The Nuclear Bible: Nuclear Aftermath of America
Intro: Should a nuclear terror attack transpire at the Super Bowl, or any other target for that matter, it is almost certain that martial law
will be declared in United States. Should this occur, it would be the second time that martial law was declared in the last 10+ years. Just
prior to 9/11, Jeb Bush, brother to George W. Bush and son of George H.W. Bush, declared martial law in Florida four days prior to 9/11
when he signed Florida Executive Order No. 01-261. As detailed, martial law and the destruction of the U.S. Constitution has been planned
for quite some time now.
Date: September 7, 2001
Source: Prison Planet, State Of Florida, Jeb Bush
Title/Headline: Executive Order Number 01-261
Abstract: "I hereby delegate to The Adjutant General of the State of Florida all necessary authority, within approved budgetary
appropriations or grants, to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service, as defined by Section 250.27, Florida
Statutes, for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil
disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating
to counter drug operations. This Executive Order shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of its revocation or June 30, 2003".
Section 3, of Florida Executive Order No. 01-261, states that the Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state active
duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training
and inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida
port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of
Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary
support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes. The precedence and training for martial law in the state of
Florida has already been implemented (Prison Planet, 2001).
Tommy Ray Franks
Date: November 21, 2003
Source: Newsmax, John O. Edwards
Title/Headline: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
Abstract: Former U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large
casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. The former commander of the
military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of
our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Discussing the hypothetical
dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ―the worst thing that could happen‖ is if terrorists acquire and
then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties. If that happens, Franks said, ―... the Western
world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this
grand experiment that we call democracy.‖ Franks then offered ―in a practical sense‖ what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of
such an attack. ―It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own
Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in
fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.‖ But Franks’ scenario goes much further.
He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. ―It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the
history of man…I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace‖ (Edwards, 2003).
Date: May 11, 2007
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, James Sterngold
Title/Headline: Contingencies For Nuclear Terrorist Attack: Government Working Up Plan To Prevent Chaos In Wake Of Bombing Of
Abstract: As concerns grow that terrorists might attack a major American city with a nuclear bomb, a high-level group of
government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program that would include the building of
bomb shelters, steps to prevent panicked evacuations and the possible suspension of some civil liberties. Many experts say the
likelihood of al Qaeda or some other terrorist group producing a working nuclear weapon with illicitly obtained weapons-grade fuel is not
large, but such a strike would be far more lethal, frightening and disruptive than the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Not only could the numbers
killed and wounded be far higher, but the explosion could, experts say, ignite widespread fires, shut down most transportation, halt much
economic activity and cause a possible disintegration of government order. The efforts to prepare a detailed blueprint for survival took a
step forward last month when senior government and military officials and other experts, organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program
called the Preventive Defense Project, met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop. The session, called "The Day
After," was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough, and that the prospect of
a collapse of government order was so great if there were an attack that the country needed to begin preparing an emergency
program. One of the participants, retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, is a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is
currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan. The organizers of the nonpartisan project, Stanford's William Perry, a
secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, and Harvard's Ashton Carter, a senior Defense Department official during the Clinton
years, assumed the detonation of a bomb similar in size to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II. Such a weapon, with a
force of around 10 to 15 kilotons, is small compared with most Cold War-era warheads, but is roughly the yield of a relatively simple
bomb. That would be considerably more powerful and lethal than a so-called dirty bomb, which is a conventional explosive packed with
some dangerous radioactive material that would be dispersed by the explosion. The 41 participants -- including the directors of the
country's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Homeland Security officials, a number of top military commanders and former
government officials -- discussed how all levels of government ought to respond to protect the country from a second nuclear
attack, to limit health problems from the radioactive fallout and to restore civil order. Comments inside the session were confidential,
but a number of the participants described their views and the ideas exchanged. A paper the organizers are writing, summarizing their
recommendations, urges local governments and individuals to build underground bomb shelters, much as people did in the early
days of the Cold War; encourages authorities who survive to prevent evacuation of at least some of the areas attacked for three
days to avoid roadway paralysis and damage from exposure to radioactive fallout; and proposes suspending regulations on radiation
exposure so that first responders would be able to act, even if that caused higher cancer rates. "The public at large will expect that their
government had thought through this possibility and to have planned for it," Carter said in an interview. "This kind of an event would
be unprecedented. We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and with Katrina. But those are
only glimpses." Perhaps the most sobering issue discussed was the possibility of a chaotic, long-term crisis triggered by fears that
the attackers might have more bombs. Such uncertainty could sow panic nationwide. "If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be
more to follow," Carter said. "This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than a single episode, has major
consequences." It would, he added, require powerful government intervention to force people to do something many may resist -- staying
put. Fred Ikle, a former Defense Department official in the Reagan administration who authored a book last year urging attack preparation,
"Annihilation from Within," said that the government should plan how it could restrict civil liberties and enforce a sort of martial law
in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but also have guidelines for how those liberties could be restored later. That prospect
underscored a central divide among participants at the recent meeting, several said. Some participants argued that the federal government
needs to educate first responders and other officials as quickly as possible on how to act even if transportation and communication systems
break down, as seems likely, and if the government is unable to issue orders. "There was a clear consensus that a nuclear bomb
detonated in the United States or a friendly country would be an earth-shaking event, and we need to know how we will respond
beforehand," said Ikle. "I wish we had started earlier, because this kind of planning can make an important difference." But others said the
meeting made it clear that the results of any attack would be so devastating and the turmoil so difficult to control, if not impossible, that the
lesson should have been that the U.S. government needs to place a far greater emphasis on prevention. "Your cities would empty and
people would completely lose confidence in the ability of the government to protect them," said Steve Fetter, dean of the School of
Public Policy at the University of Maryland. "You'd have nothing that resembles our current social order. I'm not sure any
preparation can be sufficient to deal with that." Fetter added, "We have to hold current policymakers more responsible" for taking all
out measures to prevent a nuclear attack. Raymond Jeanloz, a nuclear weapons expert at UC Berkeley and a government adviser on nuclear
issues, said that California might be better prepared than most states because of long-standing plans for dealing with earthquakes and other
natural disasters. Those plans, he said, could be a useful model for first responders. He added, as others did, that the dislocation and panic
caused by a nuclear strike could make any responses unpredictable. "The most difficult thing is the fear that this kind of planning,
even talking about it, can cause," Jeanloz said. Michael May, a former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
defended the survival planning, saying that people should get used to the idea that such a crisis, while dire, could be managed -- a key step
in restoring calm. "You have to demystify the nuclear issue," said May, who now teaches at Stanford's Center for International
Security and Cooperation. "By talking about this, you take away the feeling of helplessness" (Sterngold, 2007).
