Secret Operations That Are Hidden All Around You

Tags

, , , ,

Project Greek Island

During the Cold War the United States government maintained a top-secret underground bunker in the mountains of West Virginia. Built under The Greenbrier, a luxurious Southern resort, the facility was designed to house the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in case of nuclear attack.

greek islandCompromised by an investigative reporter in 1993, the bunker is now open to the public. With the code name “Project Greek Island”, it remains a sobering reminder of how America lived with and prepared for the possibility of a Soviet nuclear attack. You can enter the bunker or you can read an interview with Fritz Bugas, former on-site Superintendent of the Greenbrier bunker.

The Green Brier: Five Star Fallout Shelter


bunker007Atomic tourist attractions, radioactive and otherwise, can be found all over the world, but here in the U.S. the landscape is literally pocked with them. Indeed, if John Q. Public was atomically inclined, he could load up the SUV and take the family on a two-month summer vacation and STILL not see everything that’s out there. CONELRAD, through links and our own first person accounts, will attempt to cover all your sightseeing needs. The following article about the decommissioned government fallout shelter underneath the Greenbrier Hotel is our inaugural travelogue.

In the summer of 1992 the Washington Post revealed the existence the immense government shelter you are about to read about. The nation yawned. Assemble at the Bunker officeThe Cold War had been over for about a year and America was on to new diversions. Thus the news of this ridiculous and fascinating tax sinkhole left over from the fifties took a back seat to L.A. riots and a cantankerous Texas billionaire. Anxious Atomic tourist would have to cool their heels for a few years before the Greenbrier Hotel management bowed to nascent Cold War nostalgia and opened their blast doors to the public. (The bunker is also available for group events and “unique theme parties.”) But as anyone who has taken the tour will tell you, it was well worth the wait.

Project X, then Project Casper and finally Project Greek Island were the original code-names for the shelter. Its SOLE intended occupant was always the Congress of the United States and their aides. To mangle the familiar Titanic slogan: WOMEN AND CHILDREN…NOT ADMITTED. There are emergency relocation sites for the other branches of government such as Mount Weather in Northern Virginia and Site R (near Camp David, MD) which still remain operational.

Greenbrier HotelIn an extraordinary bit of government back scratching the Eisenhower Administration, via the Architect of the Capitol, negotiated to build the structure on the grounds of the Greenbrier Hotel; a five star resort located five hours south of Washington in White Sulphur Springs, W. VA. In exchange for government financing of the Greenbrier’s West Virginia Wing addition, the hotel permitted the simultaneous construction of the shelter beneath it. This provided the initial cover story for the digging of the congressional hideaway. Ground was broken in 1957 and the Greenbrier employee newsletter noted the occasion by “informing” staff that “testing” was being conducted for the new wing.

Light at the beginning of the tunnel...

Serendipitously, the bunker and the West Virginia Wing of the Greebrier were completed just in time for the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. This remained the only occasion the shelter ever went on full alert. As the Cold War played out over the decades, Project Greek Island was quietly maintained and updated by the Army Signal Corps and sworn-to-secrecy Greenbrier staff. Incredibly, the government employees posed as on-site TV repairmen and had orders to blend in with the townsfolk. No matter how patriotic these government employees were, serving their country by posing as TV repairmen in White Sulphur Springs, W. VA must have been the Cold War equivalent to directing traffic or walking a third shift sentry beat.

GreenbrierAd_thumb3The bunker managed to outlast the Soviet Union by a margin of about a year. And if it weren’t for that Washington Post expose,“The Ultimate Congressional Hideaway” it would probably still be up and running. As things turned out, shortly after that article was published, Project Greek Island was decommissioned. In 1995 the first tours of the bunker began exclusively for Greenbrier guests. Beginning in 1997 anyone with 25 bucks could get a guided tour twice a week.

The “former government relocation facility” is one of the strangest “educational” experiences. The left over propaganda posters (which are now “exhibits”) warning staff never to divulge their mission is the creepiest reminder that the public was never intended to see the inside of the shelter. The public, of course, was supposed to remain blissfully ignorant of any such government contingency plans. The size, weirdness and relative extravagance of the Greenbrier bunker make it—hands down—the “Graceland” of Atomic Tourism. Though there is no “Jungle Room,” per se, you do get to see exactly where Newt Gingrich would have slept through Armageddon. In other words, every tour of the Greenbrier is strictly Platinum.

**

Raven-rock-site-r-logo

Raven Rock Mountain Complex

The Raven Rock Mountain Complex (RRMC) is a military installation with an underground nuclear bunker near Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, at Raven Rock Mountain that serves as an “underground Pentagon” (colloq.). The bunker has emergency operations centers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The installation’s largest tenant unit is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and RRMC communications are the responsibility of the 114th Signal Battalion. The facility has 38 communications systems, and the Defense Information Systems Agency provides computer services at the complex. Additional names for the installation are Raven Rock Military Complex, National Military Command Center Reservation (NMCC-R), Backup Pentagon“, Site R, or “The Rock.”

In 1948 as the cold war with Russia was heating up, plans were developed to build a hidden underground infrastructure. Things began to boil over in 1949 when the Soviets detonated a nuclear explosive, by 1951 construction began. A 1/2 million cubic yards of granite were hauled away from the mountains in as little as 10 months. In 1953 buildings A, B, and C opened, followed 10 years later by buildings D, and E. The entire complex consists of 66 buildings and 716 acres. Beneath the mountains, and hidden behind massive steel doors, the compound houses their own power plant and water reservoir. Within the grounds is a subterranean living quarters, fitness center, medical facility, chapel, and even a convenience store. Its believed to hold enough supplies to last 3,000 people approximately 30 days. This massive underground headquarters is meant to act as the defense headquarters in times of war. It’s believed former Vice President Cheney frequented the base quite often in the days following 9/11.

RR complexMost of the activities that take place in this massive underground complex are highly classified. In May of 2007 the Federal Register published a Department of Defense policy declaring it unlawful for any person “entering in or on the property…to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or geographical representation of the Raven Rock Mountain Complex without first obtaining the necessary permission.”

raven-rock-news2

Documents and Resources

**

Underground Bases

This is a list of known or suspected U.S. Underground Bases, the purpose of each (hey, I’m just passing on the reports…), how they’re set up and any other info known about them. Although most of these are supposed to be a secret, this list is culled from publicly available records (is that good or bad?) and of course people who worked in them, live by them or those who have retired and offer info. Some wish to remain anonymous. Some have written to me with stories that have been terrifying – just to tell me things – not meaning for me to put them up. I have a bad habit of keeping secrets, which is good. The map, which is large, has been made into a pop-up window so you can minimize it as you read the list, and not have to flip between pages. Mouse over the pins for the location.

I found some interesting stats in my digging – the Government (federal and/or federal and state) is the biggest landholder/owner in the states that the underground bases are purported to be in.

Top 10 ranked in order of % of state land owned (acres) by federal – states governments:

% of state acreage federally owned
% owned by federal and state gov. combined
1 Nevada – 87.8% 1 Alaska – 96.8%
2 Utah – 67.9% 2 Nevada – 89.2%
3 Alaska – 67% 3 Utah – 75.2%
4
Idaho – 65.2%
4 Idaho – 70.4%
5 Oregon – 55.5% 5 Oregon – 60.4%
6 California – 49.9% 6 Arizona – 56.8%
7 Wyoming – 49.7% 7 Wyoming – 56%
8 Arizona – 44.3% 8 California – 52.1%
9 Colorado – 38.9$ 9 New Mexico – 47.5%
10 New Mexico – 36.2% 10 Colorado – 43.3%

http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html Much of the US is honeycombed with naturally occurring caves and caves systems, sinkholes and abandoned mines – especially in the West – so it’s not all that far-fetched when you think about it. Presented for your perusal is the whole mess, for your own conclusions. I thank those who sent info in. All email addresses on file and rabidly protected as I do everyone’s privacy. Any others with info, you’re cordially invited to dish the goods, too.

U.S. Underground Military Facilities . . . click for map

ALASKA

1. Brooks Range, Alaska

2. Delta Junction, Alaska

2a. Fort Greeley, Alaska (reported by Peachy)
In the same Delta Junction area

ARIZONA

1. Arizona (Mountains) (not on map)
Function: Genetic work.
Multiple levels

2. Fort Huachuca, Arizona (also reported detainment camp)
Function: NSA Facility
Notes: (I lost the name of who sent me this..let me know..)
“Having spent the better part of my life there I can assure you of only one thing, it is THE communications command central for the entire US Army (and rumored to be for the entire US forces) No phone call, two way radio transmission, satellite transmission, fax, etc., within the Army goes undocumented and un “cleared” by this facility. It is VERY high on the “first to be hit in a nuclear war” list, (as supposedly most communications with the Army are actually routed though there) thus all the missile silos that were (not really) deactivated around Tucson, some 75 miles to the NW”.

“As for any underground activity, I have no idea, but I do know this, they also do “radar testing” there. They put “planes” on a tower and fire a radar at them to “get a reading”(?) from a HUGE (I’d say 10 story) microwave radar dish. (it was visible from the highway several miles away). The whole facility sat out in the middle of a several hundred (or possibly thousands) acre field, oddly devoid of most all naturally occurring groundcover, bushes and trees for the area except for wild grass, and even that was very seldom green. HMMMM. My Dad used to work the crane lifting these “planes” onto the tower, a duty they only allowed each person to do for a few weeks and then only one or two rotations in a lifetime – can you say radioactive sickness? By the way, he recently went though his THIRD fight with cancer in 8 years). He had to have the highest level clearance ever given to any civilian in his branch of the civil service. He said many times these “planes” were under tarps, (which were never lifted while he was present) and didn’t have any shape he recognized as an airplane at all, but when they did put an actual plane up there, they were usually older and even many times, out of service models. Now why would they need radar info on those? Can you say smokescreen?
I was constantly amazed how many times my friends and I would go out 4-wheeling MILES in the opposite direction of the Fort, and would run into locked gates with “No Entrance, Govt Property” signs on them! Needless to say, the Govt owned much of the land around the Sierra Vista/Ft Huachuca area.
Just thought you’d like to know.”

2. Luke Air Force Base

3. Munds Park, Arizona highway rest stop (reported by Dumpgoddess. Verified by Sid and also Becky, who says she was almost arrested asking what the hell they were doing there when they were building this thing)

Dumpgoddess told me she used to work at a highway rest area known as Munds Park. One day some military trucks and men pulled in and pretty much said OK, thanks for working here, we’re closing the place, Buh-bye!” They spent years expanding the site and then left. The rest stop is still closed to any traffic and the entrance and exit road to it from the highway have been ripped up. Another person I know in that area said there are unmarked military trucks and vehicles parked in the back now and the place “is huge” compared to what it was, and looks quite deserted in spite of the construction.

“I live 20 miles out of Flagstaff AZ. .There is a rest area 1/2 mile away. When the government was building this rest area it took almost 3 1/2yrs to complete, and there were tall fences with dark canvas-like tarps all the way around the area so no one could see what was going on .There were also big army looking trucks pulling in and out all night, every night. Everyone in Munds Park could hear them coming and going. Now the govt. is closing the rest area for good. I’m told the fences will be put back up. I would bet my life on the fact that there is something under this rest area. You see I worked at Christensen (name of rest area) up untill a week ago.

4. Page, Arizona
Tunnels to: Area 51, Nevada Dulce base, New Mexico

5. Sedona, Arizona (also reported detainment camp)
Notes: Located under the Enchantment Resort in Boynton Canyon. There have been many reports by people in recent years of “increased military presence and activity” in the area. A local resident, Deana, told me her and her husband are thinking of moving because it’s gotten so intrusive. Sedona is felt to be a very spiritual area and was (is) a cultural and holy area for Native Americans and is stunningly gorgeous.

6. Wikieup, Arizona
Tunnels to: Area 51

7. Yucca (Mtns.), Arizona

CALIFORNIA
1: 29 Palms, California
Tunnels to: Chocolate Mts., Fort Irwin, California (possibly one more site due west a few miles)
Notes: Some Alien autopsies said to have been performed at 29 Palms.

2: Benicia, California

3. Catalina Island, California
Tunnels to: I was told by someone who worked at the Port Hueneme Naval Weapons Division Base in Oxnard that they have heard and it is ‘common rumor’ that there is a tunnel from the base to this Island, and also to Edwards Air Force Base, possibly utilizing old mines. .

4. China Lake Naval Weapons Testing Center

5. Chocolate Mountains, California
Tunnels to: Fort Irwin, California

6. Death Valley,California
Function: The entrance to the Death Valley Tunnel is in the Panamint Mountains down on the lower edge of the range near Wingate Pass, in the bottom of an abandoned mine shaft. The bottom of the shaft opens into an extensive tunnel system

7. Deep Springs, California
Function: Supposed home to alien species working with government
Tunnels to: Death Valley, Mercury, NV, Salt Lake City

8. Edwards AFB, California
Function: Aircraft Development – antigravity research and vehicle development
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Catalina Island Fort Irwin, California Vandenburg AFB, California
Notes: Delta Hanger – North Base, Edwards AFB, Ca. Haystack Buttte – Edwards, AFB, Ca.

9. Fort Irwin, California (also reported detainment camp)
Tunnels to: 29 Palms, California Area 51, Nevada Edwards AFB. California Mt. Shasta, California

10. Helendale, California
Function: Special Aircraft Facility
Helendale has an extensive railway/shipping system through it from the Union Pacific days which runs in
from Salt Lake City, Denver, Omaha, Los Angeles and Chicago

11. Lancaster, California
Function: New Aircraft design, anti-gravity engineering, Stealth craft and testing
Levels: 42
Tunnels To: Edwards A.F.B., Palmdale

12. Lawrence-Livermore International Labs, California
The lab has a Human Genome Mapping project on chromosome #19
and a newly built $1.2 billion laser facility

13. Moreno Valley, California
Function unknown

14. Mt. Lassen, California
Tunnels to: Probably connects to the Mt. Shasta main tunnel.
Notes: Two alien races living inside mountain.

15. Mt. Shasta (click for photo of rays coming out of cave).
Function: Genetic experiments, magnetic advance, space and beam weaponry.
Levels: 5
Tunnels to: Ft. Irwin, California North (maybe to Klamath Falls or Crater Lake, or both.

16. Napa, California
Functions: Direct Satellite Communications, Laser Communications. Continuation of Government site.
Levels: Multi-level
Tunnels to: Unknown
Notes: Located on Oakville Grade, Napa County, Ca. 87 Acres

17. Needles, California
Function unknown

18. Palmdale, California
Function: New Aircraft Design, anit-gravity research

19. Tehachapi Facility (Northrop, California – Tejon Ranch
Function: Levels: 42
Tunnels to: Edwards, Llona and other local areas
Notes: 25 miles NW of Lancaster California, in the Tehachapi mountains.

