Rise of the garrison state: using the pretext of responding to terrorist threats, President Bush proposed changes that, in reality, have long been planned to consolidate police-state powers at the federal level. (On the Home Front).

"Thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us, and this terrible knowledge requires us to act differently." Thus spoke President Bush in his nationally televised June 6th address unveiling "the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940s." The centerpiece of this reorganization, explained the president, would be "a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security."

By presenting this proposal in a primetime address, the Bush White House staged a spin control coup that would do credit to the infamous Clinton "War Room." The president's announcement came on the same day that FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley and FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate concerning glaring intelligence failures surrounding the September 11th terrorist attacks. Rowley authored a blistering May 21st memo to Director Mueller describing how the Bureau's top echelon leadership had worked to "deliberately sabotage" the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, a suspected conspirator in the 9-11 attacks. In the memo, Rowley described how agents in the FBI field office in Minneapolis bitterly joked that key officials at FBI HQ "had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden."

Rowley's memo thrust her into the spotlight, and the nation eagerly awaited her congressional testimony. But the Bush White House was able to capture the evening news cycle with the president's 11-minute address. This ensured that the molders of public opinion would focus on the proposals for expanding the power of the central government, rather than dissecting the corruption, incompetence, and negligence of federal officials who permitted Black Tuesday to occur in the first place.

The administration's eagerness to focus attention on its "solution," rather than the endeavor to uncover and define the problems, potently illustrates that an effort is underway to manipulate the public into supporting measures that would not withstand sober analysis. Recall that last fall, as the public was still absorbing the horrors of 9-11, Congress passed the so-called U.S.A. PATRIOT anti-terrorism bill before much of it was written. Bush has insisted that the new Homeland Security Department be established and operating by January 1, 2003 -- something that cannot happen unless Congress once again is stampeded into passing the implementing legislation.

Indeed, as we shall show, the "homeland security" proposal was conceived long before the 9-11 tragedy, which means that the proposal cannot be a response to the tragedy. Instead, the Bush administration is using 9-11 to justify the proposal, which would transfer more power to the executive branch without thwarting the terrorist threat.

Unprecedented Efforts

President Bush's proposal to create a Homeland Security Department is one of several unprecedented efforts to centralize military and law enforcement power in the executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism. In his June 1st address to the graduating class at West Point, the president introduced the doctrine of "pre-emption" or "defensive intervention." Under that concept, the president claims the right to order military action -- including, according to Pentagon sources quoted in the June 10th Washington Post, nuclear strikes -- against scores of countries, without congressional authorization.

Another dramatic step is the administration's claim that it can hold alleged terrorists, including American citizens, in military custody indefinitely, and can deny them habeas corpus and access to legal counsel, by designating them as "unlawful combatants." A brief filed by the Justice Department on June 18th contends that "the (civilian] court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination."

In principle, President Bush is claiming the power to start wars at whim and to commission his subordinates to detain "unlawful combatants" indefinitely -- all in the name of fighting terrorism. These police-state measures, presumably, are being devised only because "thousands of trained killers are plotting to kill us," and would be renounced once the crisis has passed. But administration officials from the president on down have advised that the current "war on terrorism" may last for decades.

Seen in this context, the significance of the proposed Homeland Security Department is that it would institutionalize the "crisis" powers being claimed by the Bush administration, and set the stage for even more dramatic moves toward a centralized, militarized police state under presidential control -- an organ similar in function, if not in style, to the Soviet KGB or the German National Socialist Gestapo. Put simply: The new Homeland Security Department has the potential to morph into a giant police-state apparatus more dangerous than the terrorist threat it would supposedly combat.

Consolidating Power

President Bush's proposed new agency would combine more than 20 security-related agencies, from the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, and Infrastructure Protection Center. No small reshuffling, the proposed department would start off with 170,000 federal employees and a budget of $37 billion.

Bush and his cheerleaders are counting on his high approval ratings and the patriotic good will of a wartime environment to sell the plan. Besides, as Time magazine put it, "nearly everyone now agrees that it makes sense to combine many of the domestic-security responsibilities that are scattered across 22 federal agencies.

