-Caveat Lector-
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.04B.jvb.hsa.2.htm
(*Editors Note | This is Part 2 of a three-part series on the Homeland Security Act.
The first
part, which came out yesterday, reviewed the origins of the Act in the Hart-Rudman
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Today, Part 2 discusses Cheney's plan
for global dominance and how that relates to homeland security. Tomorrow, Part 3 will
detail some of the HSA provisions themselves and briefly discuss what worries civil
libertarians.)
Homeland Security Act: The Rise of the American Police State
(Part 2 of a Three Part Series)
By Jennifer Van Bergen
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday, 3 December 2002
Cheney's Plan for Global Dominance
One does not need to look into the Council on Foreign Relations, however, to discover
the
hidden agenda behind the Homeland Security Act. David Armstrong recently wrote a
detailed article for Harper's Magazine on "Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a
Plan
for Global Dominance."1
Armstrong reviewed the "Defense Planning Guidance" reports issued by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense while Cheney was the secretary under Bush I and thereafter.
Jasper links the Homeland Security Department to "one of several unprecedented efforts
to
centralize military and law enforcement power in the executive branch," and notes
Bush's
June 1st speech at West Point in which he introduced the doctrine of "defensive
intervention" (more commonly called "preemptive strikes").
David Armstrong echoes this conclusion when he states that the West Point speech was
part of Cheney's "perpetually evolving work" which "will take its ultimate form ... as
America's new national security strategy."
"The plan," according to Armstrong, "is to rule the world. The overt theme is
unilateralism,
but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain
its
overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge
it on
the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not
that the
United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely
powerful."
Armstrong muses that the Plan "is disturbing in many ways, and ultimately unworkable.
Yet
it is being sold now as an answer to the 'new realities' of the post-September 11
world,
even as it was sold previously as the answer to the new realities of the post-Cold War
world." He says "Cheney's unwavering adherence to the Plan would be amusing, and
maybe a little sad, except that it is now our plan."
Armstrong tracks Cheney's evolving work from the initial idea of America's need to
project
a military "forward presence" around the world, shifting from the policy of global
containment in order to manage "less-well-defined regional struggles and unforeseen
contingencies" to the doctrine of preemptive military force with nuclear weapons. He
notes
the shift from a threat-based defense strategy to a capability-based assessment.
The capability-based assessment of military requirements became a key theme of Cheney's
plan. Capability- based: because we can. The inanity of this approach is
well-illustrated by
singer/songwriter Jonatha Brooke in her 1995 song "War" -
It's the American way, the new world order
We hold these truths to be self-evident
In the American day, you must give and I shall take,
And I will tell you what is moral and what's just
Because I want, because I will, because I can, so will I kill.
Behind Cheney's doctrines was a deep fear and suspicion of the Soviets that was shared
by
Colin Powell, who as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser began working on this
Plan
in the late 1980s, and by Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for policy.
When the Plan was leaked in March 1992 to the New York Times, Delaware Senator Joseph
Biden criticized its proposal of "a global security system where threats to stability
are
suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power."
Wolfowitz might have us believe that the Cheney Plan is a brilliant anticipation of the
terrorist attacks. Wolfowitz asked in a 1996 editorial: "Should we sit idly by with
our passive
containment policy and our inept covert operations, and wait until a tyrant possessing
large
quantities of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated delivery systems strikes
out at
us?"
The Council on Foreign Relations, on the other hand, refers to the Hart-Rudman
Commission as the "now famous Commission on National Security that warned of such a
terrorist attack three years ago."
These boastings, however, ignore what Armstrong's article so clearly reveals: the
dangerous course these doctrines promote.
>From national unity to state control.
>From clear separations between foreign and domestic intelligence activities under the
>CIA
charter of 1947 ("the Charter") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of
1978, in clear deference to the United States Constitution's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Amendment requirements, to wholesale merging of these activities, in violation of the
Charter, the obvious intent of FISA, and the Constitution.
>From military "base force" and a tentative "forward presence" to "preemptive strikes"
>and
"unwarned attacks."
As Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way said: "It's truly
astonishing. It
seems that we're forgetting everything we learned in the 1970's."2 And, as Armstrong
notes: "This country once rejected "unwarned" attacks such as Pearl Harbor as barbarous
and unworthy of a civilized nation." Armstrong further states that we "also once
denounced
those who tried to rule the world."
The Plan, finally, envisions unilateral action without alliances. Coalitions are
relegated to
"ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted." Where it
cannot
get others to agree with its goals or decisions, the United States will "act
independently" to
address "selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of
our
allies or friends." Coalitions "must not determine the mission." American interests,
according to the Plan, include "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf
oil,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to
U.S.
citizens from terrorism."
Now, if we claim that Persian Gulf oil is one of our primary interests and we are the
only
ones who can determine our mission, no wonder we are worried about "terrorist" threats
from the Middle East.
Gary Hart, himself, noted in an article in the current (December 16th) issue of The
American Prospect: "A major U.S. invasion of a Muslim country would almost certainly
trigger serious attempts to kill Americans." He asks: "Are we ready for the virtually
certain
retaliatory terrorist attacks on our homeland if we invade Iraq?"
The importance of these concerns cannot be overemphasized. Yet, they are hardly
discussed in the press. Nor do these discussions begin to consider the various
violations of
international law that the United States would be committing, and already has
committed,
under Bush administration current and anticipated measures - nor the potential effects
of
these on our safety.3
-------
Jennifer Van Bergen is a regular contributor to TruthOut. She has a J.D. from Benjamin
N.
Cardozo School of Law, is a contributing editor of Criminal Defense Weekly, an adjunct
faculty member of the New School Online University, a division of the New School for
Social
Research, and an active member of the ACLU.
1 David Armstrong, "Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a plan for global
dominance,"
pp. 76-83, Harper's Magazine, October 2002 (Vol. 305, No. 1829).
2 David Johnston "The Administration Begins to Rewrite Decades-Old Spying
Restrictions,"
www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/national/30INTE.p.html.
3 I will be discussing these issues in depth in an upcoming article.
© : t r u t h o u t 2002 | t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters |
donate |
contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics | indigenous survival |
|energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women | reform | global |
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