20. Ukiah, California
Function unknown

COLORADO

1. Near Boulder, Co. in the mountains
Function unknown

2. Cheyenne Mountain -Norad -Colorado Springs, Colorado
Function: Early Warning systems – missile defense systems – Space tracking
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Colorado Springs,
Function: Early warning systems, military strategy, satellite operations
Levels: Multiple
NORAD is a massive self-sustaining ‘city’ built inside the mountain
Tunnels to: Creede, Denver, Dulce Base, Kinsley

3. Creede, Colorado
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Colorado Springs, Colorado – Delta, Colorado – Dulce Base, New Mexico

4. Delta, Colorado
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Creede Salt Lake, Utah

5. Denver International Airport (also a detainment camp)
Function: Military research, construction, detainment camp facilities
Levels: 7 reported
Tunnels to: Denver proper, Colorado and Rocky Mountain “safehousing”, Colorado Springs, Colorado (Cheyenne Mtn.), Riverton, Wyoming Notes: Constructed in 1995, the government and politicians were hell bent on building this airport in spite of it ending up vastly overbudget. Charges of corruption, constant construction company changes, and mass firings of teams once they had built a section of their work was reported so that no “one” group had any idea what the blueprint of the airport was. Not only did locals not want this airport built nor was it needed, but everything was done to make sure it was, period. Masonic symbols and bizarre artwork of dead babies, burning cities and women in coffins comprise an extensive mural as well as a time capsule – none of which is featured in the airport’s web site section detailing the unique artwork throughout the building. DIA is reported to serve as a cover for the vast underground facilities that were built there. There are reports of electronic/magnetic vibrations which make some people sick and cause headaches in others. There are acres of fenced-in areas which have barbed wire pointing into the area as if to keep things in, and small concrete stacks that resemble mini-cooling towers rise out of the acres of nowhere to apparently vent underground levels.

See site article and photos at Denver Airport

6. Falcon Air Force Base, Falcon, Colorado
Function: SDI, Satellite Control
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Colorado Springs, possibly more.

7. Fort Collins, Colorado
Function: Suspect high precision equipment manufacturing for space.

8. Grand Mesa, Colorado
Function unknown

9. Gore Range Near Lake, west of Denver, Co.
Function: Library and Central Data Bank

10. San Juan Valley, Colorado
Hidden beneath and in an operating Buffalo Ranch
Function unknown

11. Telluride, Colorado
Function unknown

12. University of Denver, Co (Boulder area)
Function: Genetics, geology/mining as related to tunneling and underground construction.

13. Warden Valley West of Fort Collins, CO
Function Unknown
Tunnels to: Montana

GEORGIA
Dobbins Air Force Base, Marrietta GA
Function: test site for plasma and antigravity air craft, experimental crafts and weapons

INDIANA
Kokomo, Indiana
Function Unknown
Notes: for years people in that area have reported a “hum” that has been so constant that some have been forced to move and it has made many others sick. It seems to come from underground, and “research” has turned up nothing although it was suggested by someone that massive underground tunneling and excavating is going on, using naturally occurring caverns, to make an underground containment or storage facility.

KANSAS
1. Hutchinson, Kansas
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Kinsley, Nebraska

2. Kansas City, Kansas
Function unknown
Notes: Entrance near Worlds of Fun

3. Kinsley, Kansas
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Colorado Springs, Colorado; Hutchinson, Kansas; Tulsa Kokoweef Peak, SW California
Notes: Gold stored in huge cavern, blasted shut. Known as the “midway city” because it’s located halfway between New York and San Francisco

MARYLAND
Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland (from Don)
Martins AFB, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Don wrote: I was just looking at your satellite photo of the chem trails over the East Coast (Maryland in particular), and I noticed a strange coincidence. I’m from Maryland and I noticed that the two streaks over the state seem to run next to major military installations. The more eastern of the two runs over Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood Arsenal, and Martins AFB. The more western of the two runs near Ft. Meade. Aberdeen Proving Ground and Edgewood Arsenal seem to have a lot of strange or peculiar things about them as well. I live near both and often can hear the weapons testing. I know for a fact that there are large storages of chemical weapons at Edgewood. In high school, we had to do pressurization drills once a month where the entire school would pile into the gym and we would seal the gym and pressurize it to keep the gas out. There are sirens all over the community they test once a week (every Wed. at 4) that are to alert of potential chemical weapons leaks. There is constant military air traffic all over the area, and chemtrails are a regular occurrence (until I was about 18, I thought it was normal for contrails to stay for at least 6 hours!). These two bases are always heavily guarded and secured, even before 9/11. One of my friend’s dad is an army chemist out there, and he is not allowed to even discuss what he does. The only way I knew that he was a chemist was because he is a doctor and the insignia on his uniform is from the chemical corps. He is very secretive and often disappears late at night to go to work, apparently at a moment’s notice (he has two pagers, a govt. one and his regular one). Aberdeen Proving Grounds is the United States’ largest military testing facility, and Edgewood Arsenal is it’s largest store of arms. I could fill a book with the peculiarities of these two installations.

MONTANA
Bozeman, Mont.
Function: Genetics

NEVADA
Area 51 – Groom Lake – Dreamland – Nellis Air Force Base
Area 51 was said to exist only in our imaginations until Russian satellite photos were leaked to US sources and it’s amazing how you can get photos all over now of it, and even posters. It’s also amazing how much they’ve been busy little bees building this base up.

Function: Stealth and cloaking Aircraft research & development
“‘Dreamland (Data Repository Establishment and Maintenance Land)
Elmint (Electromagnetic Intelligence), Biological weapons research and genetic manipulation/warfare storage, Cold Empire, EVA, Program HIS (Hybrid Intelligence System),BW/CW; IRIS (Infrared Intruder Systems), BI-PASS, REP-TILES,
back engineering of captured space craft propulsion systems, holding area of all alien materials and bodies/prisoners,
Security: Above ground cameras, underground pressure sensors, ground and air patrol
Notes: Operating rooms on several floors, – Complete hospital, fully staffed and has everything imaginable. – The person who gave this info worked as a locksmith in Area 51 for 12 years. He did not see any creatures while on any of the levels, but admits that there were many closed areas that he was not allowed into and he talked to others who said they had seen either actual captured UFOs or own own UFOs and that some thought they had been given freely in an exchange program as it wasn’t possible so many UFOs could n’t have crashed and been recovered in such pristine condition.
Tunnels to: Ft. Irwin, California – Page, Arizona – Tonopah, Nevada – Wiciup, Arizona
S-4 Area in Area 51 Function unknown
Addendum: I have been told by many people (all military) that Area 51 isn’t really where much is going on – or at least the whole “aliens/crashed saucers are there” mystique is a bit hyped because the area is able to be so secured. That illusion is “allowed” and encouraged to focus the energy of the “Conspiracy” people on it and divert snooping into the real hub of action elsewhere (most say Dulce).

The Air Force recently managed to withdraw 3,972 acres of public land from the surrounding desert and absorbed it into the Groom Lake area, making it prohibited to civilians and under military protection. This was in answer to the (government’s) endless battle to keep people from sitting on a ridge that was 10 miles away with telescopic lenses “spying” on the goings-on of the Area and trying to see what all the massive paranoia was about. Double Dog dares, you know….
Also, a bit bizarrely for a place where “nothing is going on”, after the New York 9-11 attack, President Bush the Second issued a statement that would exempt this installation “from any Federal, State, Interstate, Local or hazardous waste laws that might require the disclosure of calcified information concerning that operating location to unauthorized persons…information concerning activities at the operating location near Groom Lake have been properly determined to be classified and disclosure would be harmful to national security. Continued protection of this information is in the paramount interest of the United States”.

2. Blue Diamond, Nevada
Function unknown

3. Fallon Air Force Base area (the flats, near Reno)
“American City”
restricted military sites southwest of Fallon
Function: Suspected Underground UFO Base
Levels: At least seven underground levels

4. Henderson, Nevada – Naval Base
This one’s interesting. I was in Henderson on May 3-4, 1988 on one of my Death Valley/Ghost Town/Photography/Screw the World jaunts. (I love Death Valley). I remembered it vividly because I just got tired of driving and happened to turn off for the night and there I was in Henderson. It was a sleepy, dusty town. I ended up in this strange hotel that seemed like part of an old 1940s horror movie, run by the nicest people you’d want to meet. I love stuff like that. They were so surprised to see a visitor they gave me the room for a few bucks. The next morning (May 4) I left and was about two hours from town, trying to get anything on the radio but static, when I heard a news report that there had been a terrible accident in Henderson and the “marshmallow factory” had blown up, killing several people and causing a massive fire. I couldn’t believe it…I was just there! I just missed it. If I had been my usual Never In A Hurry self, I’d still be there. I saw the smoke not too long after, still driving; Henderson burning hours away.
Then I heard that what had in fact blown up was a government chemical/bomb plant. I was stunned. This sleepy little dusty town had a bomb plant? Huh? I couldn’t find a thing online about the original lie that it was a marshmallow plant. I KNOW they said that – in fact I had called home a few hours after this happened to let them know I was OK because I had called the night before and they knew I’s stayed there. I asked them, now – if they remembered me calling and this story? and they did. It made no sense at all to me. What also doesn’t make sense is how 4,500 tons of ammonium perchlorate can be in the middle of a town and now it’s surrounded by homes. In May, 1991 a huge release of chlorine occurred in Henderson – are we that expendable?

Brian sent me this:
“…. Do you know anything about a NAVAL base out in the middle of the Nevada desert? I want to say Hawthorn, or Henderson, or something like that? About half way between LV and Reno. I was up that way a couple years ago helping out with tech inspection for <a popular auto race out there> while making the drive from Vegas to Reno, out in the middle of nowhere, is this damn NAVAL base! Wow, that’s strange I think, so I go though the little town of the same name, and then I see a HUGE lake, also “in the middle of nowhere” and not really looking developed for “public use”. What really weird is that the entire lake looks as if it could be only a few feet deep, VERY slightly angled shores (no steep inclines, like a boat ramp, except from the cliffs of the mountain it sits against) and actually could almost pass for simply a rain or run off”pond” if its acreage wasn’t so big. Yet, out in the middle of this “shallow” lake (starting at the shore of the shallowest looking end), is an almost perfectly straight, dead centered, dead calm “strip” of water (you now the “still waters run deep” expression, its true). Coincidentally enough, this entire end of the lake (about 80% of the lake in fact) is posted,,,yep, you guessed it,, “OFF LIMITS” with the familiar red and white govt issue signs.
Well, the guy that was riding with me to Reno grew up in the Vegas area, and says the rumor is that the Naval base designs/builds super secret submarines, and the “trench” at the end of the lake is in fact the opening of a long underground water tunnel leading back to the base, so they can test the subs in the lake, and “supposedly” this is the deepest lake in the US, or maybe the world”.

4. Mercury, Nevada
Function unknown

5. Tonopah, Nevada
Function unknown

69: San Gabriel (mountains) On Western side of Mojave Desert
Function unknown
Notes: Heavy vibrations coming from under the forest floor which sounds like geared machinery. These vibrations and sounds are the same as heard in Kokomo, Indiana and are suspected underground building/tunneling operations.

NEW MEXICO

1. Albuquerque, New Mexico (AFB)
Function unknown
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Carlsbad, New Mexico Los Alamos, New Mexico Possible connections to Datil, and other points.

2. Carlsbad, New Mexico
Functions: Underground Nuclear Testing
Tunnels to: Fort Stockton, Texas. Roswell

3. Cordova, New Mexico
Function unknown

4. Datil, New Mexico
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Dulce Base

5: Dulce Base, New Mexico
While some are spending their time scrutinizing Area 51 and thinking that’s so important, Dulce is said to be the crown jewel that we’re all being distracted from; The Big Tamale

Function: Alien interface, Research of mind related functions, genetic experiments, mind control training and reprograming
Levels: 7 Known -
Level 1 – garage for street maintenance
Level 2 – garage for trains, shuttles, tunnel-boring machines and disc maintenance
Level 3 - everyone is weighed, in the nude, then given a jump suit uniform. The weight of the person is put on a computer I.D. card each day. Change in over three pounds requires a physical exam and X-ray.
Level 4 - Human research in ‘paranormal’ areas – mental telepathy, mind control, hypnosis, remote viewing, astral traveling – etc. The technology is apparently here to allow them to know how to manipulate the ‘Bioplasmic Body’ Development of a laser weapon that can remotely cause burns and discomfort on it’s target. They can lower your heartbeat with Deep Sleep ‘Delta Waves,’ induce a static shock, then reprogram, Via a Brain- Computer link.
Level 5 - Alien housing . “…The room is circular for the (electro- magnetic) generator is nearly 200 feet diameter and covers the fifth and sixth levels (extreme west south wing). There (are) five entrances (plus an escape trap door on the sixth floor) on each floor. Each portal has double door. The security is severe. Armed guards patrol constantly, and in addition to weight sensitive areas there (are) hand print and eye print stations. Here, is the device that powers the transfer of atoms.
Level 6 - Level 6 is privately called ‘Nightmare Hall’. It holds the genetic labs. Experiments done on fish, seals, birds, and mice that are vastly altered from their original, forms. There are multi- armed and multi-legged humans and several cages (and vats) of humanoid bat-like creatures up to 7- feet tall. Aliens have taught the humans a lot about genetics, things both useful and dangerous. Level 7 – Humans in cages here, usually drugged or dazed, sometimes crying out for help.
Level 7 is the worst. “Row after row of 1,000′s of humans & human-mixture remains in cold storage. Here too are embryos of humanoids in various stages of development. Also, many human children’s’ remains in storage vats. Who are (were) these people?”
Below Level 7 – Unknown other levels unexplored by humans. Aliens here. Exits into a vast underground cavern series, unexplored by humans, but suspected to be a huge alien culture area.

Tunnels to: Colorado Springs, Colorado Creed, Colorado Datil, N.M. Los Alamos. Page, Arizona Sandia Base Taos, NM
Notes: The Dulce installation (upper levels) was originally constructed by the RAND corp. There are reported to be over 3000 cameras at various high-security locations. Deep sections of the Complex may connect into a natural and extensive underground cave system, which is common in most of these locations

6. Los Alamos, New Mexico
Functions: Psychotronic Research, Psychotronic Weapons
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: ALB AFB, New Mexico Dulce, New Mexico Connections to Datil,Taos

7. Sandia Base, New Mexico
Functions: Research in Electrical/magnetic Phenomena
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Dulce Base
Notes: Related Projects are studied at Sandia Base by ‘The Jason Group’ (of 55 Scientists). They have secretly harnessed the ‘Dark Side of Technology’ and hidden the beneficial technology from the public.

8. Sunspot, NM
Function unknown

9. Taos, New Mexico
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Dulce, New Mexico; Cog, Colorado
Notes: Several other sidelines to area where Uranium is mined or processed.