But are the problems simply, or primarily, a lack of central coordination? Or is it possible that the proposed restructuring might make matters even worse, by adding yet another layer of bureaucracy? FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley is of the latter opinion. Referring to FBI Director Mueller's plans to create a centralized "Office of Intelligence" to take control of terrorism investigations, Rowley pointed out in her May 21st memo that field agents across the country did a very good job of uncovering key elements of the terrorist plot. "The same cannot be said for the FBI Headquarters' bureaucracy and you want to expand that?" wrote Rowley.

According to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the FBI (and, presumably NSA and CIA) was left out of the new department because Bush did not want the new mega-agency to look like "the old Soviet-era" police-state apparatus. "The FBI does more than worry about terrorist attacks," Card remarked on the June 10th edition of ABC's This Week. "And besides, we did not want to create a homeland security department that would look like the Soviet-era ... Ministry of the Interior." Note that, according to Card, the Bush team did not want the new agency to look like the dreaded Communist police bureaucracy. In other words, they were concerned that its appearance might frighten the American public and provoke opposition. They appear less concerned about the real dangers to life and liberty inherent in the structure they are proposing.

Strategic Misdirection 

Even if constitutional objections to the Homeland Security office were set aside, the proposed department will not fix the central "intelligence problem" in our war against terrorism. Our problem is not inadequate data or even the available supply of analysts.

The most important problem is that the political classes running the executive and legislative branches of the federal government have embraced a fatally flawed concept of the terrorist threat.

For over two decades, both Republican and Democrat administrations have closed their eyes to the undeniable evidence that international terrorism is a state-sponsored enterprise, with the primary sponsors being Russia, China, Cuba, and their proxies: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Yemen, etc. They have refused to recognize that terrorism is now, as it has been for decades, a form of surrogate warfare sponsored by the Communist states.

In the interest of detente, glasnost, perestroika, trade, and globalization, our leaders have adopted a policy of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil vis-a-vis Beijing and Moscow. They are our new partners in trade and security. The international terrorist network was the KGB's handiwork and the KGB's successors continue to sustain it. Yet like Clinton before him, Bush has adopted the position that terrorism is the work of loose, shadowy networks of ideologically and religiously motivated individuals only marginally tied to state sponsors. In Bush's worldview, the roster of state sponsors of terrorism -- the "axis of evil" -- has shrunk to merely Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. And he has wavered back and forth even on Iran. Castro's Cuba goes unmentioned.

No amount of bureaucratic reshuffling or added intelligence collection and analysis will compensate for dangerously flawed, destructive, and fatally disoriented policies. Rhetoric notwithstanding, many Bush administration policies are undermining genuine homeland security. Consider:

Amnesty for Aliens. In response to the outrage over revelations that many of the 9-11 terrorists easily traveled to and from the U.S., illegally obtained welfare and other benefits, and repeatedly violated their visas, even though some of them were on "watch" lists, the administration has tightened up the visa and immigration process. It is still far from adequate, however, and our borders continue to leak like sieves, with insufficient Border Patrol personnel to stop the ongoing invasion. Incredibly, the administration continues to support granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens already inside the U.S. And it supports policies that provide housing and other benefits to aliens, thus attracting still more illegals. These policies put President Bush in the same camp with Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. It is impossible to provide "homeland security" when those charged with supervising our immigration and borders are totally overwhelmed; under these conditions, terrorists will continue to enjoy easy access to unlimited, vulnerable American targets.

Destroying Our Borders. Even more radical than his illegal alien amnesty is President Bush's support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This scheme, modeled after the European Union, will wipe out our borders entirely, by gradually merging economically and politically the U.S. with all the countries of North and South America and the Caribbean, In a May 16th speech in Madrid, Mexican ruler Vicente Fox candidly admitted that the FTAA would "establish with the United States, but also with Canada ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union"--but only if internationalists could defeat "what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supranational organizations."

Partnering with Terrorist State Sponsors. At his Beijing Summit with Red Chinese leader Jiang Zemin on February 21st President Bush declared: "We recognize that terrorism is a threat to both our countries, and I welcome China's cooperation in our war against terror." What cooperation? China continues providing missile technology, materials and technical support for weapons of mass destruction to terrorist regimes in Iran, Libya, and North Korea, and gave military aid to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Likewise, Russia continues supplying critical technology and support to Iran's nuclear weapons program and shelters Victor Bout, the Russian "entrepreneur" who, with Moscow's implicit blessing, has armed terrorist and revolutionary movements, including the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Northern Alliance. Yet President Bush praises ex-KGB boss Vladimir Putin, who continues carrying out a war of terror and genocide against the civilians of Chechnya, as our ally in the war against terrorism.

