Libertarian Vegan

The city of Whiteville, Tennessee planned to run a seatbelt checkpoint on April 4 which was to be “in conjunction with a Homeland Security training exercise by the 251st Military Police in Bolivar who recently returned from Iraq.”

After receving a number of calls, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen canceled the operation.  Local radio station NewsTalk 101.5 FM interviewed Rep. Johnny Shaw, who represents the area where the check was to take place.  Shaw said the Governor “didn’t need another headache” and that “bad idea in the first place.”

In the first place, seat belt laws for adults are nonsense and just create another justification for treating citizens like children.  I always wear my seatbelt as I feel it has been pretty well established that they do save lives, not because of any law.  If you want people to act like adults, you need to treat them that way, but that is not what they want.

Regardless, what would you think if you pulled up to a checkpoint in your town and saw uniformed military police and DHS?   Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it is illegal for the military to be involved in domestic police operations.  End of story.

Bulletin Times - (See Pg. 2)

Source: Prison Planet - Infowars Story on Illegal Tennessee Checkpoint Prompts Action by Governor April 3, 2009

 [IMAGE: Raytheon via MSNBC]

On Thursday Pentagon officials announced a plan to spend $400 million to create a giant spy blimp.  Floating at 65,000 feet above the Earth, it would be able to linger over any area for a long time, be unnoticed, and nearly untouchable.  (I thought this was a joke until I found it on DARPA’s official website. )

Werner J.A. Dahm, chief scientist for the Air Force, called the project, “absolutely revolutionary,” comparing it to a cross between a satellite and a spy plane.

The air ship would be 450 feet long and be airborne for 10 years.  Filled with helium, it is to be powered by a system of solar panels recharging hydrogen fuel cells.

While the Pentagon has yet to select a contractor, it has an agreement with DARPA to develop a demonstration air ship by 2014.  If (ahem) it is “successful,” it could pave the way for a fleet of spy blimps.

You know, I’m trying to have an intelligent response to this but - really?  A $400 million dollar spy blimp?  Really?

Sources: Los Angeles Times - Pentagon plans blimp to spy from new heights March 13, 2009

A new report from the Associated Press finds that the Pentagon has greatly increased spending on public relations in recent years, and will spend at least $4.7 billion this year.  PR spending has shot up with dissent over two wars which continue to rage, and with it has come concerns that the Pentagon crossed the line into propaganda, in violation of federal law.

The AP studied Department of Defense budgets and other documents from the last five years, finding a 63% increase in PR spending over that time.  However, due to classified budgets, it is estimated to be even higher.  The $4.7 slated for this year is almost as much as was spend on body armor for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among the programs of the ever-increasing media wing of the Pentagon is the Hometown News Service - Pentagon staff write glowing stories which are distributed freely to newspapers without titles or mention of Hometown News.   In 2009 they plan 5,400 press releases, 3,000 TV releases, and 1,600 radio interviews.  For a sample, visit their “Print Stories” page.

On December 12, 2008, the Pentagon Inspector General released an audit report saying the public affairs office may have crossed the line into propaganda.  It also found 126 government employees and 31 contractors working in the public affairs office, when only 89 positions were authorized.

The largest amount of PR money, around $1.6 billion, is allocated for recruitment and advertising.  $547 million is for public affairs, which targets U.S. audiences, and $489 million for psychological operations, which target foreign audiences.

It must be remembered that every single dollar spend by the Pentagon comes from the taxpayers.  $4.7 billion of our dollars (likely many more) will be spent this year by the Pentagon to win hearts and minds.  As usual, we have learned nothing from history, and continue to throw money into the fire.  If a cause is just and good, there should never need to be a billion dollar campaign to convince the people it is so.

More unsettling to me is the fact that $4.7 billion is still only 1% of the Pentagon’s budget.  Obama has said he will comb through the Pentagon budget for bloated spending and waste.  We will see if there is any of the promised “Change.”  I for one will not be holding my breath.

Source: Newsweek - AP Impact:Pentagon ups public relations spending February 5, 2009

With increased knowledge of how the brain works and the ever increasing pharmacratic state, the military is plowing full speed ahead to figure out how to alter the minds of U.S. soldiers, as well as the enemy.

The National Research Council drafted a report for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency a few months ago titled, “Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies.”   The focus of the report was basically to determine neuroscience technologies and knowledge of the mind’s functioning will affect the police and military.  (Just a quick aside - there is no such thing as the mind and so we can never know the functioning of something that does not exist.  The brain is a different matter.)

According to report co-author Jonathan Moreno, “It’s way too early to know which — if any — of these technologies is going to be practical, but it’s important for us to get ahead of the curve. Soldiers are always on the cutting edge of new technologies.”

It is believed there is widespread use of drugs such as Ritalin and Modafinil among U.S. soldiers to fight against combat fatigue.  The report says new and more powerful drugs will be available for that and many other purposes.  There is already usage of drugs to keep soldiers awake and alert for days at a time.

The report also details how pharmaceuticals could be used to attack the minds of the enemy.   It states, “Drugs can be utilized to achieve abnormal, diseased, or disordered psychology” and “How can we disrupt the enemy’s motivation to fight? Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?”