Date: February 14, 2008
Source: United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM)
Title/Headline: U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command Establish New Bilateral Civil Assistance Plan
Abstract: The US signed an agreement which allows for the deployment of US troops inside Canada. There was no official
announcement nor was there a formal decision at the governmental level. The agreement, which raises far reaching issues of national
sovereignty, was not between the two governments. It was signed by military commanding officers. U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) released a statement confirming that the agreement had been signed between US NORTHCOM and Canada Command,
namely between the military commands of each country. Canada Command was established in February 2006. U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene
Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen.
Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to
support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency. ―This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align
our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,‖
Renuart said. ―Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and
effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance,
and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.‖ ―The
signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S.
Northern Command,‖ Dumais said. ―Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security
challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between
friends.‖ The plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the
Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil
authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response (NORTHCOM, 2008).
Date: March 25, 2008
Source: Washington Post, Jay Davis
Title/Headline: After A Nuclear 9/11
Abstract: The appearance of nuclear weapons materials on the black market is a growing global concern, and it is crucial that the United
States reinforce its team of nuclear forensics experts and modernize its forensics tools to prepare for or respond to a possible nuclear
terrorist attack. Large quantities of nuclear materials are inadequately secured in several countries, including Russia and Pakistan. Since
1993, there have been more than 1,300 incidents of illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, including plutonium and highly enriched
uranium, both of which can be used to develop an atomic bomb. And these are only the incidents we know about. It is quite
possible that a terrorist group could acquire enough nuclear material to build a bomb. Nuclear materials have been discovered by
border patrols, seized in police raids from India to, as recently as last fall, Slovakia, and even hidden in a flower garden in Hanover,
Germany. With enough stolen material, only a few specialists would be needed to build a nuclear weapon. After that, terrorists would lack
only a truck to deliver it. If a terrorist group were to detonate a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil, the FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland
Security and the nation's national labs would race to track down those responsible and prevent any further detonations by that
group. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the time between the fall of the twin towers and our response in Afghanistan was less than one month.
But current U.S. nuclear forensics capability -- which involves analyzing nuclear radiation and isotopic signatures -- can't
guarantee definitive information within a month of an attack. Fibers, fingerprints, hair samples, a truck axle -- all standard forensics
clues -- would have been vaporized in the explosion. Only two primary pieces of evidence would remain: radiation and isotopic
signatures. Radiation and isotopic signatures are the scents that nuclear forensics scientists use to hunt terrorists. Within a few
hours, they would know whether the bomb was made of plutonium or uranium, a crucial first step in narrowing the investigation.
Within hours to weeks, they would determine key details about the original nuclear material and then estimate the size, weight and
complexity of the bomb. Over the next several months, they might be able to identify the source country and the terrorists' pathway into the
United States. But in our post-Sept. 11 world, we won't have months to respond. There would be enormous pressure to rapidly
identify the terrorists and the chain of events leading up to the attack. With a few changes, the speed and accuracy of nuclear forensics
could be significantly improved. First, we should update our 20th-century program to confront 21st-century enemies. Much of our field and
laboratory equipment dates to the Cold War. So do most of our personnel. We need to develop and manufacture advanced, automated
radiation analysis equipment that can be deployed to the field and is backed up by improved laboratory measurement. We need enhanced
computer simulation and modeling capabilities. And we need to establish a federal initiative to reinvigorate the field of nuclear
chemistry. Second, international collaboration is essential. Nuclear material can have a unique signature depending on its source reactor or
fuel facility. A shared and appropriately accessible international database of nuclear samples can help to more quickly match debris from
an explosion with its original source. Third, we must consider what it will take for the world to believe our analysis. The U.S. intelligence
community's failures in assessing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could well result in international skepticism regarding any nuclear
forensics investigation we might perform. A group of recognized experts not associated with our federal investigation should be established
to provide independent validation of the forensics analysis. Finally, we need to manage expectations and prepare for the inevitable
political pressure to respond quickly after an attack. Through realistic drills, our leaders can become aware of the strengths and
limitations of the nation's nuclear forensics capability. Even with these changes, forensics analysis will take time, and results will not be
immediately conclusive. Our leaders must recognize that, at times, decisions may need to be deferred or made amid uncertainty. There has
been some good news. Some countries, including Pakistan, are strengthening the critical programs that lock down nuclear material
at its source. But we must take additional steps, in case plutonium or uranium slips past the gate (Davis, 2008).
