The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (39 page)

DEFICIENT BORDER PATROL

S
OME PEOPLE DESIRE TO
alter or even abolish the Posse Comitatus Act, particularly with regard to border security. In an October 2001 letter to Donald Rumsfeld, Republican senator John Warner wrote, “Should this law [PCA] now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?” Warner’s question continued into late 2002 when then representative Tom Tancredo, members of the Immigration Reform Caucus, and families of victims slain in the course of conflicts between immigration officers and illegal aliens petitioned Congress demanding that military troops patrol the U.S. borders. Jumping on the antiterrorist bandwagon, Tancredo stated, “As long as our borders remain undefended, we cannot claim that we are doing everything possible to protect the nation from terrorism…. It’s time to authorize the deployment of military assets on our borders.”

During this time, a FEMA official named John Brinkerhoff wrote a paper arguing that “President Bush and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using military forces for homeland security and for enforcing the laws of the United States. Things have changed a lot since 1878, and the Posse Comitatus Act is not only irrelevant but also downright dangerous to the proper and effective use of military forces for domestic duties.” This paper remained on the Homeland Security website well into 2006.

Critics have questioned how the massive restructuring of the U.S. government under the Homeland Security Act has helped protect the nation, especially when the national borders are left dangerously open to both the nation’s north and south. To many thoughtful Americans it seems like a commonsense first step in the war on terrorism to tighten security on the U.S. borders. Yet this does not appear to have happened. Despite an increasing clamor for tighter security, a flood of illegal immigrants continues unabated on the southern border. Though politicians spouted rhetoric about building an effective fence, only a few motion sensors and cameras ended up being deployed.

In late 2009, Border Patrol director of media relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed that the number of agents on the U.S.-Mexico border would be cut by 384. This would bring the total of agents on the Mexican border to 17,015 and agents on the Canadian border to 2,212.

Terence P. Jeffrey, editor in chief of CNSNews.com, reported that in a review Homeland Security officials said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border under “effective control.” Jeffey noted, “The review also said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2010 was to again have 815 miles of border under ‘effective control,’ meaning DHS was not planning to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection defines “effective control” as the Border Patrol’s ability to detect and apprehend an illegal immigrant crossing a particular area of the border.

OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE

T
HE
D
EFENSE
D
EPARTMENT’S RECENT
actions have done little to inspire confidence that traditional American liberties will be respected if the Posse Comitatus Act is abolished.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon announced that it was creating the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), which was designed to present a more favorable image of the U.S. military to foreign news media. The new organization provoked an immediate controversy when it was learned it planned to influence international opinion by planting false stories in the foreign media. Considering the closeness of the world today, thanks to the Internet, such false stories could easily find their way back into the domestic media. This was nothing new. The CIA had used similar tactics for decades, but this was too blatant. Even the major media, including the
New York Times,
were stirred to action. “Mingling the more surreptitious activities [such as Pentagon covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities, and deception], with the work of traditional public affairs would undermine the Pentagon’s credibility with the media, the public and governments around the world,” noted the
Times.

In a rare step backward, in early 2002 the government announced the OSI would be closed. Though Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense, argued that criticism of the OSI was “off the mark,” he nevertheless admitted that “the office has been so damaged that…it’s pretty clear to me that it cannot function.”

Rumsfeld refused to let the matter lie. At a November 18, 2002, press briefing, the defense secretary defiantly stated, “And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And ‘oh my goodness gracious isn’t that terrible, Henny Penny, the sky is going to fall.’ I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing? Fine, I’ll give you the corpse. There’s the name. You can have the name, but I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.” True to his word, only the name of the office was abolished, and OSI activities were merely shifted to another agency. Yet this time, Rumsfeld’s vow to continue his program of disinformation was not repeated in the corporate mass media. With this type of propaganda and disinformation program continuing, small wonder many concerned Americans are suspicious about the accuracy of the corporate mass media news content.

OATH KEEPERS

“I,_________________,
DO SOLEMNLY
swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

This is the U.S. Uniformed Services Oath of Office administered to the military and law enforcement officers. Nowadays, those who try to stay true to this oath are viewed as zealous or jingoistic. Even the word “patriot” is now looked at as un-American.