Among the suggestions are “pharmacological landmines,” where weaponized drugs are deployed when disturbed.    Also, in a bit of updated Orwellian thought crime, the authors are optimistic that neuroimaging technologies could be used to scan the motivations, plans and memories of enemy soldiers or civilians at checkpoints.  How soon before the technology would be turned on their own “disloyal” citizens?

Interjecting some ethics into the debate, Hugh Gusterson of George Mason University stated, “I think most reasonable people, if they imagine a world in which all sides have figured out how to control brains, they’d rather not go there. Most rational human beings would believe that if we could have a world where nobody does military neuroscience, we’ll all be better off. But for some people in the Pentagon, it’s too delicious to ignore.”

If history is any lesson, these drugs are already being tested out on U.S. soldiers on the battlefields, most likely without their knowledge.  The story on Wired featured the disturbing thought on the minds of many Pentagon researchers, “If we can alter the brain, why not control it?”

There are millions in the U.S. alone who have been convinced by the pharmacratic state that they cannot exist without taking some sort of prescribed psychoactive drug.  Every one of those drugs is being used to unnaturally alter the brain, the next step is control.

Sources: Natural News - Big Pharma’s Drugs to be Weaponized to Fight “Mind Wars” on future battlefields February 2, 2009

Wired - Uncle Sam Wants Your Brain - August 13, 2009

The Defense Department has officially announced the creation of a “Civilian Expeditionary Workforce,” which will include sending civilians overseas in support of military missions.

The new workforce comes as a result of Defense Department Directive 1404.10, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon Brown on January 23, 2009.  Per this directive, civilian employees will be asked to volunteer to deploy in support of military missions for up to two years.  They will serve in support of humanitarian, reconstuction, and combat missions.

While it states that volunteers will be initially sought, later on in section 4, subsection (e) paragraph (2) it states:

whenever possible, the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce will be asked to serve expeditionary requirements voluntarily. Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

This appears to say that the Department of Defense reserves the right to force any of their civilian employees to deploy overseas in combat-support missions.

Some critics have wondered if this is the first step in the creation of a civilian national security force.  While this may sound like silly conspiracy talk, Obama had this to say to an audience in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

As far as I know he has not elaborated on this proposal. (If you have more information please let me know)  However, Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel did write the following in his 2006 book, “The Plan: Big Ideas for America” -

“It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”

If these youth were simply “asked” to serve this time, how many really would?  It seems a plan like Mr. Emmanuel’s would ask for volunteers first, but if that did not suffice, then compulsory “volunteering” would carry the day - just like the new Civilian Expeditionary Force.

Sources - Department of Defense Directive 1404.10 January 23, 2009

 Infowars - Defense Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Force January 30, 2009

World Net Daily - Obama’s ‘civilian national security force July 15, 2008

In a story from the American Forces Press Service posted on Army.com , Marine Col. John M. Pollock, commander of the Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force said that the unit does have its own security force.

While the article also says Pollock “would rather use state and local law enforcement for security,” it begs the question of why a unit trained to respond to disasters in the United States would even have its own security force.  Such a force, consisting of active duty military personal, would violate the Posse Comitatus Ac t if it operated in the US, unless there was a declared national emergency.

The article just mentions the security force in passing, but seems to imply Pollock saying something like, ‘we have this thing, but there’s no reason for it because we’d rely on local law enforcement anyway.’  So, again, why have it then?

The unit in question is made up of over 400 Marines, saliors, and civilians, with Marines well in the majority.  Pollock notes that it is a proactive force, and was actually in place at the Republican National Convention last summer in Minnesota, which is certainly intimidating in the least.  The idea that an event such as this, which drew untold numbers of protestors, had a unit composed mainly of Marines waiting in the wings “just in case” is a downright chilling thought.  And now we know that the unit has its own security force, whatever that may mean.

In a related note, a December 1st story in the Washington Post read , “The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.”

Among those voicing dissent was Cato Vice President Gene Healy, who warned of “a creeping militarization” of homeland security.

“There’s a notion that whenever there’s an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green, and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”

Is this really what we want?  It is the sign of a free nation when more and more active duty military personal are posted within the nation?  Or is it a sign of something else?

Sources: Army.com - Unit Learns Skills to Fight Different Enemy January 7, 2009

Washington Post - Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security December 1, 2008

The U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade combat team just finished hands on training in Indian Head, Maryland, acquiring the skills to provide support in a natural or man-made emergency.  They are the first active duty unit assigned to support U.S. civilian authorities in such an event.

The Army announced this new role on October 1, 2008.  The 1st Brigade now falls under the control of Northern Command , and is essentially “on call.”  It becomes part of the CBRNE Consequence Management Force, which included others military assets assigned to Northern Command.

Many critics are seeing this as the latest in a series of attempts to incrementally militarize the United States.  The most blatent attempt at this came with the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, signed into law October 17, 2006

In that Act, section 1076 changed the “Insurrection Act” to the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.”  Under the Insurrection Act , the President could only deploy troops in the U.S. “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”  The new law added “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition,” with “other condition” not defined.

Jeff Stein, CQ National Security editor stated the change “virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law.”  Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) noted, “The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor.”

Thankfully, the changes were repealed in 2008, with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and so reverted to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.

James Madison was well aware of the danger of using a nation’s army against its own people -  “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Sources - Coastal Courier 1st Brigade trained for homeland response December 26, 2008

Infowars - Northcom Combat Team Conducts “Humanitarian Support” Exercise in Maryland December 27, 2008