Date: July 18, 2008
Source: CQ Politics, Jeff Stein
Title/Headline: D.C. Homeland Security Chief Predicts Chaos In Event of Nuke Attack
Abstract: Darrell Darnell, director of the District of Columbia’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, says there
would be ―a lot of panic, a lot of chaos‖ if a small nuclear bomb detonated near the White House, which would most likely prevent
an evacuation of the city as radiation spread.
Jeff Stein: Who’s in charge during in a major emergency in the city?
Darrell Darnell: Well, I think we all operate under the Incident Command system, to have
consistency and commonality among different agencies at the federal, state and local level responding to an event. So
who’s in charge would depend on the event, and who we believe is most qualified agency-slash-person to lead that event. So it’s
not just a matter of saying it’s a certain federal, state or local person, but who’s best qualified to handle that event. And it usually
depends on who is first on the scene. The first person on the scene is the incident commander, until someone else comes on the
scene, who’s most qualified. And that’s how the incident command is determined.
Jeff Stein: Who would be in charge if a small nuclear bomb went off downtown?
Darrell Darnell: Well, again, the incident really drives who’s in charge, who takes charge.
Obviously, the local government has a big responsibility in the incident you just
described, you’re going to have a large federal presence simply because the resources to
deal with that only the federal government has.
Jeff Stein: Well, you have the fire trucks, ambulances.
Darrell Darnell: We have those types of things. But obviously in a nuclear event you’re going
to have a huge swatch of area.
Jeff Stein: What would happen if a small nuke went off near the White House right now? You’d
have an immediate area of damage, but then other things, like a radiation plume moving
right toward your office. It could be there in 10 minutes, so you guys would be radiated
Darrell Darnell: Yeah.
Jeff Stein: So if it happened right now what would you do?
Darrell Darnell: If it happened right now, the first thing we would do is notify some federal
officials and get some assets that would help us provide immediate assistance, to get as
many people away from ground zero, if you will, try to do the best thing we can to
coordinate that area so that no one gets into it. We have plume modeling equipment here
in our office. So I would ask my plume-modeling folks to as quickly as they can let me
know where that plume is going to be, so we can start evacuating people. We would be
sending out text alerts, a reverse 911, to anyone in the district who has a listed telephone
number, explaining to them what actions to take, which areas to evacuate. We would also
immediately pick up our emergency hot line to all the emergency agencies explaining to
them what happened, where we are trying to evacuate people to, such as VDOT, so we
can start our evacuation routes to West Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina.
Jeff Stein: What about ―sheltering in place,‖ as its called. The federal government says it has plans for its employees to shelter in place,
and have stockpiled supplies there, but when we reported on it a few years ago, most of them didn’t have supplies and the
employees hadn’t ever heard of it.
Darrell Darnell: In the last year the National Capital Planning Commission has been working on sheltering in place and a capital
evacuation plan. We’ve identified the shelters for people to go to, but one of the challenges in any incident is getting people to
understand whether to shelter in place. So what we’ve done is — again, the reverse 911 text messaging system, if you sign up for
that at the 72hours.dc.gov Web site that we have. What we’ll try to do is to get people information on whether they should shelter
in place, whether they should go to a shelter, or whether they should evacuate. We’ll try to get that information out to them.
We’re also working with businesses. In fact, we just made contact with the Business Improvement District on security plans for
the buildings, for evacuation and shelter plans. We already have some basic information on our Web site they can download, and
we’re trying to get more fidelity to that, and to work with the business owners as well as the building managers where they can
have the training and education with the people who reside in their buildings. But you know, the private entities, we can’t force
them to do that.
Jeff Stein: Are the shelters marked, like yellow radiation signs on the nuclear war shelters
during the Cold War?
Darrell Darnell: Our shelters are marked within the District government. We’ve identified 39 shelters within the District government that
we own. You can go on our Web site and get a list of where those shelters are, as well as our evacuation routes. You can put in
your address and it will tell you the closest shelter and evacuation route.
Jeff Stein: Yes, but in a power outage, the electricity is out, and during an emergency I’m not thinking about going to my computer,
especially if I’m in a blast area. So if I’m not online, how do I find out where to go?
Darrell Darnell: This past March we sent out 150,000 brochures to everyone who is a District
resident, so you should have gotten one, that laid out what the evacuation plan was. And
do you subscribe to The Washington Post? You should have gotten one.
Jeff Stein: Was it in the Sunday plastic packet of ads?
Darrell Darnell: Yes.
Jeff Stein: I throw those away.
