TAI sees as a series of projects extending into the next decade that build on each other. Each will be focused on a rapidly moving major global problem which we will approach with the learning and experience gleaned from the previous project. In the process we will develop a new multifaceted discipline that will revolve around systems thinking.

12. By developing a unique Fusion Center that marries some of the world¹s best technical and human analytical capabilities we will have a world-class, unequaled facility that will have enduring utility.

Copyright ) 1999 by The Arlington Institute

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999.

Bokonon,

You assume 1. That people's tendency will be to panic, rather than band together locally in cooperation. If, in major population centers, looting occurs, let the NG do it's job. But, in reviewing the current Executive Orders on "critical infrastructure," we're talking about a dictatorship run by the Executive. This command-structure (with sub-dictators in areas of energy, transportation, communications, agriculture, etc.) has already been designed, and meetings have been held to coordinate these would-be office-holders. It's ready to go. The Fed will have the power to confiscate any and all personal property it wants to, draft labor without pay, separate families as it "relocates" them at gunpoint, control t.v. and radio stations and all print media... This goes way beyond quelling panic where and when it may occur, does it not? There are no provisions in these orders for the timely restoration of elective, constitutional government. And like the current drug-war bureaucracy, which is now entrenched and dependent upon the drug trade that it pretends, ineffectually, to combat, this dictatorship will be extremely difficult to dislodge once it gains a foothold.

You also assume 2. That "martial law" in a free society is appropriate or legal under ANY conditions. It's not. The whole of our Constitution is a dyke built to hold back this flood of militaristic, centralized government power, which the founders viewed as the ultimate threat to mankind. They understood that the ambition of powerful men to enslave others with central government, and the use of a governments military on it's own citizens, was a constant factor in the human condition. They couldn't have dreamed that one day we might toy with the idea of signing over our inalienable rights "temporarily" to a centralized, dictatorial power (such as that described by the E.O.s on "critical infrastructure"). This is why Waco is so important with regard to Y2k. They are testing the waters, to see what we will accept.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999.

Liberty,

I agree that once martial law is established, in can be difficult to get the military to relinquish control. I'm not making any attempt at arguing that point.

I think people have gotten so used to "baited traps" around here, that they assume ANY question is a set up or a malcious bit of trolling. This is neither. I am simply trying to determine if the attitudes of people who expect chaos, and are not liking what they see in the FEMA plans, are a) they'd rather endure the chaos, than accept martial law, or b) they have an alternative suggestion for restoring social order. The second question is aimed at finding out who people trust more; the military or civilian authorities.

Believe me, I am not wild about the idea of martial law, and hope that it's used only as a last, desperate measure, and do not have the slightest fondness for the idea of it being used pre-emptively. You and Cygnus (I think, since I'm still not sure who he was talking to) are reading way too much between the lines here.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 31, 1999.

Bokonon,

You are offering the choice between dictators in uniform ("military authorities") and dictators in suits ("civilian authorities") to "restore order." Only in the most populated and hard-hit areas would the "chaos" require National Guard. Otherwise, people can solve their own "chaos" problems themselves. You've equated "chaos" with "panic," so I'm assuming that by "restoring order," you mean PEOPLE SUPRESSION, rather than hauling water and food, helping to repair water, sewer, communications systems, and so on. In terms of "military authorities," these have NO "authority" WHATSOEVER, domestically, in a free society - EVER. Civilian authorities are ever and always elected in such a free society, and accountable to the people. When they declare themselves to be otherwise (e.g., "suspending" elections), "emergency" or no, they are make themselves a foreign body, and a conspicuous obstacle to order. Order comes from the people, not from the "authorities." The Constitution empowers us to create our own government, and re-create it, from the neighborhood level to the State, to the Federal. The "panicky" people are the parent of Government, not the other way around. We can restore our own order, thank you.

Liberty

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999.

Bokonon,

I only add that we can restore our own order - if we are not disarmed, or robbed of any of our other inalienable rights by an unconstitutional army of occupation.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 31, 1999.

Liberty,

What I'm hearing you say, is that you would rather take a chance on chaos. Thank you, that is what I am curious about.

As to the question reagarding "people supression", I have only this to say. The only situation where I would accept martial law or National Guard control, is if we are in a mob-rule scenario. My reading of history is that panicked angry mobs are notoriously unconcerned about such constitutional concepts as due-process and prohibitions against illegal search and seizure, and in such a situation I think discussions about the constitution become strictly academic.

I agree that in a situation of localized mob-rule, the Guard is the appropriate organization to deal with it. However if mob-rule became widespread and overwhelmed the Guards abilities, then I'd have to be honest and say yes, I'd see a little people suppression as appropriate. I see nothing in the constitution guaranteeing unbridled anarchy.

This is all for the sake of discussion, though. I personally do not subscribe to the notion that there will be that sort of widespread disorder. If nothing else, the cold weather will slow things down considerably, at least in the north. And I also think that even in southern climes, you will see a range of reactions: some will freak out, some will be quite heroic in their attempts to help others. Some will sit quietly, staring in disbelief and others will find ways to exploit the situation. I think the "Lord Of The Flies" scenario is a little overblown. We won't devolve that quickly. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think this lends itself to a quick development of that kind of single minded mob. By quick, I mean anything less than 6 months. If we're still knee deep in doo-doo after six months, then just about everything becomes an academic discussion.

But anyway, thank you, for your answer.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 31, 1999.

REX-84

By 1984, the biannual "REX exercises" had fallen under the auspices of FEMA. President Reagan signed Presidential Directive Number 54 specifically authorizing REX-84 as formulated by Lt. Colonel Oliver North. Whereas REX-82 had been conducted in conjunction with a Pentagon war game termed "Proud Saber," REX-84 was so highly classified that special metal security doors were installed on the fifth floor of the agency's Washington headquarters building. Even long-term officials of the Civil Defense Office were barred.