10. White Sands, NM
Function: Missile testing/design
Levels: Seven known

NEW YORK
New York, New York
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Capitol Building, D.C.

OHIO
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base – Dayton, Ohio
Function: Air Force Repository. Rumored to house alien remains and also “alien” craft, stealth
technology and prototype craft

OREGON

1. Cave Junction, Oregon
Function: Suspected Underground UFO Base
Levels: At least one
Notes: Suspected location is in or near Hope Mountain. Near Applegate Lake, Oregon, just over into California. Multiple shafts, access areas to over 1500 feet depth. Built using abandoned mine with over 36 known miles of tunnels, shafts.

2. Crater Lake, Oregon
Tunnels: possible to Cave Junction

3. Klamath Falls, Oregon

4. Wimer, Oregon (Ashland Mt. area)
Function: Underground Chemical Storage
Levels: At least one

PENNSYLVANIA
Raven Rock, Pa (near Ligonier)
Function: working back up underground Pentagon – sister site of Mt. Weather
Notes: 650′ below summit, 4 entrances.

 

TEXAS
1. Calvert, Texas
Function unknown

2. Fort Hood, Texas (also reported detainment camp)
Levels: Multiple

3. Fort Stockton, Texas
Function: Unknown
Tunnels to: Carlsbad, New Mexico

UTAH
1. Dugway, Utah
Function: Chemical Storage, Radiation storage.

2. Salt Lake City Mormon Caverns
Function: Religions archives storage.
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Delta, Colorado & Riverton, Wyoming

VIRGINIA
Mount Poney – Near Culpepper, Virginia
Function unknown

WASHINGTON
1. Mt. Rainier, Washington
Function unknown.
Levels: Multiple
Tunnels to: Unknown
Notes: A very active UFO base exists beneath Mt. Rainier. There are also said to be underground “vaults” containing
records of the ancient Lemurians.

2. Mt. St. Helens, Washington
Function: thought to be electromagnetic/ultra- and subsound research

3. Yakima Indian Reservation
Function unknown
Notes: Southeast of Tacoma Washington, on the Reservation, in an area 40 by 70 miles. Unusual sounds from underground (Toppenish Ridge). Low flying Silver Cigar shaped craft seen to disappear into the Middle fork area of Toppenish creek

Washington DC
Function: Part of massive underground relocation system to house
select government and military personnel in event of cataclysmic event
Tunnels to: New York City; Mt. Weather

WEST VIRGINIA
Greenbrier Facility, West Virginia – White Sulfer Springs, W. Va
under the Greenbriar Resort,
They don’t even hide this one, and it’s even a daily tourist “fun joke”. The Underground vault was built to meet the needs of a Congress-in-hiding – in fact the hotel is a replica of the White House. The underground area has a chamber for the Senate, a chamber for the House and a massive hall for joint sessions. Although the hotel says it gives tours of the 112,000 square area daily, the installation still stands at the ready, its operators still working under cover at the hotel. The secrecy that has surrounded the site has shielded it both from public scrutiny and official reassessment.
From an article by Ted Gup: “House Speaker Thomas Foley, one of the very few in Congress who has been briefed on the Greenbrier facility, declined to comment for this article. But former speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill says the evacuation plan always seemed “far-fetched” to him. “I never mentioned it to anybody,” O’Neill recalls. “But every time I went down to the Greenbrier — and I went there half a dozen times — I always used to look at the hill and say, ‘Well, that’s where we’re supposed to live in the event something happens, and that’s where we’re going to do business, maybe under the tennis courts.”

WYOMING
Riverton, Wyoming
Function unknown
Tunnels to: Salt Lake, Utah Denver, Colorado

An interesting story:
Sudden Valley, WA - from Sid
“Sudden Valley is a private community with it’s own security, golf course, spa, rec. facilities, etc.
We moved there in 1992. <Wife> got a job as office manager at the resort headquarters. I got close to all the security force personnel…just cause that’s what I do ;-) I had noticed that an airport was shown on the resort map right next to the road leading to Bellingham. I went past this area almost daily. All I saw was a dirt strip that looked like it had never been used. I was curious!”

“A fellow employee and woman who became a good friend of my wife told us that the CIA had come to her when she was employed at the phone company and requested all the phone records of: Santo Trafficante, Jr, who was an infamous Mafia boss. WHAT? says I. Seems he was living openly in Sudden Valley under his own name and his children going to school in Bellingham. This was at the time the CIA and FBI were seeking him desperately for questioning concerning JFKs murder. No surprise that those diligent agencies were unable to locate the fugitive.I later found out from a friend who moved to Sudden Valley at it’s inception that there were high ranking military folks, including a 4-star Ret. General and ‘many Mafia types living there incognito.’”

“I never could get any answers out of the old timers about this airport. Most told me they were unaware of it’s existance.
Well, what finally happened is that we decided to move in 1996 and we wanted to sell our classic Mercedes-Benz 280 SL before we left. Our neighbor across the street handled the sale of our home and told me that the owner of this airport that no one heard of collected classic Mercedes. He suggested that I go see him. How?, says I. Oh, theres a dirt road off the main highway that takes you to it. It’s not marked.”

 

**

View Film Footage of Actual Blasts
Building
Operation Cue (500kb)
Layer Cake
Layer Cake Design (500kb)
Castle
Operation Castle (300kb)
Cloud
Operation Castle (100kb)
Fox Hole
Camp Desert Rock (900kb)
House
Operation Cue (300kb)

****

Resources:

 

PROJECT GREEK ISLAND – The Greenbrier

GROUND ZERO | The Greenbrier: Five Star Fallout Shelter

The Secret Bunker Congress Never Used : NPR

American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . Tour – PBS

Failsafe – Xavier Durand (great photos)

6 Massive Secret Operations

Cold War Artifacts & Resources – Crile Archives

CONELRAD: All Things Atomic | The Golden Age of

Fallout Shelters: Secret Underground Bunkers and Tunnels

DEEP UNDERGROUND MILITARY BASES IN AMERICA

About the Raven Rock Mountain Complex

Raven Rock Mountain Complex – Site R Underground

Raven Rock Mountain Complex (Site R) | Public Intelligence

Fallout Shelters: Secret Underground Bunkers and Tunnels under the USA

lisaleaks:

When the day of Martial Law comes in America, the UNISF and UNMNTF troops located in Central America, in the US, and Canada will be deployed to help round up the millions of Americans whose names appear on the CIA Red List and the CIA Blue List. These troops are Chinese, Russian, German, Polish, Japanese, Ukrainian, Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Mexican, Honduran, Salvadorean and Chilean, and many are stationed in the deep underground military bases. When that day comes in America, do not expect the Fox News Network, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC News 24 or Reuters to give a full or accurate account of the truth. Mass detentions in camps and the underground bases, along with mass executions will occur, like they have in many other countries like Cambodia, Russia, China, Germany, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Belorussia, Hungary and the Ukraine over the past 100 years. The best option for many Americans will be to have a safe place in a remote area where you can hide.

Originally posted on Nevada State Personnel Watch:

There’s a conspiracy about a secret underground bunkers in DIA or Denver International Airport being built by the US government as a fallout shelter in 2012.

Could Yucca Mountain in Nevada be another massive Deep Underground Military Bunker or a place to house Government officials and other important people  instead on a nuclear storage site as it sits idle?

It is a shame the US spends more on it’s military then it does on education. These two movies were filmed recently in Hawthorn NV. showing the many underground bunkers used by the army and even the NAVY???? The Navy? Why would they have a navel under water research facility way out in the desert? Here is the interesting fact, the lake near Hawthorn walker lake is dead of any life at all. Never seen a boat out on it the 9 or so times I have been past it. I…

View original 14,337 more words

ASTEROIDS Act Would Establish Space Property Rights

Tags

, , , , , ,

Asteroid_Itokawa_anatomy_ESO_525Schematic view of asteroid (25143) Itokawa. (Credit: ESO)

Asteroids are the best real estate in the Solar System

Despite their celestial age, our understanding of asteroids is still in its infancy. However, the more we learn about them, the more enticing destinations they become.

Asteroids are primordial material left over from the formation of the Solar System. They are scattered throughout it: some pass close to the Sun, and others are found out beyond the orbit of Neptune. A vast majority have been collected by Jupiter’s gravity into a belt between it and Mars – an area known as the Main Belt. As it turns out, we have been discovering thousands of asteroids that do not belong to the Main Belt, but instead pass near Earth’s orbit – nearly 9,000 to date, with almost a thousand more discovered every year.

Many of these near-Earth asteroids are easily accessible from Earth. And many contain enormous quantities of accessible resources.

An Incredible Resource

There are over 1,500 asteroids that are as easy to get to as the surface of the Moon. They are also in Earth-like orbits with small gravity fields, making them easier to approach and depart.

Asteroid resources have some unique characteristics that make them especially attractive. Unlike Earth, where heavier metals are close to the core, metals in asteroids are distributed throughout their body, making them easier to extract.

Asteroids contain valuable and useful materials like iron, nickel, water, and rare platinum group metals, often in significantly higher concentration than found in mines on Earth.

We are only just beginning to realize the incredible potential of asteroids. The first encounter of a spacecraft with an asteroid was in 1991, as the Galileo spacecraft flew by the 951 Gaspra asteroid on its way to Jupiter. Our knowledge of these celestial neighbors has been revolutionized by a small set of US and international missions carried out since that time. With each visit or fly-by, the science on asteroids has been rewritten.

Space Property Rights Bill In US Congress Could Facilitate Commercial Lunar Development

TrillionsAsteroid0714

Proving that there is some vision in Congress after all, U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) have introduced introduced the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act of 2014, which “establishes and protects property rights for commercial space exploration and utilization of asteroid resources.”

Now, if they can only get a budget passed by the end of the fiscal year, Congress could demonstrate vision and basic competence at governance, something it hasn’t achieved in many years. (It’s looking like another continuing resolution for NASA.)

But, I digress.

You will note that Kilmer is from Washington state, which is home to….wait for it….Planetary Resources, the asteroid mining company backed by all those billionaires. Coincidence? I think not.

A press release from Posey follows.

Asteroids are excellent potential sources of highly valuable resources and minerals,” said Rep. Bill Posey, a Member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Our knowledge of asteroids – their number, location, and composition – has been increasing at a tremendous rate and space technology has advanced to the point where the private sector is now able to begin planning such expeditions. Our legislation will help promote private exploration and protect commercial rights as these endeavors move forward and I thank Representative Kilmer for working with me to help advance this industry.”

“We may be many years away from successfully mining an asteroid, but the research to turn this from science fiction into reality is being done today,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer, a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Businesses in Washington state and elsewhere are investing in this opportunity, but in order to grow and create more jobs they need greater certainty. That’s why I’m excited to introduce this bill with Representative Posey so we can help the United States access new supplies of critical rare metals while serving as a launch pad for a growing industry.”

Currently, rare minerals used to manufacture a wide range of products are found in a small number of countries. This has left the United States dependent on foreign nations for these resources. The limited supply and high demand for these materials, alongside major advances in space technology and a deeper understanding of asteroids, has led a number of private sector investors to begin developing plans to identify and secure high-value minerals found on asteroids and transport them for use here on Earth.

Some rare minerals that could be found within asteroids include: platinum group metals such as platinum, osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium in addition to nickel, iron and cobalt.

Posey and Kilmer’s bill would:

  •  Clarify that resources mined from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained them.
  • Ensure U.S. companies can conduct their operation without harmful interference
  • Direct the President to facilitate commercial development of asteroid resources.

- See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/11/asteroids-act-establish-space-property-rights/#sthash.p6iLiY2e.dpuf

Schematic view of asteroid (25143) Itokawa. (Credit: ESO) – See more at: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/11/asteroids-act-establish-space-property-rights/#sthash.p6iLiY2e.dpufProving that there is some vision in Congress after all, U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) have introduced introduced the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act of 2014, which “establishes and protects property rights for commercial space exploration and utilization of asteroid resources.”

Proving that there is some vision in Congress after all, U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) have introduced introduced the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act of 2014, which “establishes and protects property rights for commercial space exploration and utilization of asteroid resources.”

Now, if they can only get a budget passed by the end of the fiscal year, Congress could demonstrate vision and basic competence at governance, something it hasn’t achieved in many years. (It’s looking like another continuing resolution for NASA.)

But, I digress.
You will note that Kilmer is from Washington state, which is home to….wait for it…. Planetary Resources, the asteroid mining company backed by all those billionaires. Coincidence? I think not.

Economie-EspaceA press release from Posey follows:
Asteroids are excellent potential sources of highly valuable resources and minerals,” said Rep. Bill Posey, a Member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Our knowledge of asteroids – their number, location, and composition – has been increasing at a tremendous rate and space technology has advanced to the point where the private sector is now able to begin planning such expeditions. Our legislation will help promote private exploration and protect commercial rights as these endeavors move forward and I thank Representative Kilmer for working with me to help advance this industry.”
“We may be many years away from successfully mining an asteroid, but the research to turn this from science fiction into reality is being done today,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer, a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Businesses in Washington state and elsewhere are investing in this opportunity, but in order to grow and create more jobs they need greater certainty. That’s why I’m excited to introduce this bill with Representative Posey so we can help the United States access new supplies of critical rare metals while serving as a launch pad for a growing industry.”

Currently, rare minerals used to manufacture a wide range of products are found in a small number of countries. This has left the United States dependent on foreign nations for these resources. The limited supply and high demand for these materials, alongside major advances in space technology and a deeper understanding of asteroids, has led a number of private sector investors to begin developing plans to identify and secure high-value minerals found on asteroids and transport them for use here on Earth.

Some rare minerals that could be found within asteroids include: platinum group metals such as platinum, osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium in addition to nickel, iron and cobalt.
Posey and Kilmer’s bill would:
• Clarify that resources mined from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained them.
• Ensure U.S. companies can conduct their operation without harmful interference
• Direct the President to facilitate commercial development of asteroid resources.

Planetary Resources will mine Asteroids for Water and Platinum

It’s not a joke: James Cameron, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and some investors want to mine asteroids through a company called Planetary Resources. This team of wealthy billionaires wants to extract gold and platinum from these asteroids.

The Trillion Dollar Market: Fuel in Space from Asteroids

Have you ever wondered why the space economy hasn’t grown with Moore’s Law like high-tech industries on Earth?

Well in space one resource above all others is extraordinarily expensive and without cheap access to it, growth is limited…FUEL.  The catalyst for rapid expansion into every frontier in history has been access to cheap, local resources.  And in space, access to rocket fuel is currently neither cheap, nor local.