Darrell Darnell: Well, I can’t help you if you throw it in the trash.
Jeff Stein: Is that it? Is that enough to get the word out?
Darrell Darnell: No, it’s not, but we’re trying to use every means we can. We send them into the homes, we hand them out at community
meetings. In fact, I think we’ve put out about 400 of these brochures at community meetings in the last month alone. We do the
mailings, we do the 72hours.dc.gov Web site, we have individual brochures that we’re going to be putting out in libraries,
District office buildings, basically anywhere there’s a large traffic of people going in and out of the facilities. So we’re trying to
use every medium we have to get the word out. Again, if people throw the information out, I’m not sure how we can control that.
Jeff Stein: I’m not trying to pick on you, but let’s say people are smart enough to save their
brochure. Are they going to be thinking, ―Where’s my brochure?‖ after a nuclear attack?
Darrell Darnell: Well, we try to do as much as we can. We have a very active community plan.
We do community-based training within the neighborhoods, with certain qualified
civilian emergency response teams.
Jeff Stein: Are you going to have table-top exercises based on that scenario?
Darrell Darnell: Yes.
Jeff Stein: Or have you had table tops on that scenario?
Darrell Darnell: Yes, we have.
Jeff Stein: So when it actually happened, it didn’t work out very well. The reality was different.
Darrell Darnell: Well, table top is never going to simulate the real things. Having said that,
there are lot of scenarios we can simulate because we can go to a training facility or
something like that. It’s very difficult to simulate the power going instantaneously out
and grid locking traffic. I’m open to any suggestions if you have any (Stein, 2008).
Date: December 11, 2009
Source: Global Research, Stuart Trew, House Of Commons Of Canada
Title/Headline: New Maritime Security Law Will Deputize U.S. officers “In Every Part of Canada” During Integrated Operations
Abstract: Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tabled legislation that would transform designated
U.S. police and security agents into peace officers equal to the RCMP ―in every part of Canada‖ during joint maritime border
operations. As if holding the RCMP accountable for its officers’ actions isn’t hard enough, nothing in the new legislation should make
Canadians feel comfortable that any complaints against U.S. agents operating on Canadian territory will be dealt with swiftly or fairly. Bill
C-60, the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act, is being sold by Van Loan and Nicholson as a way to ―strengthen
cooperative bilateral policing efforts to stem the flow of cross-border criminal activity in shared waterways and further protect
community safety and security in Canada.‖ It is the legislative face of a cross-border ―Shiprider‖ agreement dreamed up by past
governments under the now defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership and signed this May by Van Loan and U.S. Homeland Security
czar Janet Napolitano. Bill C-60 will go further than coastal waters. Section 11 states: In the course of an integrated cross-border
operation, every designated officer is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has the same power to enforce an Act of
Parliament as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Global Research, 2009).
Date: January 21, 2010
Source: Raw Story
Title/Headline: Ron Paul: After „CIA Coup,‟ Agency „Runs Military‟
Abstract: Former 2008 Presidential candidate and current Texas Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement in his State of the
Republic address: ―We are rapidly moving toward a dangerous time in our history. Society as we know it is vulnerable to political and
social unrest. This impending crisis comes as a consequence of our flawed foreign and domestic economic policies, a silly notion of
money, ignorance about central banking, ignoring the onerous power and mischief of out of control intelligence agencies (CIA), our
unsustainable welfare state and a willingness to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties in an attempt to achieve safety and security from an
inept government. The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of
government in a society that desires, first and foremost, liberty. The social unrest will illicit cries for the government to exert
unusual force to head off a complete breakdown of law and order. The ultimate trap will be set for a system of government claiming to
protect a free society. If more power and police authority are not given to the Federal government, it will be argued that only anarchy will
result. If more government policing power is given, it will mean a lethal threat to civil liberties.‖ Paul went on refer to the 9/11 aftermath
when American freely gave up their liberties for alleged government security, ―Our civil leaders will not be hesitant to use these powers
to maintain order, tragically, the people may even demand it‖ (Raw Story, 2010).
Date: January 23, 2010
Source: New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller
Title/Headline: Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan
Abstract: Current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, returned home from a trip from Pakistan where he basically lumped all knows
terrorist organizations together and stated that ―Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Tariki Taliban in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba,
the Haqqani network — this is a syndicate of terrorists that work together,‖ he said. ―And when one succeeds they all benefit, and
they share ideas, they share planning. They don’t operationally coordinate their activities, as best I can tell. But they are in very close
contact. They take inspiration from one another, they take ideas from one another.‖ His final message delivered, he relaxed on the
14-hour trip home by watching ―Seven Days in May,‖ the cold war-era film about an attempted military coup in the United States
Should Obama decide not to go along with the CIA’s plan, there is no doubt that Obama will become expendable, and a military
coup will take place with the United States. The only back-up the American people have against this scenario is the 2 nd
Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers knew that guns were a last resort against a tyrannical and
oppressive government, and apparently their Wisdom is still shining through 235 years later.
Date: May 30, 2010
Source: Japan Focus, Peter Dale Scott
Title/Headline: 'Continuity of Government' Planning: War, Terror and the Supplanting of the U.S. Constitution
Abstract: In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of ―highly sensitive‖
emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the
event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the
constitution. As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without
journalistic comment or follow-up.