One group of government employees that have been adamant about staying true to their oaths is the Oath Keepers. According to the Oath Keepers website, “Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution. Our motto is ‘Not on our watch!’” Some domestic police officials and soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun wearing Oath Keeper patches on their uniforms.

The Oath Keepers’ patriotism was soon attacked by commentators such as Bob Hanafin, a staff writer for the military and foreign affairs journal
Veterans Today
and a retired air force officer. In a “special report” headlined “Are Right Wing Extremists Trying to Recruit Our Troops?” Hanafin wrote, “Taking oaths to disobey orders of any Chain of Command is not only illegal under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], but it is also illegal under the Hatch Act which most of our troops, including Junior Officers don’t know the meaning of.” He added, “We will leave it to the Department of Homeland Security (unless they have been too intimidated by the right wing), Department of Defense, and our readers to decide if what Oath Keepers is doing to attract our troops to take an Oath to potentially disobey orders from their Chain of Command is legitimate or if the Department of Defense and Homeland Security needs to closely monitor such recruitment.”

Hanafin’s article caused reactions from a number of Oath Keepers, such as Patrick M. Fahey, who responded on his blog by writing, “The Hatch Act of 1939[’s] main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform)…. Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances.”

Fahey dissected eight separate articles of the UCMJ and concluded that the Oath Keepers would not violate the requirements of these articles. Oath Keepers have pledged to disobey only orders that fall into the following categories:

We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.


We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”


We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes noted that his group only wants to have military and law enforcement members think carefully about the orders they receive. “For example, if a police officer feels he is being asked to do an illegal search of a home or vehicle, he should stand down,” Rhodes said.

Yet despite the fact that the Oath Keeper pledge was seemingly written with the general good in mind, the organization was attacked by the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which described Oath Keepers as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.”

“I’m not accusing [Oath Keepers founder] Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh,” said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok. “What’s troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory.”

HATE CRIMES

I
T SHOULD BE NOTED
that the SPLC has come under its share of criticism, despite well-funded promotion and close ties to Democratic politics. Founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph J. Levin Jr., the nonprofit center has fought to enact laws against hate crimes ranging from hate-inspired murder to outbursts of speech. The SPLC often invokes the name of Oklahoma City bomber McVeigh, thought to be connected to white supremacist groups, as an example of the results of hate crime.

The SPLC regularly conducts highly profitable fund-raising activities. According to Ken Silverstein of
Harper’s
magazine, one example occurred about ten years ago when “The Center earned $44 million…$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments—but spent only $13 million on civil rights programs, making it one of the most profitable charities in the country.” By 2005, the SPLC reported an endowment fund of more than $152 million.

Armed with millions of dollars, the SPLC has displayed a hatred for haters. The center disparaged the Minuteman Project, a group devoted to preventing illegal border crossings into the United States from Mexico. On the SPLC website, it was reported, “major elements of the Minuteman anti-immigration movement are broadening their agenda to become part of a resurgent antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement.” Internet commentator Judy Andreas, who conducted an in-depth investigation of the SPLC, stated, “The Southern Poverty Law Center may, at one time, have been a force dedicated to preserving the American Values of freedom and constitutional rights through American law, but they have strayed far afield of their initially stated goals. Today they are wildly flailing accusations at anyone who, in their estimation, is guilty of a ‘hate’ crime. And as their brush continues to broaden, they are busily applying sweeping strokes to the word ‘racism’ and hungrily scanning the landscape for anyone who dares to oppose the actions of any non-white individual, group or nation. Whether the non-white individual has committed an act of criminal conduct appears to be irrelevant to the SPLC.”

Despite trying to obtain donations while pressing for more “hate crime” legislation, the SPLC’s own website, quoting crime experts, admitted that the whole hate crime reporting system is plagued with errors. Regardless, the SPLC’s lobbying efforts proved successful in late October 2009, when Congress passed (68–29 in the Senate; 237–180 in the House) the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named after a gay Wyoming college student murdered in 1998. This bill broadened the formerly narrow range of actions (e.g., discrimination in admittance to school or voting) that makes it acceptable for the federal government to intervene in cases where a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute an alleged hate crime.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s largest gay rights group, was pleased with the bill, describing it as “our nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence.”