Martial Law and Detention Camps in America

Detention Facilities for Mysterious 'New Programs' (Updated 12/29/11)

On August 14, 2002, the Los Angeles Times published a story by Jonathan Turley titled Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision. According to Turley (a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University):

"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace. Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants... The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government... Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made 'enemy combatant' stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy."

According to former Congressman Dan Hamburg (Democrat-California), since 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention facilities at undisclosed locations within the United States (most of these sites only need refurbished because they are mostly closed prisons, former WWII internment camps, and other facilities taken over by the government).

On January 26, 2006, KBR (recently reprimanded for gross overcharging in its military contracts in Iraq) announced that it was awarded a $385 million contract to build detention centers in the United States. Two weeks later, on February 6, 2006, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the fiscal year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds. This $400 million allocation is more than a four-fold increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget, which provided only $90 million for the same purpose.

Buried in Halliburton's press release "2005 Full Year and Fourth Quarter Results" (PDF file, page 5) on Halliburton's website (please note that the press release has since been removed from their website), is the announcement of the $385 million contract, awarded by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component. According to Halliburtion: "The Indefinate Delivery/Indefinate Quantity contingency contract is to support ICE facilities and has a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term. The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S. or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Note: The contract for Halliburton's subsidiary to build detention facilities is part of a longer-term Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers (required to be retained by law), or potential terrorists."

During this same time period from 2005 to early 2006, H.R. 1492 was passed (on November 16, 2005); it was signed into Public Law 109-441 by President Bush on December 21, 2006. H.R. 1492 guaranteed $38 million in federal money to restore 10 former internment camps where Japanese Americans were detained during WWII.

On the Army's website is an unclassified document, first posted in February 2006, titled Civilian Inmate Labor Program (Army Regulation 210–35). This regulation, effective one year earlier on February 14, 2005, "provides policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations."

The document, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid action revision" on January 14, 2005; the revision provides a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations. On its face, the Army's labor program refers to inmates housed in federal, state and local jails. The Army also cites various federal laws that govern the use of civilian labor and provide for the establishment of prison camps in the United States, including a federal statute that authorizes the Attorney General to "establish, equip, and maintain camps" upon sites selected by him and "make available… the services of United States prisoners" to various government departments, including the Department of Defense.

Though the timing of the document's posting in February 2006 may just be a coincidence, the reference to a "rapid action revision" and KBR contract's contemplation of "rapid development of new programs" have raised eyebrows about why this sudden need for urgency. These developments also are drawing more attention now because of earlier Bush administration policies to involve the Pentagon in "counter-terrorism" operations inside the United States.

The El Pais interview (excerpt below) on February 1, 2006 with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Tom Shannon, contradicts the Homeland Security plan to build additional detention facilities for illegal immigrants, leading one to believe that the facilities will be used for the other purposes, such as stated in KBR's contract: "to support the rapid development of new programs:"

Question: When President Bush came to the White House for the first time, he came with the idea of opening the borders and allowing the Mexicans, the Guatemalans to come in, then something happened—the borders were closed, but the Mexicans are still crossing the borders. What are the plans of the American administration? The United States needs all these laborers for its economy.

A/S Shannon: President Bush has committed himself to immigration reform—and especially the immigration reform that would include a temporary workers' program. A temporary workers' program would attempt to link willing workers with willing employers and create a process whereby employers in the United States who need workers could bring those workers into the United States from a foreign country—and not just Mexico or Central America, but any country—in a way that would regularize their status within the United States. That proposal is being debated and worked on in our Congress right now; the process still has a ways to go. So we'll see what legislation eventually emerges from the Congress. But the President is committed to immigration reform and he is committed to a temporary workers' program.

Border Invasion Pictures
Napolitano: DHS Authorizing Illegal Aliens to Work in U.S. (October 19, 2011)

On January 22, 2009 (two days after the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States), H.R. 645, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (NECEA), was submitted during the first session of the 111th Congress. The bill directs "the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "national emergency centers on military installations." NECEA mandates that no fewer than six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions throughout the country for the concentration of civilian internees on military installations. These existing military installations will be used for emergency situations or natural disasters that might render individuals and families "dislocated." NECEA further proposes that over the course of the next two years, $360 million is to be appropriated for this initiative. [The Senate version of this bill, S.3476: National Emergency Centers Establishment, was introduced on June 10, 2010, where it was "read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services."]

In July 2009, the Army National Guard began advertising for Corrections Officers and Internment/Resettlement Specialists: “As an Internment/Resettlement Specialist for the Army National Guard, you will ensure the smooth running of military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility, similar to those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers. This will require you to know proper procedures and military law; and have the ability to think quickly in high-stress situations. Specific duties may include assisting with supervision and management operations; providing facility security; providing custody, control, supervision, and escort; and counseling individual prisoners in rehabilitative programs.”

On December 6, 2011, Infowars.com reported on a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,” the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to Infowars.com by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States. KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus. Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

On December 15, 2011, just before the Christmas break, the U.S. Senate voted to give the president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison, without charge or trial, civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military, and the military could be used far from any battlefield. Military resources could be directed not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by both the House and Senate and currently being reconciled so that it can be presented to the president for signing into law. What we are dealing with here is the potential for the scope of the bill to expand from those who legitimately can be called violent terrorists and enemy combatants, to those who are simply political opponents and eventually to those who fail to support those in power. If this scope can be expanded, history shows us that inevitably it will. American citizens are guaranteed rights under the Constitution, rights which are natural rights, rights endowed by our Creator, not rights bestowed by government. If government can remove your rights by decree, and worse, by secret decree, you have no rights, only privileges at whim.

On December 31, 2011 Obama signed the military detention bill (NDAA) into law.

Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest (November 2008):

Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States (Pages 31-32)
As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States.

While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a “Black Swan” that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory.

Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.

An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home. Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.

A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.

The Suspension of Our Civil Rights

Habeas corpus (Latin for "you [should] have the body") is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The United States Constitution specifies that, "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the pubic safety may require it." The Constitution is clear in indicating that suspension is a possibility in specific cases, but vague as to who determines when public safety is in danger. Clearly, it is the President's duty to invoke the suspension, but is it also his duty to determine when an invasion or rebellion threatens the public safety? Or is that the job of the Congress?

"There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution" — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The Largest ICE Raid in U.S. History: A Personal Account
A Spanish-language interpreter in Postville, Iowa, battled with his own ethical decisions about how to stay neutral during the largest single-site raid in U.S. history on May 12, 2008. He says nothing could have prepared him for the prospect of helping our government put hundreds of innocent people in jail.

Privatization of Prisons

Cheney Ran SS-Style Political Assassination Unit
(Halliburton's Former CEO) Cheney's Financial Interest in Private Prison Companies
Halliburton Confirms Detention Camps Already Constructed in America
Former Congressman Warns of Detention Camps in America
Detention Camp in Columbus, Ohio, Part 1 & Part 2
FEMA Camps & FEMA Coffins
The Return of Debtors Prisons
Human Trafficking in America's Private Prisons