Congressman Jack Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned,
at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
Senator Daniel Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified
area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Congressman Jack Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that
there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend
the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I
believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Senator Daniel Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m
certain arrangements can be made for an executive session. But we have never heard if there was or was not an executive session,
or if the rest of Congress was ever aware of the matter.
According to James Bamford, ―The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely
bypassed.‖ Key individuals in Congress were almost certainly aware. Brooks was responding to a story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami
Herald. Chardy’s story alleged that Oliver North was involved with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
plans to take over federal, state and local functions during a national emergency. This planning for ―Continuity of Government‖
(COG) called for ―suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law.‖ To
my knowledge no one in the public (including myself) attached enough importance to the Chardy story. Chardy himself suggested that
Reagan’s Attorney General, William French Smith, had intervened to stop the COG plan from being presented to the President. Seven
years later, in 1994, Tim Weiner reported in the New York Times that what he called ―The Doomsday Project‖ – the search for ―ways to
keep the Government running after a sustained nuclear attack on Washington‖ –had ―less than six months to live.‖ To say that
nuclear attack planning was over was correct, But this statement was also very misleading. On the basis of Weiner’s report, the first two
books on COG planning, by James Bamford and James Mann, books otherwise excellent and well-informed, reported that COG planning
had been abandoned. They were wrong. Mann and Bamford did report that, from the beginning, two of the key COG planners on the
secret committee were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two men who implemented COG under 9/11. What they and Weiner
did not report was that under Reagan the purpose of COG planning had officially changed: it was no longer for arrangements
―after a nuclear war,‖ but for any ―national security emergency.‖ This was defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: ―any
occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously
threatens the national security of the United States.‖ In other words extraordinary emergency measures, originally designed for
an America devastated in a nuclear attack, were now to be applied to anything the White House considered an emergency. Thus
Cheney and Rumsfeld continued their secret planning when Clinton was president; both men, both Republicans, were heads of major
corporations and not even in the government at that time. Moreover, Andrew Cockburn claims that the Clinton administration, according
to a Pentagon source, had ―no idea what was going on.‖ The expanded application of COG to any emergency was envisaged as early as
1984, when, according to Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, Lt. Col. Oliver North was working with officials of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency . . . to draw up a secret contingency plan to surveil political dissenters and to arrange for the
detention of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens in case of an unspecified national emergency. The plan, part of which
was codenamed Rex 84, called for the suspension of the Constitution under a number of scenarios, including a U.S. invasion
of Nicaragua. Clearly 9/11 met the conditions for the imposition of COG measures, and we know for certain that COG planning was
instituted on that day in 2001, before the last plane had crashed in Pennsylvania. The 9/11 Report confirms this twice, on pages 38 and
326. It was under the auspices of COG that Bush stayed out of Washington on that day, and other government leaders like Paul Wolfowitz
were swiftly evacuated to Site R, inside a hollowed out mountain near Camp David. What few have recognized is that, nearly a decade
later, some aspects of COG remain in effect. COG plans are still authorized by a proclamation of emergency that has been
extended each year by presidential authority, most recently by President Obama in September 2009. COG plans are also the
probable source for the 1000-page Patriot Act presented to Congress five days after 9/11, and also for the Department of Homeland
Security’s Project Endgame — a ten-year plan, initiated in September 2001, to expand detention camps, at a cost of $400 million in Fiscal
Year 2007 alone. At the same time we have seen the implementation of the plans outlined by Chardy in 1987: the warrantless detentions
that Oliver North had planned for in Rex 1984, the warrantless eavesdropping that is their logical counterpart, and the militarization
of the domestic United States under a new military command, NORTHCOM. Through NORTHCOM the U.S. Army now is
engaged with local enforcement to control America, in the same way that through CENTCOM it is engaged with local enforcement
to control Afghanistan and Iraq. We learned that COG planning was still active in 2007, when President Bush issued National Security
Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51). This, for the sixth time, extended for one year the emergency proclaimed on September 14,
2001. It empowered the President to personally ensure ―continuity of government‖ in the event of any ―catastrophic emergency.‖ He
announced that NSPD 51 contains ―classified Continuity Annexes‖ which shall ―be protected from unauthorized disclosure.‖ Under
pressure from his 911truth constituents, Congressman Peter DeFazio of the Homeland Security Committee twice requested to see these
Annexes, the second time in a letter signed by the Chair of his committee. His request was denied. The National Emergencies Act, one of
the post-Watergate reforms that Vice-President Cheney so abhorred, specifies that: ―Not later than six months after a national
emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House
of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated‖ (50 U.S.C.