The stated intention of REX-84 was to test the readiness of FEMA and those elements under its command to assume military control in the event of widespread civil unrest concurrent with a significant U.S. military incursion into Central America, specifically the invasion of Nicaragua planned by North and his accomplices in the National Security Council.

An internal memo written by the Joint Chiefs of Staff the previous December first described in considerable detail the steps involved in calling out the troops in response to an undefined national emergency. Listed were exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the U.S. military from law enforcement activities within our national boundaries. Authority cited was "the inherent legal right of the United States Government to ensure the preservation of public order ... by force if necessary," a murky and inaccurate assertion struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 when President Harry Truman seized the steel mills.

REX-84 assumed a mass of some 400,000 refugees streaming into the U.S. from across the Mexican border. Within a six-hour period, FEMA and its subordinate agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), were to apprehend and detain such persons in 10 detention centers established on active or former military bases scattered around the country. Strategists have privately raised several troubling questions about this exercise. Could that many people physically rush the U.S.-Mexico border within the stated time frame? Considering the rough, foreboding terrain typical along the border and the extent to which refugees could disperse, how logical is it to attempt to roundup 400,000 persons, who have very little to lose, within six hours? If such was the true intent of the exercise, why would not the concentration camps -- sorry, the "detention centers" -- be set up near the border?

"The Spotlight," a long-standing populist newspaper based in Washington, D.C., exposed REX-84 that year in a series of investigative reports which uncovered plans to stir into the mix the arrest of dissidents and "potential subversives."

Strenuously opposing Rex-84 was William French Smith, who had been serving as U.S. attorney general since 1981. He was a long-time confidante of Ronald Reagan, as well as his personal attorney and a member of the "kitchen cabinet" that engineered Reagan's rise to the presidency. Smith criticized stipulations for the declaration of martial law, turning control of all governmental functions over to FEMA, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the appointment of military commanders to run all state and local affairs.

Wallace Stickney, George Bush's FEMA director, has stated that he was not given access to the agency's most sensitive plans. He relates an instance wherein a congressional appropriations committee questioned his staff about a particular expenditure. He reacted: "I was aware funding was being passed through but didn't know where it was going -- nor did Congress, which demanded to know." Generally, when the "doomsday budget" was questioned, says Stickney, national security was mentioned, and "it was overlooked by gentlemen's agreement."

Miami Herald Exclusive

On July 5, 1987, the front page of the Miami Herald led with an extensively researched article on what the lead counsel for the Senate Iran-Contra Committee called "a secret government within a government."

It was the conclusion of many administration officials and congressional investigators that from the first days of the Reagan administration, a parallel government operated outside the established cabinet and department lines of authority. Oliver North was found to be a key figure in the group, which conducted activities through a network of colleagues who acted under their directions, but did not officially report to them. From time to time, cabinet members or top aides detected side channel operations.

However, their efforts to question such projects were ineffectual, partly due to concerns that the president's wishes might be involved. Indeed, a number of ranking sources confirmed Mr. Reagan's knowledge of and participation in a number of these unofficial programs.

The Herald went on to name Attorney General Edwin Meese, CIA Director Wil-liam Casey and National Security Advisor William Clark, all close friends and advisors to the president, as major players in "the secret structure."

Operating out of the Old Executive Office Building most of the time, North worked closely with FEMA to redraw national contingency plans dealing with nearly everything from nuclear attack to civil insurrection. The martial-law component was reflected in a June 30, 1982, memo written by John Brinkerhoff, deputy to Director Guiffrida. The text was reminiscent of Guiffrida's controversial paper written at the War College in Carlisle, Pa., in 1970.

FEMA's action plan included the declaration of martial law, suspension of the Constitution and aggressive moves against dissenters. A trigger could be "violent and widespread internal dissent." This plan and its failure to clearly define a national crisis caused Attorney General Smith to issue an official protest. The Herald reported that on Aug. 2, 1984, Smith emphatically expressed to National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane his alarm over FEMA's "expansion of the definition of severe emergency to encompass 'routine' domestic law enforcement emergencies."

Smith openly fumed that FEMA's "mobilization exercise scenarios continue to assign FEMA the responsibility of representing the Department of Justice and other cabinet agencies at meetings with the president and the National Security Council during national security emergencies."

Understandably, Smith's resignation was accepted in early 1984, although he agreed to remain until his successor, the more flexible Edwin Meese, could gain Senate confirmation. In the closing days of his service, Smith wrote, "This Department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to the creation of an 'emergency czar' role for FEMA."

It is thought that the courage of Attorney General Smith and the expose by The Spotlight helped cost Giuffrida his top post.

In its Oct.17, 1994, issue, The Spotlight published an article titled "Dictatorial Powers for FEMA" based on Senate bill S. 1697, introduced in November 1993 by Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). The bill died without reaching the Senate floor. But who needs actual legislation anymore? Bill Clinton accomplished the purposes of the bill and more when he signed Executive Order 12919 on June 3, 1994.

This executive order cited authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 and one section of the U.S. Code. Thirteen executive orders were revoked or amended, definitions were expanded, and more presidential powers were delegated to the director of FEMA.

Of particular interest is Part VI of Executive Order 12919. The head of any FEMA department or agency is empowered to establish an expertise-based National Defense Executive Reserve. Section 602 authorizes any head "to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. ..." This writer believes there is an impolite term for that.

link

-- FEMA Watcher (looking@gov.closely), August 31, 1999.