But on asteroids, abundant quantities of hydrogen and oxygen can be used to create rocket fuel, the same stuff used by the Space Shuttle. This allows companies like Vivisat fuel spacetugs that will be used to keep satellites in their Geostationary slots, or fuel up your spacecraft before zooming off to Mars. The possibilities are endless!

Learn about the possibilities of this booming new space economy in our new video about the Market for Fuel in Space…

Related Posts By Category

robotic hedgehogs

 

 

Resources:

Space colonization

(ASTEROIDS) Act of 2014Space Politics

Bipartisan Legislation Promotes Commercial Space Ventures

Read the proposed US ASTEROIDS Act to green-light

H.R.5063 – 113th Congress (2013-2014): ASTEROIDS Act

US proposed law: ASTEROIDS Act of 2014 – Science Discussi

Project SHAD: Biological and Chemical Warfare

Tags

, , , , , ,

Project SHAD

About Project 112 and Project SHAD

From 1962 to 1974, the Department of Defense’s Deseret Test Center in Fort Douglas, Utah planned and conducted a series of biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests. These tests are known as Project 112 and Project SHAD and consisted of both land-based and sea-based tests at different locations.
At VA’s request in 2000, the Department of Defense began declassifying and sharing information with VA about possible exposure to warfare agents during the tests and people involved.

Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense)

VA-LAB-RATS1

Tests by land and by sea:

Tests by land and by sea

Land-based tests were conducted to learn about how chemical and biological agents react under a variety of environmental and climatic conditions.
Ship-based tests, known as Project SHAD (an acronym for Shipboard Hazard and Defense), were conducted to identify the vulnerability of U.S. warships to chemical and biological attacks and procedures to respond to such attacks.

The Department of Defense (DoD) used a wide range of agents in the tests, including the biological warfare agents Coxiella Burnetii, Francisella tularensis, and Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B, and the nerve agents sarin, VX, tabun and soman.
Go to Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets from the Department of Defense to learn more about the tests and agents used.

staphylococcal
U.S. Servicemember participation in tests
Approximately 6,000 U.S. Servicemembers were involved in conducting chemical tests to defend against biological and chemical weapons threats. Most of these participants served in the Navy and Army, and some served in the Marine Corps and Air Force. Most were involved in Project SHAD.

Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets

VA is committed to reaching every living Veteran involved in Project 112/Project SHAD, based on rosters developed with DoD, and informing them of VA services available to them. When DoD provides VA the names of test participants, VA sends letters to these Veterans to inform them about the tests and what to do if they have related health concerns.

VA-LAB-RATS2VA-LAB-RATS3

Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets

 Project SHAD, an acronym for Shipboard Hazard and Defense, was part of a larger effort called Project 112, which was conducted during the 1960s. Project SHAD encompassed tests designed to identify U.S. warships’ vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents and to develop procedures to respond to such attacks while maintaining a war-fighting capability.

FS = Fact Sheet Released     PR = Personnel Roster Provided     * = New/Updated
Investigation Status Key:   Investigating Test Status      In Progress      Complete

# Test Name Date Location Agent/
Simulant
Investigation Status Information at VA
    FY 63
1 63-1 Eager Belle I [SHAD] Jan – Mar 1963 Pacific Ocean BG Fact Sheet Released 1/31/2002 FS, PR
  Eager Belle II [SHAD] Feb, Mar, Jun 1963 Pacific Ocean, west of Oahu, Hawaii BG Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS, PR
2 63-2 Autumn Gold [SHAD] May 3-31, 1963 Pacific Ocean near the island of Oahu, Hawaii BG Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS, PR
3 63-3 Whistle Down Dec 1962 – Feb 1963 Ft. Greely, AK GB, VX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
4 63-4 Big Jack A Feb – Mar 1963 Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone BG, FP Fact Sheet Released 10/31/2002 FS
  Big Jack B Feb – Mar 1963 Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone TOF Fact Sheet Released 10/31/2002 FS
    FY 64
5 64-1 Errand Boy [SHAD] Sep 1963 Oahu, HI BG Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS, PR
6 64-2 Flower Drum I [SHAD] Feb – Apr 1964 Aug – Sep 1964 Pacific Ocean GB, SO2, MAA Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS, PR
  Flower Drum II [SHAD] Nov – Dec 1964 Pacific Ocean VX, P32, Bis Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS
7 64-3 Little Mo [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
8 64-4 [Red Beva] Shady Grove [SHAD] Phase A, May 1964
Phase B, Feb – Mar 15, 1965
Phase C, Oct 5 – 14, 1965
Phase D, Mar 22 – Apr 3, 1965
Phase A: Pacific Ocean near the island of Oahu, Hawaii
Phases B and D: Pacific Ocean near Johnston Island
Phase C: Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
BG, OU, UL Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS, PR
9 64-5 Night Train Nov 1963 – Jan 1964 Ft. Greely, AK BG, FP Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
10 64-6 Yellow Leaf Feb 1964, Apr – May 1966 Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone, Island of Hawaii BG, Tiara Fact Sheet Released 10/31/2002 FS, PR
11 64-7 Big Thunder NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
12 64-8 Tall Timber Apr – Jun 1966 Island of Hawaii BZ Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
13 64-9 Big Piney NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
14 64-10 [65-18] Black Label NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
15 64-11 [65-19] Laurel Grove NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
    FY 65
16 65-1 Copper Head [SHAD] Jan – Feb 1965 Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland, Canada BG, FP, Betapropiolactone Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS, PR
17 65-2 Chain Saw NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
18 65-3 West Side I Jan 8 – Feb 21, 1965 Tanana Valley of Central Alaska near Ft. Greely BG, FP Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS, PR
19 65-4 Magic Sword [SHAD] May 1965 Baker Island mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
20 65-5 Iron Clad [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
21 65-6 Big Tom [SHAD] May – Jun 1965 Pacific Ocean, off Oahu, HI & surrounding water & airspace BG, FP Updated Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS, PR
22 65-7 Great Sole [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
23 65-8 Lone Wolf [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
24 65-9 Silver Star NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
25 65-10 Little Egypt NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
26 65-11 [Bear River] Sun Down Feb, Apr 1966 Ft. Greely, AK GB, MAA, Tiara Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
27 65-12 Devil Hole I Summer 1965 Ft. Greely, AK GB, FP Fac Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
28 65-13 High Low [SHAD] Jan – Feb 1965 Pacific Ocean off San Diego, CA MAA Corrected Fact Sheet Released 12/31/2002 FS, PR
29 65-14 Elk Hunt I Jul – Aug 1964 Ft. Greely, AK VX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
  Elk Hunt II Jun – Jul 1965 Oct – Dec 1965 Ft. Greely, AK & Edgewood Arsenal, MD, & Canada VX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
30 65-15 Little Corporal NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
31 65-16 Pine Ridge May – Jun 1966 Island of Hawaii GB, BZ Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
32 65-17 Fearless Johnny [SHAD] Aug – Sep 1965 Pacific Ocean southwest of Oahu, HI VX, Diethylphthlate Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS, PR
33 65-18 [64-10] Black Label NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
34 65-19 [64-11] Laurel Grove NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 66
35 66-1 Devil Hole II Jul – Aug 1966 Ft. Greely, AK VX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
36 66-2 Red Oak I Apr – May 1967 Island of Hawaii, Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone GB Fact Sheet Released 10/31/2002 FS, PR
37 66-3 Swamp Oak I Mar – Apr 1966 Ft. Greely, AK GB Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
38 66-4 Green Mist Mar – Apr 1967 Island of Hawaii GB, MAA Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
39 66-5 Purple Sage [SHAD] Jan – Feb 1966 Pacific Ocean off San Diego, CA MAA Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS, PR
40 66-6 Scarlet Sage [SHAD] Feb – Mar 1966 Pacific Ocean off San Diego, CA BG Fact Sheet Released 1/31/2002 FS, PR
41 66-7 Clay Pigeon I NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
42 66-8 West Side II Jan – Mar 1965 Southwestern Canada BG, FP Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
43 66-9 Magic Sword II [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
44 66-10 Pin Point Jun and Aug 1966 Tropical jungle environment in Panama CS Fact Sheet Revised Released 12/02/2003 FS
45 66-11 Ebony Sun [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
46 66-12 [Bald Eagle I] Bold Captain [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
47 66-13 Half Note [SHAD] Aug – Sep 1966 Pacific Ocean, off Hawaii BG, E.coli, FP SM, calcaflour Updated Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS, PR
48 66-14 Sandy Point [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 67
49 67-1 [68-15] Red Oak II NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
50 67-2 Dew Point Jun – Jul 1967 Ft. Greely, AK GB Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
51 67-3 [68-11] [69-13] Tiny Doll NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
52 67-4 Blue Note [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
53 67-5 Work Horse [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
54 67-6 Blue Tango Jan – Feb 1967 Hawaii BG, E.coli, SM Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS, PR
55 67-7 [Coincidence] Red Cloud Nov 1966 – Feb 1967 Ft. Greely, AK BG, E.coli, SM, TT, ZZ Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
56 67-8 [Autobiography] Watch Dog Summer 1967 Ft. Greely, AK BG, E.coli, SM, TT, ZZ Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
57 67-9 [Key Fruit] Gray Fox [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
58 67-10 [Meddled] Night Fire [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
59 67-11 [Expunge] Slow Waltz [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
60 67-12 [68-72] [69-70] [Expulsion] Sharp Nail [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
61 67-13 Steel Point NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 68
62 68-10 [68-2] Sharp Ravine NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
63 68-11 [67-3] [69-13] Tiny Doll NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
64 68-12 [68-1] Narrow Trail NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
65 68-13 [68-4] Rapid Tan Jul – Aug 1967 May – Jun 1968 Aug – Sep 1968 Phase I & III – Porton Down, England, Phase II – Ralston, Canada GA, GB, GD, VX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
66 68-14 [68-3] Channel Crab NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
67 68-15 [67-1] Red Oak II NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
68 68-30 [68-5] [69-74] Prairie Carpet NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
69 68-31 [68-6] [69-33] Exit Line [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
70 68-33 [68-7] Wicked Slice NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
71 68-50 [68-11] Speckled Start [SHAD] Sep – Oct 1968 Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands BG, PG2, uranine dye Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS, PR
72 68-51 [68-9] Strange Fruit NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
73 68-52 Cliff Rose Sep 27, 1967 – Jan 18, 1968 Ft Stewart Georgia and Panama Canal Zone CS Fact Sheet Released 12/9/2002 FS
74 68-53 Apr – Dec 1969 DPG, UT CS Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
75 68-70 [68-12] Shining Pond NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
76 68-71 [68-13] Folded Arrow [SHAD] Apr -May 1968 Oahu, HI and surrounding waters BG Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS, PR
77 68-72 [67-12] [69-70] Sharp Nail [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
78 68-73 [68-8] [69-73] Leaning Shoe NA NA NA Test Deferred/Renumbered NA
79 [68-10] Maple Board NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 69
80 69-10 [SHAD] May 1969 Vieques, PR TOF Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
81 69-12 Spring 1969 Edgewood Arsenal, MD GB, GD, GA, VX Test Suspended
Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002
FS
82 69-13 [67-3] [68-11] Tiny Doll NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
83 69-14 Jul – Nov 1971 DPG, UT DEHP Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
84 69-15 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
85 69-16   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
86 69-30   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
87 69-31 [SHAD] Aug – Sep 1968 Pacific Ocean off San Diego, CA BG, MAA Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS, PR
88 69-32 [SHAD] Apr – Jun 1969 Pacific Ocean, southwest of Hawaii BG, E.coli, SM, Calcaflour Fact Sheet Released 5/23/2002 FS, PR
89 69-33 [68-6] [68-31] Exit Line [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
90 69-34   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
91 69-35   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
92 69-36 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
93 69-37   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
94 69-70 [67-12] [68-72] Sharp Nail [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
95 69-71 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
96 69-72 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
97 69-73 [68-73] [68-8] Leaning Shoe NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
98 69-74 [68-5] [68-30] Prairie Carpet NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
99 69-75 Oct – Dec 1968 Yeehaw Junction, FL TX Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
    FY 70
100 70-A   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
101 70-B   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
102 70-C [SHAD] Oct 1972, Feb – Mar 1973 Pacific Ocean, from San Diego, CA to Babloa, Panama NA Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
103 70-D NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
104 70-10 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
105 70-11 Ph I, Subtest 3 Jun 1972 – Nov 1973 Dugway PG, UT Bis, TOP, FP Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
  70-11 Ph I, Subtest 4 May 1974 Dugway PG, UT Bis Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
106 70-12   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
107 70-30 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
108 70-31   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
109 70-50 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
110 70-70 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
111 70-71 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
112 70-72   NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
113 70-73 Jul – Dec 1970 DPG, UT BG, FP Fact Sheet Released 10/09/2002 FS
114 70-74 Aug 1972 – Jan 1973 Dugway PG, UT BG, SM Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
    FY 71
115 71-10 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
116 71-11 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
117 71-12 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
118 71-13 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
119 71-30 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
120 71-31 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
121 71-32 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
122 71-33 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
123 71-34 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
124 71-35 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
125 71-70 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
126 71-75 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 72
127 72-30 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
128 72-70 [SHAD] NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
    FY 73
129 73-10 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
130 73-11 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
131 73-12 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA
132 73-30 Jan – Feb 1973 Dugway PG, UT BG, SM, P Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
    FY 74
133 74-10 Ph I Sep – Oct 1973 Dugway PG, UT DMMP, Bis, Trichloropropane Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
  74-10 Ph II Apr – May 1974 Dugway PG, UT DMMP Fact Sheet Released 6/30/2003 FS
134 74-030 NA NA NA Test Cancelled NA

 

FS = Fact Sheet Released     PR = Personnel Roster Provided     * = New/Updated
Investigation Status Key:   Investigating Test Status      In Progress      Complete

 

Publications & Reports on Military Exposures

VA has developed newsletters, reports, and other materials for Veterans, the public and health care providers on the following topics:

- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/#sthash.M8yvaRLy.dpuf

Publications & Reports on Military Exposures

VA has developed newsletters, reports, and other materials for Veterans, the public and health care providers on the following topics:

Health Registry Evaluation

Environmental Health Registry Programs for Veterans

The Environmental Health Registry Programs brochure (495 KB, PDF) provides an overview of five VA health registry programs that track the health of Veterans exposed to environmental hazards during military service: Ionizing Radiation, Agent Orange, Gulf War, Depleted Uranium, and Toxic Embedded Fragments.

 

Agent Orange

Cover of Agent Orange Review Winter 2012

Read newsletters, reports, and more on Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam conflict.

Newsletter: Agent Orange Review Winter 2012

View all Agent Orange materials.

 

Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses

Cover of Gulf War Newsletter March 2014

Read newsletters, reports, and more on Gulf War Veterans’ illnesses.

Newsletter: Gulf War Update March 2014

View all Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses materials.

 

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom

Cover of December 2010 Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Iraqi Freedom Review

Read newsletters and clinical guides on hazardous exposures during Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF).