1622, 2002). Yet in nine years Congress has not once met to discuss the State of Emergency declared by George W. Bush in response to
9/11, a State of Emergency that remains in effect today. Appeals to the Congress to meet its responsibilities to review COG have fallen on
deaf ears. It is clear that the planning by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in the last two decades was not confined to an immediate response to
9/11. The 1000-page Patriot Act, dropped on Congress as promptly as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution had been back in 1964, is still with us;
Congress has never seriously challenged it, and Obama quietly extended it on February 27 of this year. We should not forget that the
Patriot Act was only passed after lethal anthrax letters were mailed to two crucial Democratic Senators – Senators Daschle and
Leahy – who had initially questioned the bill. After the anthrax letters, however, they withdrew their initial opposition. Someone —
we still do not know who – must have planned those anthrax letters well in advance. This is a fact most Americans do not want to think
about. Someone also must have planned the unusual number of war games taking place on 9/11. COG planners and FEMA had
been involved in war games planning over the previous two decades; and on 9/11 FEMA was again involved with other agencies in
preparing for Operation Tripod, a bioterrorism exercise in New York City. Someone also must have planned the new more restrictive
instructions, on June 1, 2001, determining that military interceptions of hijacked aircraft had to be approved ―at the highest levels
of government‖ (i.e. the President, Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense). The Report attributes this order to a JCS Memo of June 1,
2001, entitled ―Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects.‖ But the written requirements had been less
restrictive before June 1, 2001, and I am informed that the change was quietly revoked the following December. In The Road to 9/11 I
suggest the change in the JCS memo came from the National Preparedness Review in which President Bush authorized Vice-President
Cheney, together with FEMA, ―to tackle the… task of dealing with terrorist attacks.‖ Not noticed by the press was the fact that Cheney
and FEMA had already been working on COG planning as a team throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Weiner’s article persuaded
authors James Mann and James Bamford that Reagan’s COG plans had now been abandoned, because ―there was, it seemed, no longer any
enemy in the world capable of . . . decapitating America’s leadership.‖ In fact, however, only one phase of COG planning had been
terminated, a Pentagon program for response to a nuclear attack. Instead, according to author Andrew Cockburn, a new target was
found: Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million a year in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were
now replaced by terrorists. . . . There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the ―shadow government‖
had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found
himself in politically congenial company, the players’ roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. . . .―You could say
this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going
on.‖ The Pentagon official’s description of a ―secret government-in-waiting‖ (which still included both Cheney and Rumsfeld) is
very close to the standard definition of a cabal, as a group of persons secretly united to bring about a change or overthrow of
government. In the same era Cheney and Rumsfeld projected change also by their public lobbying, through the Project for the New
American Century, for a more militant Middle East policy. In light of how COG was actually implemented in 2001, one can
legitimately suspect that, however interested this group had been in continuity of government under Reagan, under Clinton the
focus of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s COG planning was now a change of government (Scott, 2010).
Like 9/11, it is essential for the Federal Government to have ―heroes‖ and heroines‖ to parade in front of the public on television in
the weeks and months after an attack. Unfortunately, just like 9/11, there is a high probability that scores of first responders will
perish in the radiation and chaos.
Date: June, 2010
Source: National Academy Of Engineering, Georges C. Benjamin
Title/Headline: Medical Preparedness And Response To Nuclear Terrorism
Abstract: The medical and public health community is still in its infancy in terms of preparedness for the detonation of a nuclear
device. Today, detonation of a compact, portable nuclear device by a small group of terrorists is a real threat. These devices, known
by a variety of names—suitcase nukes, mini-nukes, or improvised nuclear devices (INDs)—are small enough to put in a backpack or
suitcase and can yield an explosion of up to 20 kilotons.
Challenges To Emergency Medical Response: All nuclear detonations result in significant structural and environmental
destruction from the blast, heat, and radiation. The level of physical destruction in and beyond the response area and the potential loss
of critical medical infrastructure in surrounding areas at relatively remote distances will create significant barriers to normal emergency
medical responses. In addition, dangerous levels of radiation in the immediate response area and downwind from the radiation
plume will make it difficult to respond rapidly to victims of the blast. Opera-tional and logistical problems with the delivery of
supplies, patient transport, and emergency communication will further complicate emergency medical response. The medical effects will
be catastrophic, both for people in the immediate area and for people within a radius of several miles. Survivability in the short and
intermediate term will depend on the degree and type of physical injury combined with the degree of exposure to radiation (Waselenko et
al., 2004). The radiation effects will have immediate, delayed, and long-term health consequences for both victims and emergency
response personnel. Under any scenario that includes the release of a nuclear weapon, there will be thousands, possibly tens of
thousands, of casualties. In the immediate aftermath, there will be an urgent need for a large number of specialized beds for
patients with burns, blunt and penetrating trauma, eye injuries, and other injuries that would quickly overwhelm the existing
overtaxed health system.
Preparing For The Worst: Since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the nation has been working toward improving
preparedness to threats to public health ranging from infectious diseases to weapons of mass destruction. Preparing for any
emergency begins with asking ―what if‖ security officials fail to prevent the release of a biological or chemical weapon or the detonation of
an IND in an urban area or a highly populated American city. The medical and public health community is still in its infancy in
preparing to respond to such an unthinkable event (IOM, 2009). The detonation of an IND would cause a level of destruction and
risk to health that would be a mega-disaster of national significance (Figure 1). In such an attack, federal authorities would have to be
immediately engaged in the emergency response and not wait for requests from state or local officials, as they would in a typical
scenario. Medical preparedness for a nuclear detonation will require using all of the measures taken for many types of natural and
manmade disasters. It will also require a radical change in thinking about how we provide emergency medical care. Finally,
because this would be an intentional attack, planners must include preparations to respond to multiple detonations or the release of
biological or chemical weapons. These challenges will require an all-hazards approach to emergency medical preparedness, which will be
only one component in the general emergency response plan for a major disaster.