Axis of Evil. After denouncing Iran as a member of the "axis of evil," Bush has backed off from confronting the Teheran regime or its Russian sponsor. He has continued supporting Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's leader even though Karzai has publicly, closely allied his new regime with Iran. Regarding Cuba, the president has aimed a few incendiary barbs at Fidel Castro, but has not singled him out for supporting terrorism, and has actually started the process sure to lead toward normalizing relations with the Communist dictator.

Legitimizing Terrorists. Until very recently, President Bush and senior administration officials continued the outrageous charade of previous administrations of portraying PLO terrorist leader Yasir Arafat as the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, despite proof that he has masterminded terror, assassination, and suicide bombings for decades.

Supporting UN Terror. President Bush has repeatedly stated and demonstrated his support for the UN, whose membership includes a rogues' gallery of state sponsors of terrorism. Moreover, UN headquarters in New York has provided a base of operations for terrorist organizations and the foreign intelligence agencies that direct and support them. How can we hope to defeat terrorism while this "Terror Central" remains on our shores? President Bush's administration drafted and approved UN Security Council Resolution 1373. In its report to the UN Security Council on compliance with that resolution, the Bush administration affirmed that "this historic resolution [1373] established a body of legally binding obligations on all UN member states." To carry out those "obligations," continues the administration, "Most states will have to make changes in their laws, regulations, and practices...."

By seeking permission from the UN, and submitting to "obligations" imposed on us by the world body through Resolution 1373, President Bush has subjected us to UN Security Council "law" in the so-called war on terrorism, a dangerous precedent.

Leading the UN Posse. In his June 6th speech, President Bush proudly noted that more than 60,000 U.S. troops were scattered across the globe in pursuit of terrorists. Business Week noted back in March that the Bush "foreign policy looks more Clintonesque with every passing day," with its penchant for "focusing on 'root causes' of problems and raising the prospect of serious nation-building around the globe."

Disarming Pilots. After 9-11, there was hope that President Bush, who had received the support of the NRA and other Second Amendment enthusiasts, would support the common-sense proposal to allow pilots to carry firearms. But Homeland Security adviser Tom Ridge, speaking on behalf of President Bush, emphatically opposed any measure permitting airline pilots -- many of whom have military and law enforcement experience -- to carry firearms. Significantly, the 9-11 hijackers had the advantage of knowing that their prospective victims were unarmed.

Origins of "Homeland Security"

But it is incorrect to believe that these dangerous policies and proposals originate with President Bush. Instead, they are the handiwork of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the semi-secret, private organization that serves as the most visible element of the internationalist Power Elite.

A flurry of reports from the Establishment media following Bush's unveiling of the new super agency informed us that the mammoth reorganization had been the handiwork of a super-secret cadre of White House staffers led by Andrew Card, who hammered out the plan in a marathon six-week brain-storming session.

But according to a variation on that story provided in the June 7th Washington Post ("Bush Plan's Underground Architects"), Vice President-to-be Dick Cheney (CFR) had begun the real move to launch the new Homeland Security Department as far back as the 2000 campaign. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told the Post that Cheney "did a deep dive" into the available research on the subject. "Aided by a small staff, Cheney examined security proposals from commissions headed by former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, by former senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), 'and others going back a ways,'" Card said.

Both accounts are exercises in misdirection. The proposed Homeland Defense Department did not sprout in six weeks from an ad hoc White House wonk factory, nor was it crafted by the experienced hands of Vice President Cheney. Rather, it germinated for several years under the constant supervision of a bevy of one-world technicians at Pratt House, the New York City headquarters of the CFR.

As reported in these pages earlier this year ("The Emerging Police State," January 14, 2002), the proposal for a Homeland Security Department originated in 1998 with the launching of the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission. Headed by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, the project was officially named the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century. It was completely a Pratt House production. Of the 12 commissioners, nine are CFR members. That total includes the commission co-chairs Gary Hart and Warren Rudman; CFR president Leslie Gelb served as a commission member and senior vice president Charles Boyd served as the commission's executive director. In total, 12 of the 29 study group members belonged to the globalist CFR cabal. (The same is true of Vice President Cheney.)