Newsletter: OEF/OIF Review December 2010 (355 KB, PDF)

View all OEF/OIF exposures publications.

 

Radiation

Ionizing Radiation Review cover page

Read newsletters, brochures and a clinical education guide on radiation, related VA benefits, and more.

Newsletter: Ionizing Radiation Review March 2012

View all radiation materials.

 

Project 112/Project SHAD

U.S. warship aircraft carrier

View Project 112/Project SHAD materials, including fact sheets and a clinical education guide.

 

Depleted Uranium

U.S. tank in Iraq

View fact sheets on depleted uranium, its health effects, and the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program.

 

Pocket Guides for Clinicians

These guides help health care providers care for Veterans with exposure concerns, malaria, and mild traumatic brain injury.

Publications & Reports on Military Exposures

VA has developed newsletters, reports, and other materials for Veterans, the public and health care providers on the following topics:

Health Registry Evaluation

Environmental Health Registry Programs for Veterans

The Environmental Health Registry Programs brochure (495 KB, PDF) provides an overview of five VA health registry programs that track the health of Veterans exposed to environmental hazards during military service: Ionizing Radiation, Agent Orange, Gulf War, Depleted Uranium, and Toxic Embedded Fragments.

 

Agent Orange

Cover of Agent Orange Review Winter 2012

Read newsletters, reports, and more on Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam conflict.

Newsletter: Agent Orange Review Winter 2012

View all Agent Orange materials.

 

Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses

Cover of Gulf War Newsletter March 2014

Read newsletters, reports, and more on Gulf War Veterans’ illnesses.

Newsletter: Gulf War Update March 2014

View all Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses materials.

 

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom

Cover of December 2010 Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Iraqi Freedom Review

Read newsletters and clinical guides on hazardous exposures during Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF).

Newsletter: OEF/OIF Review December 2010 (355 KB, PDF)

View all OEF/OIF exposures publications.

 

Radiation

Ionizing Radiation Review cover page

Read newsletters, brochures and a clinical education guide on radiation, related VA benefits, and more.

Newsletter: Ionizing Radiation Review March 2012

View all radiation materials.

 

Project 112/Project SHAD

U.S. warship aircraft carrier

View Project 112/Project SHAD materials, including fact sheets and a clinical education guide.

 

Depleted Uranium

U.S. tank in Iraq

View fact sheets on depleted uranium, its health effects, and the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program.

 

Pocket Guides for Clinicians

These guides help health care providers care for Veterans with exposure concerns, malaria, and mild traumatic brain injury.

Publications & Reports on Military Exposures

VA has developed newsletters, reports, and other materials for Veterans, the public and health care providers on the following topics:

- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/publications/#sthash.M8yvaRLy.dpuf

If you have not received a letter from VA informing you of your participation in Project 112/Project SHAD and need help verifying your possible participation:
• Call VA at 1-800-749-8387
• Call DoD at 1-800-497-6261

 

 

 

Resources:

Project SHAD

DOD RELEASES FIVE PROJECT 112 SHAD FACT SHEETS

An Overview of Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense

Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD

Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets – Medical Countermeasures

Project 112/SHAD REPORT – Vietnam Veterans of America

Project 112/SHADVeterans Benefits Administration – US

Publications & Reports on Military ExposuresPublic Health

Dugway tests weigh on former soldier’s mind | Deseret News

The Chemical-Biological Warfare Exposures Site – Medical

LAB RATS – SHAD – American Patriot Friends Network

About Project 112 and Project SHAD

From 1962 to 1974, the Department of Defense’s Deseret Test Center in Fort Douglas, Utah planned and conducted a series of biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests. These tests are known as Project 112 and Project SHAD and consisted of both land-based and sea-based tests at different locations.

At VA’s request in 2000, the Department of Defense began declassifying and sharing information with VA about possible exposure to warfare agents during the tests and people involved.

Tests by land and by sea

Land-based tests were conducted to learn about how chemical and biological agents react under a variety of environmental and climatic conditions.

Ship-based tests, known as Project SHAD (an acronym for Shipboard Hazard and Defense), were conducted to identify the vulnerability of U.S. warships to chemical and biological attacks and procedures to respond to such attacks.

The Department of Defense (DoD) used a wide range of agents in the tests, including the biological warfare agents Coxiella Burnetii, Francisella tularensis, and Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B, and the nerve agents sarin, VX, tabun and soman.

Go to Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets from the Department of Defense to learn more about the tests and agents used.

U.S. Servicemember participation in tests

Approximately 6,000 U.S. Servicemembers were involved in conducting chemical tests to defend against biological and chemical weapons threats. Most of these participants served in the Navy and Army, and some served in the Marine Corps and Air Force. Most were involved in Project SHAD. Go to Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets from the Department of Defense to learn more about the tests, including what units or ships were involved.

VA is committed to reaching every living Veteran involved in Project 112/Project SHAD, based on rosters developed with DoD, and informing them of VA services available to them. When DoD provides VA the names of test participants, VA sends letters to these Veterans to inform them about the tests and what to do if they have related health concerns.

If you have not received a letter from VA informing you of your participation in Project 112/Project SHAD and need help verifying your possible participation:

  • Call VA at 1-800-749-8387
  • Call DoD at 1-800-497-6261

- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/shad/basics.asp#sthash.vGmZYHUX.dpuf

“Protecting” the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment

Tags

, , , , , ,

DHS

Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment

An immigration officer’s questioning of an individual illustrates how an encounter which “may appear” to be a seizure is in fact not. Merely questioning an individual about his identity, regardless of whether he is aware he can leave the officer or refuse to cooperate by not answering, is not a seizure.

Therefore, such questioning need not be predicated on reasonable suspicion that the individual is an alien. Nonetheless, if “the circumstances are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded,” then the encounter may be deemed a seizure. When the interview becomes a seizure, either through a formal arrest or when the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would understand he could not leave, the officer must, at a minimum, have “a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States.”

authoritah

Reasonableness Determining

Reasonableness Determining whether a government action is “reasonable” requires balancing the governmental interest justifying the intrusion against a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy. When the government interest fails to justify its intrusion of a legitimate expectation of privacy, a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs. This violation may result in any evidence derived from the unlawful search to be suppressed and excluded from a judicial proceeding. However, this “exclusionary rule” does not generally apply in proceedings involving the removal of aliens from the United States.

Federal-Appeals-Court-Limits-Warrantless-Border-Confiscation-and-Searches-of-Mobile-DevicesThe Definition of “Border” Warrantless searches are per se “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, unless an established exception applies. The border search is a well-recognized and long established exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and warrant requirements.

In general, the border is the point where entry into the United States is first made by land from the neighboring countries of Mexico or Canada, at the place where a ship docks in the United States after having been to a foreign port, and at any airport in the country where international flights first land. Authorities at these locations may search a person entering or leaving the country, an individual’s automobile, baggage, or goods, and materials imported to and exported from the country.

Authorized by the First Congress, the border search exception has a history older than the Fourth Amendment and derives from Congress’s inherent authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to enforce immigration laws. The Fourth Amendment does not require warrants or probable cause for most stops and searches at the border because the power to control who or what comes within a nation’s borders is an inherent attribute of national sovereignty.

Although border searches may generally be conducted without a warrant or probable cause, they must still be reasonable. Federal courts have determined that border searches usually fall into two categories—routine and non-routine, the distinction generally turning on the intrusiveness of the search. Routine border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border and consist of only a limited intrusion, while non-routine searches generally require reasonable suspicion and vary in technique and intrusiveness. It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has arguably suggested that the routine/non-routine analysis may no longer be appropriate for searches of vehicles and personal property.

BorderPatrol

Functional Equivalent of the Border:

The border search exception extends to those searches conducted at the “functional equivalent” of the border. The “functional equivalent” of a border is generally the first practical detention point after a border crossing or the final port-of-entry. Places such as international airports within the country and ports within the country’s territorial waters or stations at the intersection of two or more roads extending from the border exemplify such functional equivalents.

This doctrine addresses the problem posed by the impossibility of stopping an individual for inspection who is in mid-transit when crossing the physical border. By permitting searches at the functional equivalent of the border, the doctrine permits a search to be effected at the first practicable location, namely the port-of-entry. The reasoning is that the port-of-entry is, much like a border checkpoint, the place where an individual first enters the country, and thus a search for contraband at a port-of-entry is as effective as a search at the border.
A search at the border’s functional equivalent is constitutionally valid when:

(1) a reasonable certainty exists that the person or thing crossed the border;

(2) a reasonable certainty exists that there was no change in the object of the search since it crossed the border; and

(3) the search was conducted as soon as practicable after the border crossing. In general, when applying this test, courts have given the “border” a geographically flexible reading because people can enter the
country at points other than the actual border.

mexican-border-patrol-690x388

Extended Border Search

The border search exception may also allow warrantless searches beyond the border or its functional equivalent. Under the “extended border search” doctrine, government officials may conduct a warrantless search beyond the border or its functional equivalent if

(1) the government officials have a reasonable certainty that a border was crossed or there exists a “high degree of probability” that a border was crossed;

(2) they also have reasonable certainty that no change in
the object of the search has occurred between the time of the border crossing and the search; and

(3) they have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity was occurring. This three-part test ensures that a significant temporal nexus still exists between the search and the suspect’s border crossing.

The extended border search doctrine has gained wide acceptance among the federal courts because they deem that it “strikes a sensible balance” between the “legitimate privacy interests” of the individual and the societal interests in the enforcement of border security laws.

The Distinction between the Functional Equivalent of a Border and the Extended Border Search Doctrines:

Although a search at the border’s functional equivalent and an extended border search require similar elements, the extended border search entails a potentially greater intrusion on a legitimate expectation of privacy. Thus, an extended border search always requires a showing of “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, while a search at the functional equivalent of the border may not require any degree of suspicion whatsoever.

Another difference is that an extended border search takes place after the first point in time when an individual might have been stopped within the country. For example, in United States v. Teng Yang, the Seventh Circuit upheld an extended border search that occurred at an international airport but after the defendant had already undergone an initial inspection at the designated U.S. border inspection site. The court determined that “it is the enforcement of the customs laws combined with the mandate of protecting the border of the United States that permits the extension of the search rights of border authorities to allow non-routine searches in areas near our nation’s borders.”

Types of Searches and Seizures at the Border:

Courts have historically analyzed border searches based on whether they are “routine” or “nonroutine.” However, this type of division may no longer be appropriate for vehicular searches. And at least one court appears to have extended this analysis to searches of electronic storage devices and other containers.

The following sections examine how federal courts generally analyze border searches of persons, vehicles, and electronic storage devices.

search and seizure

Searches and Seizures of People:

In order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of illegal aliens and contraband into this country, Congress has granted the authority to conduct routine searches of persons and their personal belongings at the border without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a warrant. A routine border search is a search that does not pose a “serious invasion of privacy” or offend the average traveler. For example, a routine border search may consist of limited searches for contraband or weapons through a pat-down; the removal of outer garments such as jackets, hats, or shoes, the emptying of pockets, wallets, or purses; the use of a drug-sniffing dog; the examination of outbound materials; and the inspection of luggage.

It has long been established that border crossers’ reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the border because they generally expect border guards to search persons and property for contraband. Because this is common knowledge, border crossers are “put on notice” when approaching a border that a search may be imminent, and thus their privacy is “less invaded by [border] searches” when they occur. Thus, routine searches “do not violate the Fourth Amendment” simply because they occur at the border. Moreover, courts consider routine border searches to be permissible because they are administered to a class of people (international travelers) and are not used to target individuals.

There is no established test that determines whether a particular search procedure is routine. However, the degree of intrusiveness or invasiveness associated with the particular technique is especially indicative of whether a search is routine. The First Circuit, for example, compiled a nonexhaustive list of six factors to be considered:

(1) whether the search required the suspect to
disrobe or expose any intimate body parts;

(2) whether physical contact was made with the
suspect during the search;

(3) whether force was used;

(4) whether the type of search exposed the suspect to pain or danger; the overall manner in which the search was conducted; and whether the suspect’s reasonable expectations of privacy, if any, were abrogated by the search.

illegal immigration

Non-Routine Searches:

Once a search of a person’s body goes beyond a limited intrusion, a court may determine that a non-routine search has occurred. Non-routine border searches may include prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and some X-ray examinations. Destructive searches of
property can also qualify as non-routine.

At the very least, it appears courts require a government official to have a “reasonable suspicions of illegal activity to conduct a non-routine border search. The reasonable suspicion standard generally requires an officer at the border to have “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person” of wrongdoing. For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: the suspect

(1) arrived from Bogota, Colombia,

(2) was traveling alone,

(3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection,

(4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and  was wearing a loose-fitting dress.These factors taken together matched the “smuggling profile” for narcotic carriers in that area, and thus, the court concluded there was a
sufficient basis to conduct the search.

The Supreme Court has not enumerated the factors that should be considered when determining whether a border search is routine or non-routine. This task has generally been left to lower federal courts. However, in United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, the Supreme Court concluded that one such standard, a “clear indication” of suspicion (i.e., a suggestion that is free from doubt), was not required by the Fourth Amendment to justify a prolonged detention in an airport. The Court determined that the use of the term “clear indication” in its past jurisprudence was only meant to indicate the necessity for particularized suspicion, “rather than as enunciating a third Fourth Amendment threshold between ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause.’”

Fourth AmendmentFederal courts now view the Montoya de Hernandez reasoning as both a warning against using suspicion standards other than reasonable suspicion for non-routine border searches and a specific disavowal of the use of the “clear indication” standard when analyzing a border search.

Although some courts had previously required a “clear indication” to justify especially intrusive border searches other than prolonged detentions, courts generally construe the disavowal of this standard in Montoya de Hernandez to apply to other invasive border searches. “Reasonable suspicion” is the standard used to justify non-routine searches.

Prolonged Detentions:

Prolonged detentions may be conducted in order to verify or dispel an agent’s suspicion that a traveler has committed wrongdoing. In Montoya de Hernandez, someone from Bogota, Columbia, suspected of smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal, refused to consent to an X-ray examination. In an attempt to verify or dispel their suspicions that she was engaged in criminal activity, Customs officers detained Ms. Montoya de Hernandez for over 16 hours and told her she could not leave until she eliminated the contents of her alimentary canal into a wastebasket.

The Court determined “that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine Customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if Customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal.”