Response Plans For Weapons Of Mass Destruction: One of the earliest efforts to plan for responding to weapons of mass
destruction was the Metropolitan Medical Response System Program (MMRS), which was started in 1995. This federal program was
an early attempt to encourage integrated planning for large-scale disasters in several urban cities. The intent was to link first responders
(e.g., police, fire, and emergency medical services) with public health and emergency management officials. Many other public and
nonpublic efforts have been undertaken by a variety of federal, state, and local agencies to prevent, mitigate, or respond to the threat of a
nuclear weapon. The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), for example, provided funds to multiple urban areas to address
preparedness specifically for detonation of a nuclear weapon. The program was designed to improve capabilities and preparedness
planning in response to improvised explosive devices in high-density, high-threat urban areas.
Health Effects Of A 10-Kiloton Nuclear Device: Because there have been few experimental ground-level detonations, most of what we
know comes from sophisticated models estimating the effects of an IND. Based on these models, current estimates for a 10-kiloton
release (a small suitcase bomb) are about 40,000 to 50,000 people killed within the first 24 hours from blast effects and burns and
more than 130,000 injured from radioactive fallout (Marrs, 2007). Factors that modelers use to estimate human casualties include
population density, time of day, geographic location, wind speed, and so on. Thus, even with conservative estimates, the health care
system would quickly be overwhelmed (Bell and Dallas, 2007). The immediate types of injuries sustained from an explosion of this
type would include a combination of blast, burn, and penetrating traumas. For initial survivors, acute and chronic radiation illness
would be another problem, which, when combined with traumatic injuries, is known to increase mortality (Flynn, 2006).
The First 72 Hours: The management goal in a typical disaster is to move from chaos to controlled disorder as quickly as possible. In a
disaster like an IND, the period of chaos would be magnified because of fear, the size of the affected area, and the loss of local
response capacity, that is, responders who are used to working together. Traditional preparedness planning is based on the assumption
that local communities will be the responders for the first 48 to 72 hours. Thus planning focuses on optimizing the response until outside
assistance arrives, as needed. The mobilization of meaningful federal assistance is expected to take from 48 to 72 hours. The explosion of
an IND or other weapon of mass destruction, however, would be immediately understood as an event of national importance, and
local, state, and federal planners must harmonize their plans in a way that immediately nationalizes the response. Although the local
community may be on its own for some period of time for logistical reasons, it is clear that, without immediate nationalization, there
cannot be a reasonable emergency medical response. Because of the loss of a significant amount of the local critical infrastructure (e.g.,
ambulances, hospitals and clinics, and associated personnel), the response plan should be designed to use regional and national health
resources for the most severely affected patients. Medical standards of care may also change dramatically, under appropriate medical
supervision and ethical guidelines, in disaster situations. For example, critically ill patients might have to be treated in a school
gymnasium instead of a hospital because of the volume of patients, and non-physician caregivers might be authorized to give injections
and perform other procedures, even minor surgical procedures (IOM, 2010). First responders will have to address the early loss of
command and control and operational communications (mostly because of blast or burn effects, less so from the electromagnetic
pulse). Situational threat awareness, accurate weather information, and the status of the medical system infrastructure are critical pieces of
information essential for effective control and command of the medical response. Risk communication to the public will be a major
challenge; messages must be clear, consistent, and as accurate as possible. Maintaining public trust will be of great importance for
health officials, who will have to make difficult decisions based on incomplete information. Managing fear, post traumatic stress
disorders, as well as traditional mental health concerns (e.g., depression) will also be critical (Koenig et al., 2005). In an emergency,
immediate care (first aid) is often provided by bystanders and others in the general area of the event. In the case of an IND explosion,
however, the area will be contaminated with radiation, and even able-bodied survivors may be unable or unwilling to assist because of
concerns about the risk of lethal exposure. Significant search and rescue may also be delayed because of contamination of the site. The
decontamination of victims will be an essential medical procedure, not only to protect patients, but also to protect care providers from
continued radiation exposure. In general, however, most experts recommend that emergency care not be delayed because of fear of a
contaminated patient. Removing a patient’s clothing will usually reduce the amount of contamination by 90 percent.
Conclusion: Ensuring that an emergency medical system can respond to a nuclear emergency requires a proactive, nontraditional
approach to disaster planning and response. This can be accomplished within the traditional framework of all-hazard planning, but it
will require immediate recognition of the national nature of the emergency, an ―all in‖ response from the beginning, and complex
decisions in response to an emergency that has elements of different types of disasters. The prospect of responding under continued
threat of multiple intentional detonations or the use of conventional or unconventional weapons could further complicate the
situation. Moving successfully from chaos to controlled disorder will require that emergency planners effectively integrate response to the
unique challenges of a particular event with the medical response scenario. In the event of the unthinkable, even a resilient community
will be slow to recover (Benjamin, 2010).