The Phase III Report of the Hart-Rudman Commission issued on February 15, 2001, seven months prior to 9-11, declares: "This Commission was established to redefine national security in this age and to do so in a more comprehensive fashion than any other similar effort since 1947." Toward that end, the Commission recommended "the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security -- the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol -- transferred to it.... The NHSA Director would have Cabinet status...."

Rarely has the CFR's political ventriloquist act been performed as seamlessly as it has with the Bush administration's adoption of the Pratt House "Homeland Security" blueprint. Nine days after the Sept. 11th attacks, Bush announced the creation of the Office of Homeland Security -- a phrase lifted directly from the Hart-Rudman report -- to be led by Ridge. The new office, the public was assured, would be advisory only. "But several knowledgeable sources said that Cheney never expected the initial design to endure," said the Post, "instead, he favored a large-scale reorganization of the government from early on." That is hardly surprising, since that position meshes perfectly with the plans of his CFR confreres. And Bush's "homeland security" proposal follows the Hart-Rudman outline perfectly.

Nor should we believe that the Homeland Security Department would take its final form under the current proposal. One harbinger of future developments is S. 1534, a bill introduced last October 11th by Connecticut Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman (CFR). Lieberman's bill adapted the Hart-Rudman design for a Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department and would do more than merely consolidate existing federal security and intelligence agencies; it mandates federal supervision, funding, and coordination of "local first responders" -- specifically police and emergency personnel. In principle, Lieberman's bill would expand federal control of local law enforcement in the name of fighting terrorism.

This is the very antithesis of Americas constitutional federalism; it would strike down the vitally important check on power provided by thousands of independent, local police and sheriffs' departments, and lay the groundwork for a national police force -- an American Gestapo or KGB.

Deadly Charade

Many of the same Americans who criticized the Clinton administration's abuses of power have quietly accepted even more brazen power grabs by the "conservative" Bush administration. Such people fail to appreciate that the powers Bush is consolidating would also be exercised by his successors -- including, possibly, a President Hillary Rodham Clinton. They also fail to appreciate that the "conservatives" who populate the Bush administration -- Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Zoellick, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. -- are drawn from the CFR stable.

In a moment of candor caught by C-SPAN, Vice President Cheney explained how the Pratt House internationalists conduct their charade. "It's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations," Cheney told an appreciative CFR audience on February 15th. "I've been a member for a long time, and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for reelection back home in Wyoming...." The last line elicited laughter from the assembled notables; they, of course, knew the political necessity of fooling the poor rubes back home when votes are needed. Tell the good ol' boys what they want to hear -- patriotism, family values, keeping the government off their backs and out of their pockets, protecting America, etc. -- then proceed down the internationalist road in the opposite direction.

CFR collaborators are strategically positioned to advance the campaign for a Homeland Security Department. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (CFR), who also served on the Hart-Rudman Commission, stumped for the scheme in the commentary page of the June 10th Wall Street Journal. "President Bush deserves enormous credit for his proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security," said Gingrich. "His plan is stronger, more decisive and more powerful than many would have predicted just a few short weeks ago. The executive branch has charted the proper course; it is now up to Congress to see that we arrive." Similar CFR bilge is flowing from all the Pratt House print and broadcast spigots.

The CFR also has the fix in on Capitol Hill. The newly established Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees is not likely to allow any stunning revelations Out that might imperil the CFR's program. The chairmen of the intelligence committees presiding over the Joint Inquiry are Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Representative Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.). Both men are CFR members. Rep. Goss, a former CIA case officer, has resolutely supported CIA Director George Tenet (CFR) and is not expected to disclose anything that would put Tenet in a bad light. According to New York Times reporter James Risen, "Mr. Goss played a quiet but influential role in persuading the Bush administration to keep Mr. Tenet, a Clinton appointee."

Representative Dick Gephardt (CFR) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (CFR) have already expressed support for the Homeland Security Department, guaranteeing key Democrat backing. "It'll fly right through," predicted Gary Hart, reflecting the arrogant confidence of the CFR political cartel. Perhaps. But if enough Americans awaken to the dangers it presents and the shadowy powers promoting it, they'll shoot it down before it leaves the launch pad.

REPRINTS AVAILABLE: Additional copies of this copyright article will be available on or about July 15th at the following prices (plus shipping): two copies for $1.00,25 for $10.00, 100 for $35.00 or 1,000 for $300.00. Order from THE NEW AMERICAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912; by phone at 920-749-3784; or online at www.thenewamerican.com.