The Court concluded that it was reasonable to detain Ms. Montoya de Hernandez for the period of time necessary to verify or dispel the suspicion of the agents in these circumstances.1 Courts have reasoned that “an otherwise permissible border detention does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment simply because a detainee’s intestinal fortitude leads to an unexpectedly long period of detention.” However, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Adekunle concluded that the government must, within a reasonable time (generally within 48 hours), seek a judicial determination that reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect for an extended period of time.

eighth circuitThere appear to be no “hard-and-fast time limits” that automatically transform what would otherwise be a routine search into a non-routine search, nor render a non-routine search conducted under the reasonable suspicion standard unconstitutional. Rather, courts consider “whether the detention of [the traveler] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it initially.” In order to provide perspective, the 16-hour detention in Montoya de Hernandez was considered a non-routine search (justifiable by reasonable suspicions), while a one-hour vehicular search did not require reasonable suspicion. The Second Circuit has characterized four- to six-hour-long detentions of individuals suspected of having terrorist ties as routine.

strip_search_0405

Strip Searches:

A strip search involves the removal of all or part of a suspect’s clothing in order to effect a search. Because of the perceived offensiveness of the procedure due to the embarrassment it may inflict on the individual, reviewing courts generally require reasonable suspicion that the person is concealing contraband under his clothing before such a search is justified. Often, in the course of a routine search, reasonable suspicion may arise to justify a subsequent strip search. For instance, in United States v. Flores, upon discovering 600 small undeclared emerald stones in the defendant’s pockets during a routine search, Customs agents conducted a strip search and discovered an envelope of narcotics.90 The court held that the prior discovery of the undeclared emeralds was sufficient to heighten suspicion to the level necessary to conduct the strip search.

Body Cavity Searches

Body Cavity Searches

Narcotics and other contraband have often been smuggled in the body cavities of travelers, and searches into such cavities have become more commonplace. Body cavity searches may include inspections of the vagina or rectum, or the use of emetics. Because of the extreme medical risks internal drug smuggling poses to the smuggler, courts have determined that body cavity searches and extraction of the drugs do not require the advance procurement of a search warrant from a magistrate. Nevertheless, a border official must have reasonable suspicion that an individual is attempting to smuggle contraband inside his body for a court to uphold a warrantless body cavity search.

Texas-Cavity-SearchAdditionally, the manner in which the body cavity search is conducted must also be reasonable in light of the circumstances. Generally, conduct that “shocks the conscience” is inherently unreasonable. Such conduct has included use of a stomach pump and could potentially include medical procedures performed by nonmedical personnel

Lawsuit: Illegal Beaner Woman Faced Illegal Body Cavity Search, Observed Bowel Movement by Feds

What started as a random screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents quickly became an invasive, illegal body cavity search on a New Mexico woman, a federal lawsuit charges.

Papers filed in the U.S. District Court in El Paso say the 54-year-old woman — a U.S. citizen — was strip-searched by agents in Dec. 2012, KOAT reports. The unnamed woman was taken in handcuffs to a nearby hospital, where doctors subjected her to illegal body cavity probes and an observed bowel movement, according to the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

NMNo drugs were found on the woman, but the hospital sent her a $5,000 bill anyway, according to the ACLU. On top of the observed bowel movement, the woman was forced to undergo an X-ray, an exam of her rectum and vagina, and then a CT scan.

“In the lawsuit, we are bringing it to challenge those searches,” Senior ACLU Staff Attorney told KPBS. “Securing the border has become an excuse for outright abandonment of Constitutional principles that protect our privacy and our dignity. And enough is enough.”

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages. Roger Maier, a spokesman for the customs agency, said he wouldn’t comment on pending litigation

Arizona v. United States

 

 

Resources:

Center For Army: Lessons Learned

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CALL title banner

The Legal Framework

This chapter addresses the legal framework for military involvement in domestic disaster response missions, properly known as Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). It will address the federal response structure, the Stafford Act, the Posse Comitatus Act, civil disturbance operations, and specialized chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) consequence management response force (CCMRF) responders. It will also touch on the difference between Title 10 Soldiers, and Title 32 Guardsmen. It will not include counterdrug operations, military support to special events, or other miscellaneous missions, including military assistance to safety and traffic, animal and plant eradication, support to private organizations, etc. It also does not address the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For rules on the use of force, law enforcement support, intelligence oversight, and other legal considerations, see Appendix J of this handbook.

Posse Comitatus ActIn 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) created the first combatant command, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), with direct responsibility for the defense, protection and security of the continental United States, Alaska, and territorial waters including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. In conjunction with U.S. Pacific Command and United States Southern Command, DOD now has combatant commands with combined geographic responsibilities that cover all states and territories of the United States. In June 2005, DOD published the Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, setting out the department’s vision for transforming homeland defense and support to civil authorities. The deputy secretary of defense directed the creation of three CCMRFs, which are essentially joint task forces, each manned by 4,700 military personnel and highly trained for domestic catastrophic response. In a clear and compelling break with past practice, the first CCMRF was immediately assigned to USNORTHCOM, with an expectation that the remaining two CCMRFs would be similarly assigned in 2010 and 2011.

Homeland Security AffairsIf these changes are fully implemented, more than 20,000 active duty military personnel will soon have domestic catastrophic response as their mission focus. This military capability – though “sensible and even admirable” in its operational value – raises important questions of law and public policy.

Federalist Papers No. 8In Federalist Papers No. 8, Alexander Hamilton presciently noted the danger in relying excessively upon military forces to ensure domestic security. His cautionary words remain relevant today. The preservation of innocent life – and liberty – requires that domestic military missions be subject to very close scrutiny by civilian DOD leadership, Congress, the media, and the courts. To that end, it is essential that military lawyers provide clear and informed guidance on domestic military missions, assessing the express language of applicable law, and the fundamental propriety of any proposed military mission when judged in the larger context of American history.

Although the brutality of the 9/11 attacks initially brought anANTI-TERRORISM focus to DSCA missions, the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the ineffective national response to it – served as a potent reminders that acts of nature can also have a catastrophic impact. Indeed, when DOD officials subsequently planned for DSCA missions in anticipation of a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, we soon realized that many pandemic mission capabilities could build upon the Lessons Learned From Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, it quickly became apparent that planning for contingent military missions during a pandemic had great relevance to foreseeable DSCA missions during a terrorist CBRNE event.

While each catastrophic event has unique characteristics, DSCA missions have a remarkable degree of consistency in required training, equipment, force integration, and command. In many ways the magnitude of a catastrophic event – as much as its cause – will define DSCA roles and responsibilities. Lawyers should consider the issue of scale when reviewing legal frameworks of relevant interagency and intergovernmental authorities.

If a nuclear device were to be detonated on American soil, must the secretary of defense wait passively for the inevitable Stafford Act declaration? Can he immediately begin deploying tens of thousands of military forces – active, reserve, and National Guard – in a massive consequence management mission? If he can and must act, by what legal authority does he do so? What is his role in relation to local and state responses?

It has now become clear that domestic military missions assigned to DOD require unprecedented levels of interagency and intergovernmental cooperation in both planning and execution. Whether in the realm of warfighting or civil support, DOD’s roles and responsibilities can only be understood in a larger context of federal, state, and local integration. As a result, the legal issues are inherently complex, frequently contentious, and often fundamental to the security and civil liberty of our citizens.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD5)

(HSPD-5), Management of Domestic Incidents, established a new means to federal emergency management. It centers on the practical requirement that all levels of government have a single, unified approach to managing domestic incidents. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, HSPD-5 tasked the secretary of homeland security to develop and administer a National Response Framework (NRF) that would integrate federal government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan. It also tasked the secretary of homeland security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS) that would unify federal, state, and local government capabilities to work together to prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic events regardless of cause, size, or complexity. The intent of the NRF and NIMS is to provide the structure and mechanisms for establishing national-level policy and operational direction regarding federal support to state and local incident managers.

incident managementHSPD-5 also reaffirmed the secretary of homeland security’s responsibility as the principal federal official for domestic incident management. HSPD-5 tasked the secretary of homeland security with coordinating the federal government’s resources in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major natural or man-made disasters, or other emergencies. This coordination responsibility exists when any one of the following four conditions applies:

  1. A federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the secretary.
  2. The resources of state and local authorities are overwhelmed and federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate state and local authorities.
  3. More than one federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident.
  4. The secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the president.

HSPD-5 eliminates the previous distinction between crisis management and consequence management, treating the two “as a single, integrated function, rather than as two separate functions.” Under the NRF, the secretary of homeland security remains the lead federal official for the duration of the period involving federal assistance [Martial Law]. The attorney general is the lead official for conducting criminal investigations of terrorist acts or terrorist threats.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), National Preparedness, complements HSPD-5. The purpose of the directive is to establish:

. . .policies to strengthen the preparedness of the United States to prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal, establishing mechanisms for improved delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to state and local governments, and outlining actions to strengthen preparedness capabilities of Federal, state, and local entities.

The directive calls on the secretary of homeland security to work with federal departments and agencies to conduct preparedness activities and training, as well as to develop and maintain a system to collect and analyze best practices. The heads of other federal departments and agencies are also tasked with supporting the national preparedness goal.

Executive Order 12656

Executive Order 12656Executive Order 12656, Emergency Preparedness and Response Responsibilities, assigns national security emergency preparedness responsibilities to federal departments and agencies, delegating to the Department of Homeland Security the primary responsibility for coordinating the efforts of, among other things, federal emergency assistance. This executive order identifies several agencies and departments (including Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services) that have active, and potentially overlapping, roles regarding nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) assessment and response. It also identifies primary and support functions to be performed during any national security emergency of the United States, development of plans for performing these functions, and development of the capability to execute those plans. See Table 2-1.

Departments Roles and Responsibilities
Department of Agriculture Continuation of agricultural production, food processing, storage, and distribution; forest products; fires in rural areas; forestry and agricultural services, including control of diagnosis and control of diseases, pests, or biological, chemical, or radiological agents; livestock and poultry or their products; agricultural commodities and land exposed to or affected by hazardous agents. Support: Assist secretary of defense in formulating and carrying out plans for stockpiling strategic and critical agricultural materials.
Department of Defense Military response; national mobilization; damage assessment; support to civil and private sector, including law enforcement within authority; respond to all hazards related to nuclear weapons, materials, and devices; through the secretary of the Army, manage and allocate all usable waters within U.S. jurisdiction; stockpile of storage and critical materials. Support: civil and military national mobilization.
Department of Energy (DOE) Identify, analyze, assess, and mitigate hazards from nuclear weapons, materials, and devices; all emergency response activities pertaining to DOE nuclear facilities. Support: Advise, assist, and assess the radiological impact associated with national security emergencies.
Department of Health and Human Services Mobilize health industry and resources to provide health, mental health, and medical services; allocate health, mental health, and medical services’ resources among civilian and military claimants; reduce or eliminate adverse health and mental health effects produced by hazardous agents (biological, chemical, or radiological); minimize property and environmental damage; emergency human services, e.g., feeding, registration and inquiry, social services, family reunification, mortuary services and interment. Support: agricultural health services.
Department of Homeland Security Advise National Security Council on issues of national security emergency preparedness, including mobilization preparedness, civil defense, continuity of government, technological disasters, and other issues, as appropriate. Coordinate with the other federal departments and agencies and with state and local government to implement national security emergency preparedness policy. Support: preparing plans and programs, to include plans and capabilities for related to nuclear emergencies; promote programs for federal buildings and installations.
Department of Justice Interdict and respond to terrorism incidents in the United States; advise the president and departments/agencies regarding national security emergency powers, plans, and authorities; coordinate federal government domestic law enforcement activities related to national security emergency preparedness; respond to civil disturbances that may result in a national security emergency. Support: the intelligence community in the planning of its counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs.
Department of Transportation Meet essential transportation needs; provide direction to all modes of civil transportation; control civil transportation resources and systems; coordinate with state and local highway agencies in the management of all publicly owned or other highways, roads, streets, bridges, tunnels; maritime and port control, safety, law enforcement and security. Support: Energy to manage transportation resources involved in the bulk movement of energy materials; federal departments/agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector in developing plans to protect essential resources and facilities.

Table 2-1. Executive Order 12656

Roles and Responsibilities During a National Security Emergency

Presidential Decision Directive 39

Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39 ) details the policy of the United States in combating terrorism: and reaffirms the lead agencies for the management of various aspects of the “counterterrorism” effort. It recognizes that states have primary responsibility in responding to terrorist incidents, including events, and the federal government provides assistance as required.

Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act

WMD1Title 50, chapter 40 of the U.S. Code deals with the federal government’s response to the proliferation of and use or threat to use nuclear, chemical, or biological Weapon of mass destruction (WMD), or related materials and technologies. Title 50 U.S. Code, Section 2313 directs the secretary of defense to designate an official within the DOD as executive agent to coordinate DOD assistance with federal, state, and local entities. The secretary of defense has appointed the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and Americas’ security affairs (ASD(HD&ASA)) as executive agent. The Department of Energy (DOE) is directed to designate an executive agent for its NBC response. The DOD and DOE executive agents are responsible for coordinating assistance with federal, state, and local officials in responding to threats involving NBC weapons.

The Stafford Act

The Stafford ActThe Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act provides for assistance by the federal government to the states in the event of natural and other disasters and emergencies. The Stafford Act is the primary legal authority for federal emergency and disaster assistance to state and local governments. Congress’ intent in passing the Stafford Act was to provide for an “orderly and continuing means of assistance by the federal government to state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters.” The Stafford Act sought, among other things, to broaden the scope of disaster relief programs; encourage the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, and capabilities of state and local governments; and provide federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.

Graphic showing Stafford Act support to states
Legend:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security
EMAC: Emergency Management Assistance Compact
EOC: Emergency operations center
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Figure 2-1. Stafford Act Support to States

 Through the Stafford Act, Congress delegated emergency powers to the president in the event of a major disaster or emergency. Generally, Stafford Act assistance is rendered upon request from a state governor provided certain conditions are met, primarily that the governor certifies that the state lacks the resources and capabilities to manage the consequences of the event. However, section 5170 (a) of the Stafford Act was amended in 2006 authorizing the president, in the absence of a state request, to provide federal assistance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security operates under the Stafford Act, focusing  its efforts on managing the consequences of disasters. FEMA’s actions generally are driven by requests from state and local governments.

To coordinate the relief efforts of all federal agencies in both major disasters and emergencies, the act authorizes the president to appoint a federal coordinating officer (FCO) immediately after declaring a major disaster or emergency. The act also requires the president to request that a governor seeking federal assistance designate a state coordinating officer (SCO) to coordinate state and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the federal government. The FCO may use relief organizations, such as state relief organizations and the American Red Cross, in the distribution of emergency supplies, such as food and medicine, and in reconstruction or restoration of essential services, such as housing. The FCO may coordinate all relief efforts as long as states, localities, and relief organizations agree. The president is also authorized to form emergency support teams (ESTs) of federal personnel to be deployed to the area of the disaster or emergency. The FCO may activate ESTs, composed of federal program and support personnel, to be deployed into an area affected by a major disaster or emergency. These teams may also be called incident management assistance teams (IMATs). The IMAT is the interagency group that supports the FCO in coordinating the federal disaster assistance.