Date: July 19, 2010
Source: Press TV
Title/Headline: US Intelligence 'Mushroomed' After 9/11
Abstract: The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks kicked off the establishment of a sprawling intelligence community in the US
with no way to head off its mushrooming growth. Following two years of investigation, The Washington Post came to the conclusion on
that since 2001, the bureaucracy has turned to be "so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how
many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work." The paper said its
findings suggested that around 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies were involved in counterterrorism-related
programs, and together they occupied 33 building complexes already built or under construction. The space could embrace nearly three
Pentagons or 22 US Capitol buildings, it said. "There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that -- not
just for the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], but for any individual, for the director of the CIA, for the secretary of defense -
- is a challenge," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Post. The probe also referred to the gigantic redundancy and waste generated by
the enormous bureaucracy. According to the report, the US leads its homeland security and intelligence programs from some 10,000
locations across the country. This is while, Washington uses 51 federal and military commands located in 15 US cities to track
money shipments by terrorist networks. The various agencies involved in the job produce a whopping 50,000 intelligence reports
annually, "many" of which "are routinely ignored," said the Post. Alleged al-Qaeda terrorists conducted a series of coordinated attacks on
the US soil in September 2001. The attacks gave the US and its allies the excuse to send troops to Afghanistan, where they claimed was the
al-Qaeda hub at the time. The so-called global war on terrorism has so far cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars (Press TV, 2010).
Date: December 16, 2010
Source: Nathanael Kapner
Title/Headline: The Call For A Military Coup
Abstract: Two recent calls for a military coup brings the prospect of martial law in America into a singular and fresh perspective.
In 2007, black political analyst, Thomas Sowell, lamenting the undermining of traditional values and the promotion of diversity in America
by politicians, educators, and media moguls, remarked, ―I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can
save this country is a military coup.‖ Two years later, former adviser to the Carter administration, John L Perry, outlined the possibility
that America’s military could ―intervene‖ as a last resort to resolve the ―Obama problem.‖ Backed by financier Richard Mellon
Scaife, the musing Perry appealed to the Constitution to suggest the legality of a military coup: ―Top military officers can see the
Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled on. These officers swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to obey the orders of the president.‖ In a recent interview, Ex-
Green Beret Joe Cortina, put forth that Congress has placed itself under the yoke of International Jewry and its Jewish-American agents at
home. Thus, Cortina argues, because Capitol Hill has subverted the military oath to defend the Constitution against ―foreign and
domestic enemies,‖ the military is under no obligation to obey a civilian authority that has been usurped by Jewish interests acting
as agents of a foreign state. In fact, President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy attempted to have the American
Zionist Council, (the parent organization of AIPAC), registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but the power of Jewry was
stronger than these two high ranking and powerful executive officers. Millions of Americans, although oblivious to the Jewish takeover
of America, are awakening to the trashing of the US Constitution as protested by the Tea Party movement. And with the increasing
disgust with the elitism of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank, popular support of Ron Paul, now head of the House Monetary
Policy Subcommittee, giving clout to his war on the Fed, is at an all time high. But what the ―Constitution lovers‖ fail to recognize is
that with 99.9% of our politicians having sold their souls to Jewish money — and with three Jews serving on the Supreme Court —
the prospect for ―ending the Fed‖ or ―restoring the Constitution‖ is impossible. Thus, the call for a military coup takes on a whole
new favorable face. For the feasibility of the Officer Corps shutting down the Fed, canceling all debts on the grounds of the Fed lending
counterfeit money, and establishing a National Bank that coins its own money, lends a pleasing savor to the prospect of a military
restoration of America. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was bankrupt and plagued by high unemployment while
hyper-inflation had depleted its national Treasury. Germany had no choice but to resign itself to what was imposed upon them by
the Versailles Treaty — debt slavery under international Jewish bankers. But in 1933, when the National Socialists were elected by
popular vote, the much-loved Fuhrer freed the Germans from the Jewish yoke. Hitler began a public works program wherein workers
were paid certificates of credit which were essentially receipts for labor delivered to the government. Hitler said, ―For every mark
issued, we require the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work.‖ These receipts, called ―Labor Treasury Certificates,‖ (not unlike the
currency framework of Alexander Hamilton’s credit system and Lincoln’s greenback solution), thwarted international Jewry’s monetary
system, (not unlike the Fed’s currency arrangement now plaguing America.) Hitler’s revival of the nation’s economy was short-lived
due to Jewry’s declaring a global boycott of Germany and enlisting a universal revenge on German independence from its control. View
Entire Story Here, Here, & Here. Indeed, while the allies enjoyed a military victory over the German uprising against Jewry, the political
victory of Jewish hegemony over Europe and America solidified. But, a ―military & political victory‖ in the form of a coup, liberating
America from its slavery to Jewry, could bring fresh hopes to a nation in economic collapse and deep internal crisis (Kapner, 2010).
Conclusion: The aftermath of a nuclear attack, no matter how devastating, is NO reason to suspend the U.S. Constitution, declare
martial law, incarcerate citizens, or pass any draconian laws. Based on the information available, the individuals that promote this un-free
post-nuclear America are in fact the very individuals that have the motives, the money, and the opportunity to carry out a false-flag nuclear
terror attack in the first place. While many will die in a nuclear attack, the death toll will most likely be under 1 million people. That leaves
us as least 299 million people to make sure that America, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and our way of life continue for centuries to
―Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the
people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.‖ ~Thomas Jefferson