The Stafford Act also provides immunity from liability for federal agencies and their employees working in a disaster.

CBNRE

CBNRE Consequence Management Reaction

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Consequence Management Overview and Authorities

A CBRNE incident is any accident or intentional event involving chemical agents, biological agents, radiological sources, nuclear devices, or high-yield explosives, and/or industrial materials that are hazardous by themselves or when mixed with other material, including hazards from industrial pollutants and waste, and will produce a toxic effect in exposed personnel. Any action taken to address the consequences of any inadvertent or deliberate release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent constitutes a CBNRE consequence management (CM) operation. As a general proposition, a catastrophic CBRNE event would quickly exceed the capabilities of local, state, and tribal governments. Consequently, CBRNE CM is normally managed at the federal level, with the DOD in a supporting role.

The principle of unity of effort dictates that a single authority control the efforts of the various responding federal assets; while DOD forces may be fully committed to CBRNE CM, they are not directed by the agency they support. The secretary of defense always retains command of federal (Title 10) military forces providing CBRNE CM. Similarly, state governors, through their adjutants general, control National Guard forces when performing active duty in their state role and when performing active duty under Title 32, U.S. Code.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. troops were deployed to New Orleans not only to conduct disaster management and rescue operations, but to engage in law enforcement and to declare Martial law, forbidden citizens from possessing and using firearms in self-defense during a highly volatile situation.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. troops were deployed to New Orleans not only to conduct disaster management and rescue operations, but to engage in law enforcement and to declare Martial law, forbidden citizens from possessing and using firearms in self-defense during a highly volatile situation.

Requests for DOD capabilities from state governors or other federal agencies are called requests for assistance (RFAs). In most cases, these requests for emergency support are written and are processed through the formal RFA process. The processing of an RFA varies depending upon the size and urgency of the incident, the level of federal involvement, and the originator of the request. For small-scale CBRNE incidents, and during the initial stages of larger incidents, a state’s emergency operations center may forward requests to the FEMA region’s defense coordinating officer (DCO), who, in turn, forwards the RFA to the ASD (HD&ASA). If the incident exceeds the capabilities of the state and local responders and the president has issued an emergency or disaster declaration at the governor’s request, the lead federal agency (LFA) will establish a joint field office (JFO), and an FCO will be designated. Following the establishment of the JFO, the FCO will forward RFAs from civil authorities to the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, which forwards them to the ASD (HD&ASA) and the Joint Directorate of Military Support (JDOMS) for validation and order processing, respectively. Once the secretary of defense approves a request for DOD assistance, JDOMS prepares an order and coordinates with necessary force providers, legal counsel, and the ASD (HD&ASA) to ensure asset priority and concurrence. The order is then issued to the appropriate combatant command for execution of the mission.

Every RFA must undergo a legal review. All requests by civil authorities for DOD military assistance shall be evaluated by DOD approval authorities against the following criteria:

  • Legality (compliance with laws).
  • Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DOD forces).
  • Risk (safety of DOD forces).
  • Cost (who pays, impact on the DOD budget).
  • Appropriateness (whether the requested mission is in the DOD’s interest).
  • Readiness (impact on the DOD’s ability to perform its primary mission).

Military missions require legal authority. DOD’s CBRNE CM operations are generally executed under the provisions of the Stafford Act. Occasionally, the legal authority to use DOD forces arises from other sources. For instance, the DOD policy on immediate response addresses the authority delegated to DOD component or military commanders to provide immediate assistance to civil authorities to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage in the event of imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack. Joint Publication 3-28, Civil Support, sanctions immediate response authority for various CBRNE incident related operations, such as search and rescue missions and debris removal. This policy is limited, restrictive, and conditional.

DOD Entities Responsible for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Consequence Management Operations

The ASD (HD&ASA) is responsible for DSCA, including CBRNE CM. The JDOMS produces military orders for DSCA, including consequence management operations.

In 2008, USNORTHCOM designated U.S. Army North as the joint force land component command (JFLCC) for domestic CM operations. The JFLCC now has operational control of joint task force civil support (JTF-CS). The JTF-CS is a standing joint task force comprised of active, reserve and National Guard members from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, as well as civilian personnel, and is commanded by a federalized Army National Guard general officer. The unit’s purpose is to save lives, prevent injury, and provide temporary critical life support during a CBRNE incident in the U.S. or its territories and possessions. The JTF-CS is the only active duty military organization dedicated solely to planning and integrating DOD forces for CBRNE CM support to civil authorities in such a situation. In the National Guard, each state has a joint force headquarters that also conducts this type of mission at the state level.

Joint Task Force Civil Support

Joint Task Force Civil Support

Joint doctrine divides civil support (CS) operations into three broad categories: domestic emergencies; designated law enforcement support; and other activities based on the CS definition. Although JTF-CS is nominally linked to broader mission areas, the organization’s focus is far narrower; JTF-CS’ specific mission is CBRN CM. It is a deployable command and control headquarters for DOD units and personnel executing CM operations in response to CBRNE incidents, and a source of response plans for essential DOD support. The unit’s mission is to plan and integrate DOD support to the designated LFA (usually Department of Homeland Security/FEMA) for domestic CBRNE CM. When directed, JTF-CS will deploy to the incident site and establish command and control of designated DOD forces to provide defense support of civil authorities to save lives, prevent further injury, and provide temporary critical life support. The NRF provides the coordinating framework under which JTF-CS performs its mission.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Consequence Management Response Force

On 1 October 2008, JTF-CS received operational control over various units assigned to the CCMRF. These units possess the military occupational specialties required to staff DOD’s initial CBRNE CM entry force. The CCMRF forces are configured into subordinate task forces with specific response missions, such as medical, aviation, and operational support. When called upon to perform a mission, JTF-CS and the CCMRF will quickly deploy to mitigate the effects of a CBRNE incident.

National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team (WMD-CST)

washington-2008-dhs-wmd-cstUnder the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act and other authorizations by Congress, DOD is authorized a total of 55 WMD civil support teams (CSTs). Recognizing that the National Guard is forward deployed for civil support, the secretary of defense determined that the CSTs would be most effective if established in the National Guard. Consequently, each WMD-CST is composed of 22 full-time National Guard Soldiers and Airmen and contains five elements: command, operations, administrative/logistics, medical, and survey. The teams are designed to deploy rapidly to assist local first responders in the event of an intentional or unintentional CBRN incident.

The mission of the state National Guard WMD-CST Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams is to deploy to an area of operations and:

  • Assess a suspected event in support of a local incident commander.
  • Advise the local incident commander and civilian responders.
  • Facilitate requests for assistance to expedite arrival of additional state and federal assets to help save lives, prevent human suffering, and mitigate great property damage.

civil support team

The WMD-CST ProgramDomestic Preparedness

WMD-CSTs are to be specially equipped and trained. Special equipment includes the mobile analytical laboratory system for NBC detection and the unified command suite for communications. WMD-CST capabilities are “specifically designed to complement civilian responders.” Community and state emergency management plans may directly incorporate WMD-CST capabilities.

WMD-CSTs will operate under the command and control of the state governor and the adjutant general. Individual team members serve in a full-time, Title 32 National Guard status. They can support other states under the provisions of state-to-state compacts, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, and regional support compacts.

WMD-CST Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams

Graphic showing map of WMD-CST locations

 Figure 2-2. WMD-CST locations

The Posse Comitatus Act

The primary statute restricting military support to civilian law enforcement is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) 18 U.S. Code § 1385. The phrase “Posse comitatus ” is literally translated from Latin as the “power of the county” and is defined in common law to refer to all those over the age of 15 upon whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder. The PCA states:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The PCA was enacted in 1878, primarily as a result of the military presence in the South during Reconstruction following the Civil War. The intent of the PCA was to limit direct military involvement with civilian law enforcement, absent Congressional or constitutional authorization, in the enforcement of the laws of the United States. The PCA is a criminal statute and violators are subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The PCA does not, however, prohibit all military involvement in civilian law enforcement. A considerable amount of military participation with civilian law enforcement is permissible, either as indirect support or under one of the numerous PCA exceptions.

Sheriff's Posse Comitatus badgeIn addition to the PCA, 10 U.S. Code, chapter 18, Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5525.5, DOD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, also provide guidance in this area. Both authorities provide additional guidance regarding restrictions the PCA places on the military when supporting civilian law enforcement agencies.

PCA applies to the Army and Air Force, but 10 U.S. Code, section 375 directs the secretary of defense to promulgate regulations that prohibit “direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.” The secretary of defense subsequently prohibited these activities in DODD 5525.5, and, as a result, the restrictions placed on Army and Air Force activities through the PCA now apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. The PCA does not apply to the Coast Guard unless it is operating under the command and control of the DOD.

compoundThe PCA also applies to reserve members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who are on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training in a Title 10 duty status. Members of the National Guard performing operational support duties, active duty for training, or inactive duty training in a Title 32 duty status are not subject to the PCA. Only members of the National Guard in Title 10 (federal) duty status are subject to the PCA. Members of the National Guard also perform additional duties in a state active duty (SAD) status and are not subject to PCA in that capacity. Civilian employees of the DOD are only subject to the prohibitions of the PCA if they are under the direct command and control of a military officer.

Finally, the PCA does not apply to a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps when they are off duty and acting in a private capacity. A service member is not in a private capacity when assistance is rendered to civilian law enforcement officials under the direction or control of DOD authorities.

Title 10 U.S. Code, sections 371-375 outline the restrictions of the PCA as they apply to participation by the military in civilian law enforcement activities. These restrictions are divided into three major categories: (1) use of information, (2) use of military equipment and facilities, and (3) use of military personnel. DODD 5525.5 further divides the restrictions on the use of DOD personnel in civilian law enforcement activities into categories of direct assistance, training, expert advice, operation or maintenance of equipment, and other permissible assistance.

In addition to the above categories, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, sections 376 and 377 provide further limitations on the provision of military support to civilian law enforcement. Title 10 U.S. Code, section 376 provides an overarching restriction in the event “such support will adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States.” The secretary of defense directed the secretaries of the military departments and the directors of the defense agencies to ensure that approval authority for the disposition of equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies is vested in those officials who can properly assess the impact the disposition will have on military preparedness and national security.

For PCA consideration in law enforcement missions, see Appendix J of this handbook.

National Guard Status: State Active Duty, Title 32 or Title 10

National Guard Soldiers can serve in three statuses: SAD, Title 32, or Title 10. A Soldier’s status is the first issue that must be answered, because each status has different rules and restrictions. For example, SAD personnel are prohibited from using DOD intelligence resources and equipment while in a SAD status. National Guard personnel in a SAD status are not authorized to engage in DOD intelligence operations nor are they authorized to access DOD classified systems (SECRET Internet Protocol Router or Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System) or equipment (MQ-1 Predator or border sensors) for a SAD mission without authorization from the National Guard Bureau joint intelligence office (J2).

The National Guard may be called up for State Active Duty (SAD) by state governors or territorial adjutants general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. The National Guard may also be called up for active duty by the federal government under Title 32 of the U.S. Code to perform training or other duties with or without the consent of the Soldiers. This status is traditionally referred to as Title 32. Finally, the National Guard may be federalized and fall under federal command and control, a status referred to as Title 10.

 

References

Domestic Operational Law Handbook for Judge Advocates, LTC Patrick A. Barnett, Editor, 20 July 2009, Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO) – JagCNET – http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/clamo

Executive Order 12656Assignment of emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 18 Nov 1988, as amended.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, 28 Feb 2003.

Presidential Policy Directive / PPD-8: National Preparedness, 17 Dec 2003.

National Guard Domestic Operations (NGB J3/DO). 20 May 2008,

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [The Stafford Act], 42 U.S.C. § 5121, et. seq., as amended by Pub. L. No. 109-295 (2007).

JP 3-41, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

Chapter 2. The Legal Framework – US Army Combined

“Who’s in Charge?” New Challenges in Homeland Defense

Air Force Operations and the Law – Air Force Judge Advo

Parks | Rules of Cunduct during Operations Other Than War

domestic-law-handbook

PERMANENT CHANGE OF ASSIGNMENT (PCA)

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

Obama Signs Executive Order Permanently Implementing

Obama Administration Keeping List Of Future FEMA Detainees, ALL Americans

 

 

FEMA: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act has been Reintroduced With Immigration In Mind

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Relocations of Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors relocation-map-keyImmigration, Numbers, NumbersUSA is daily updating this interactive map (above) to show which communities are under threat of the federal government moving large numbers of illegal aliens there from the border.

Make no mistake, the immigrant children that are pouring into the US  has now proven to be a training ground for FEMA’s National Preparedness’ - but for what?

Please take note how the majority of these “resettlement camps” are in the “Constitution free Zones.” (see below)

Constitution Free Zone MapThe latest iteration of the FEMA Camp Bill has been Reintroduced as House Resolution 390 otherwise known as the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill would authorize not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers to be run by FEMA under the command of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

I was extremely critical of an earlier version of the bill which was proposed in the 111th Congress as HR 645. The bill used vague language to give the Secretary of Homeland Security carte blanche power to use these facilities for anything that the Secretary felt was appropriate. In other words if the Secretary of Homeland Security felt like using them as death camps than potentially that could have been considered a “lawful” use of the facilities according to the language in the bill. In this new version it looks like Representative Alcee Hastings got the message and decided to remove the vague language even though the Secretary of Homeland Security would still be in charge of the proposed facilities.

alcee-hastingsOne of the minimum requirements of a national emergency center as defined by the bill is that it is capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster. It basically sounds like a concentration camp.

Executive Order 9066

The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation

Instructions_to_japaneseSimilar types of facilities were setup by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II to house large numbers of Japanese Americans. In other words, there is historical precedence for the federal government forcibly relocating large numbers of people into government run military installation camps. There is an increasing amount of rhetoric from the federal government and corporate media that Constitutionalists, whistleblowers, journalists, gun owners and other liberty minded people might be considered potential terrorists and now  immigrant children. Would it really be a stretch to think that these facilities could be used to house people that they consider to be enemies?

Immigrant children flood detention center

immigrant children

The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire.

Considering how much the federal government has lied to the American people in the past, you would be absolutely insane to set foot in one of these proposed national emergency centers. For anybody who believes this is conspiracy theory talk, you have to understand that nobody in the federal government is going to openly propose that they are building facilities to detain large numbers of Americans during a martial law scenario. If they did they’d be widely criticized and the legislation would go nowhere. Instead they are going to make it sound as if these facilities are to be used for a beneficial purpose in order to conceal what they could ultimately be used for which is why they are called national emergency centers instead of FEMA camps or concentration camp facilities. It is the same concept used by the power structure in George Orwell’s book 1984 [Animal Farm and 1984]where the government agency called the Ministry of Love is in reality the Ministry of Torture.

National Emergency Centers Establishment ActNot only that, but why do we need the federal government specifically establishing national emergency centers on closed military installations? These are places that were designed to control who can enter and who can leave. Interestingly enough, one of the limitations included in the new version of the bill is that it does not authorize any federal officer or employee to force an individual to enter a national emergency center or prevent an individual from leaving a national emergency center. This is funny because a member of the U.S. military is technically not considered a federal officer or employee (it depends on the context in which it’s being used/considered). So even though a federal officer or employee wouldn’t be able to force a person into one of these facilities or prevent them from leaving, it does not necessarily prevent a member of the military from performing these functions. Considering that members of the military would most likely be the ones responsible for the security of such a facility, it makes the limitation entirely meaningless.

fema_camp_dhs-logoTo summarize, it looks as if the new bill has been changed to deflect the most damning criticisms posed towards earlier versions but it still is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is no secret that the federal government already has facilities that can hold large numbers of people if they have the need to do so. The Bush 43 regime approved the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps and in the mid-2000s KBR was literally given a multi-million dollar contract to build detention facilities.

In the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North was questioned during the Iran Contra hearings about his role in the development of a continuity of government plan known as Readiness Exercise 1984 or Rex 84 for short. This plan involved the implementation of martial law which included the detainment of large numbers of American citizens who the federal government deemed to be threats to national security. Subsequently, the Miami Herald on July 5th 1987 did a story on this same continuity of government plan even going into how FEMA would run these internment facilities during a declaration of martial law.

ollienorthRex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who are deemed to be “national security threats”, in the event that the President declares a “State of National Emergency”.

The plan states events causing such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America. To combat what the government perceived as “subversive activities”, the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels.[6]

Rex 84 was written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide, and NSC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for the FEMA. They patterned the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million “American Negroes”, if there were a black militant uprising in the United States.

Existence of a master military contingency plan (of which REX-84 was a part), “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike”, were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in an article in CounterSpy.  You can see the full Wikipedia entry here.

bushcheneyThe Cheney/Bush administration had a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

Bush To Preserve WWII Internment Camps

Japanese-American InternmentIn addition to what we just covered with KBR and the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps, there have been many people who have identified strange government facilities around the United States that appeared to be setup for the purpose of holding large numbers of people: Preparing for What is Coming.. As Government is Activating “FEMA Camps” Across U.S As a result, this bill if passed into law would simply expand upon pre-existing facilities and create a more robust FEMA camp infrastructure. Keep in mind that the bill authorizes a minimum of 6 national emergency centers but that’s just the minimum. Potentially this bill could authorize the establishment of many national emergency centers or FEMA camps.

IOM

AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT

1-40. External involvement in I/R missions is a fact of life for military police organizations. Some government and government-sponsored entities that may be involved in I/R missions include—

International agencies.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

International Organization of Migration.

U.S. agencies.

Local U.S. embassy.

Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

****

 

Here’s the original National Emergency Centers Establishment Act:

 

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION BILL H.R. 645

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to
the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Emergency
5 Centers Establishment Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CEN-
7 TERS.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the require-
9 ments of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security

2.
1 shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency cen-
2 ters on military installations.
3 (b) PURPOSE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CEN-
4 TERS.—The purpose of a national emergency center shall
5 be to use existing infrastructure—
6 (1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and
7 humanitarian assistance to individuals and families
8 dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
9 (2) to provide centralized locations for the pur-
10 poses of training and ensuring the coordination of
11 Federal, State, and local first responders;
12 (3) to provide centralized locations to improve
13 the coordination of preparedness, response, and re-
14 covery efforts of government, private, and not-for-
15 profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
16 (4) to meet other appropriate needs, as deter-
17 mined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
18 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NA-
19 TIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the
21 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Home-
22 land Security, in consultation with the Secretary of De-
23 fense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installa-
24 tions as sites for the establishment of national emergency
25 centers.

3.
1 (b) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—A site designated as
2 a national emergency center shall be—
3 (1) capable of meeting for an extended period
4 of time the housing, health, transportation, edu-
5 cation, public works, humanitarian and other transi-
6 tion needs of a large number of individuals affected
7 by an emergency or major disaster;
8 (2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a
9 health risk to individuals who may use the center;
10 (3) capable of being scaled up or down to ac-
11 commodate major disaster preparedness and re-
12 sponse drills, operations, and procedures;
13 (4) capable of housing existing permanent
14 structures necessary to meet training and first re-
15 sponders coordination requirements during nondis-
16 aster periods;
17 (5) capable of hosting the infrastructure nec-
18 essary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, med-
19 ical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
20 (6) required to consist of a complete operations
21 command center, including 2 state-of-the art com-
22 mand and control centers that will comprise a 24/7
23 operations watch center as follows:
24 (A) one of the command and control cen-
25 ters shall be in full ready mode; and

4.

1 (B) the other shall be used daily for

2 training; and
3 (7) easily accessible at all times and be able to
4 facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
6 (c) LOCATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

7 CENTERS.—There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
9 (1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
10 Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
11 (2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
12 Management Agency Region IV.
13 (3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
14 Management Agency Regions V and VII.
15 (4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
16 Management Agency Region VI.
17 (5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
18 Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
19 (6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency
20 Management Agency Region IX.
21 (d) PREFERENCE FOR DESIGNATION OF CLOSED
22 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.—Wherever possible, the

23 Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the

24 Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military

25 installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the

5.
1 Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly de-
2 termine that there is not a sufficient number of closed
3 military installations that meet the requirements of sub-
4 sections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate
5 portions of existing military installations other than closed
6 military installations as national emergency centers.
7 (e) TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CLOSED MILITARY
8 INSTALLATIONS.—If a closed military installation is des-
9 ignated as a national emergency center, not later than 180
10 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of De-
11 fense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security
12 administrative jurisdiction over such closed military instal-
13 lation.
14 (f) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF
15 EXISTING MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.—If an existing
16 military installation other than a closed military installa-
17 tion is designated as a national emergency center, not
18 later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Sec-
19 retary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense
20 shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the
21 establishment of the national emergency center.
22 (g) REPORTS.—
23 (1) PRELIMINARY REPORT.—Not later than 90
24 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
25 Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with

6.

1 the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress
2 a report that contains for each designated site—
3 (A) an outline of the reasons why the site
4 was selected;
5 (B) an outline of the need to construct,

6 repair, or update any existing infrastructure at
7 the site;
8 (C) an outline of the need to conduct any
9 necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
10 (D) an outline of preliminary plans for the
11 transfer of control of the site from the

12 Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland
13 Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
14 (E) an outline of preliminary plans for

15 entering into a cooperative agreement for the

16 establishment of a national emergency center at
17 the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
18 (2) UPDATE REPORT.—Not later than 120 days
19 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

20 Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the
21 Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a

22 report that contains for each designated site—
23 (A) an update on the information

24 contained in the report as required by paragraph
25 (1);
7.
1 (B) an outline of the progress made to-
2 ward the transfer of control of the site, if nec-
3 essary under subsection (e);
4 (C) an outline of the progress made toward
5 entering a cooperative agreement for the estab-
6 lishment of a national emergency center at the
7 site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
8 (D) recommendations regarding any au-
9 thorizations and appropriations that may be
10 necessary to provide for the establishment of a
11 national emergency center at the site.
12 (3) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than 1 year
13 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec-
14 retary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the
15 Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a re-
16 port that contains for each designated site—
17 (A) finalized information detailing the
18 transfer of control of the site, if necessary
19 under subsection (e);
20 (B) the finalized cooperative agreement for
21 the establishment of a national emergency cen-
22 ter at the site, if necessary under subsection (f);
23 and

8.

1 (C) any additional information pertinent to
2 the establishment of a national emergency cen-
3 ter at the site.
4 (4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.—The Secretary of
5 Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary
6 of Defense, may submit to Congress additional re-
7 ports as necessary to provide updates on steps being
8 taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
9 SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
10 This Act does not affect—
11 (1) the authority of the Federal Government to
12 provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to
13 implement any disaster mitigation and response pro-
14 gram, including any program authorized by the Rob-
15 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As-
16 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
17 (2) the authority of a State or local government
18 to respond to an emergency.
19 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
20 There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000
21 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this
22 Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
23 SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
24 In this Act, the following definitions apply:

9.
1 (1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION.—The
2 term ‘‘closed military installation’’ means a military
3 installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure
4 or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and
5 Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
6 Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that
7 meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
8 (A) Is located in close proximity to a
9 transportation corridor.
10 (B) Is located in a State with a high level
11 or threat of disaster related activities.
12 (C) Is located near a major metropolitan
13 center.
14 (2) EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘emergency’’ has
15 the meaning given such term in section 102 of the
16 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
17 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
18 (3) MAJOR DISASTER.—The term ‘‘major dis-
19 aster’’ has the meaning given such term in section
20 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
21 Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
22 (4) MILITARY INSTALLATION.—The term ‘‘mili-
23 tary installation’’ has the meaning given such term
24 in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Re-

10.
1 alignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
2 Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

 

 

Resources:

HR 645 – GovTrack.us

BILL H.R. 645

HR 390: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act

HR 390 – Congress.gov

HR 390 – Bill Text – 113th Congress (2013-2014)

HR 390: FEMA Camp Bill Reintroduced By Florida Democrat

Content Offered on LLIS.gov | FEMA.gov

LLIS: HSEEP

Lessons Learned/Continuous Improvement Program (LL/CIP)

Recovery Lessons Learned & Information Sharing | FEMA.gov

National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System

UMCOR Responds to Immigration Crisis – UMCOR

National Preparedness and Assessment Division (NPAD)

Rex 84: FEMA

FM 19-10 – Military Police Law and Order Operations

Full text of “FM 19-10 Military Police Law and Order

MS-13 Actively Recruiting Illegal Alien Minors at US Shelters lisa’leaks

Mexico Moving Forward: 20 Years of NAFTA and Beyond – lisa’s leaks

NAFTA’s Broken Promises – The Megamerge Dissolution lisa’sleaks

Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations – Library

FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations

Immigration, Numbers, NumbersUSA

Migration Iniititaives 2014 – International Organization for

FY 2014 Budget-in-Brief – Homeland Security

Homeland Security Watch » HR 8791

The DECLASSIFIED SCRIPT of the CLASSIFIED BILL HR 8791

USCCB « Refugee Resettlement Watch

MAP: Where feds are trying to relocate illegal border surgers

Military = Federal Employee – DoD – Forum

 

Project Nick: The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Nikola-TeslaFew inventors contributed more to advances in science and engineering in the early 20th century than Nikola Tesla. As one of the Fathers of Electricity, Tesla did groundbreaking work on alternating current (AC) power system, electromagnetism, hydroelectric power, radio, and radar to name a few. Many of his inventions (Tesla obtained some 300 patents in his lifetime) became the stuff we take for granted today: when we flip a switch to turn on the light, we owe a lot of that electrical magic to Tesla.

As fate would have it, Tesla, one of the world’s greatest inventors, died penniless and in obscurity. Even today, many people mistakenly attribute many of his inventions to others (Edison, for example, is in the name of many power companies in the United States – ironically, they use the AC system devised by Tesla rather than the more inefficient direct current or DC system espoused by Thomas Edison; Tesla also invented the fundamentals of radio transmissions before Guglielmo Marconi).

tesla-letterheadToday, there’s quite a bit of resurgence in Tesla’s popularity, which is helped in part by his mystique as a “mad scientist.” Amongst his ideas, Tesla worked on death rays to knock out enemy airplanes out of the skies, pocket-sized resonance machine that could topple buildings, ways to send electricity through the upper atmosphere, force-fields to protect cities, and so on.

U.S. Air Force “Project Nick”

Just after World War II, there was a renewed interest in beam weapons. Copies of Tesla’s papers on Particle-beam weaponry were sent to Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. An operation code-named “Project Nick” was heavily funded and placed under the command of Brigadier General Laurence Cardee Craigie to test the feasibility of Tesla’s concept. Details of the experiments were never published, and the project was apparently discontinued. But something peculiar happened. The copies of Tesla’s papers disappeared, and no one knows what happened to them.

FBI Files

tesla2(See more documents below)

One of the more controversial topics involving Nikola Tesla is what became of many of his technical and scientific papers after he died in 1943. Just before his death at the height of World War II, he claimed that he had perfected his so-called “Death Ray.” So it was natural that the FBI and other U.S. Government agencies would be interested in any scientific ideas involving weaponry. Some were concerned that Tesla’s papers might fall into the hands of the Axis powers or the Soviets.

tesla-death-beamThe morning after the inventor’s death, his nephew Sava Kosanovic´ hurried to his uncle’s room at the Hotel New Yorker. He was an up-and-coming Yugoslav official with suspected connections to the communist party in his country. By the time he arrived, Tesla’s body had already been removed, and Kosanovic´ suspected that someone had already gone through his uncle’s effects. Technical papers were missing as well as a black notebook he knew Tesla kept—a notebook with several hundred pages, some of which were marked “Government.”

foxworthPercy E. Foxworth, assistant director of the New York FBI office, was called in to investigate. According to Foxworth, the government was “vitally interested” in preserving Tesla’s papers. Two days after Tesla’s death, representatives of the Office of Alien Property went to his room at the New Yorker Hotel and seized all his possessions.

Dr. John G. Trump, an electrical engineer with the National Defense Research Committee of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), was called in to analyze the Tesla papers in OAP custody. Following a three-day investigation, Dr. Trump concluded:

His [Tesla's] thoughts and efforts during at least the past 15 years were primarily of a speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional character often concerned with the production and wireless transmission of power; but did not include new, sound, workable principles or methods for realizing such results.” LIES!

In 1952, Tesla’s remaining papers and possessions were released to Sava Kosanovic´ and returned to Belgrade, Yugoslavia where a museum was created in the inventor’s honor. For many years, under Tito’s communist regime, it was extremely difficult for Western journalists and scholars to gain access to the Tesla’s Archive in Yugoslavia; even then they were allowed to see only selected papers. This was not the case for Soviet scientists who came in delegations during the 1950s. Concerns increased in 1960 when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet that “a new and fantastic weapon was in the hatching stage.”

High Voltage Research Installation with the generators of Marx and Tesla

“Project Seesaw” and the Effort to Build Particle Beam Weapons

1Project SeesawWork on beam weapons also continued in the United States. In 1958 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a top-secret project code-named “Seesaw” at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to develop a charged-particle beam weapon. More than ten years and twenty-seven million dollars later, the project was supposedly abandoned “because of the projected high costs associated with implementation as well as the formidable technical problems associated with propagating a beam through very long ranges in the atmosphere.” Scientists associated with the project made the outrageous claim of having no knowledge of Tesla’s papers.

Really?

HAARP-beam

DEWdrone laser

***

 

 

JASON Defense Advisory Panel: Reports on Defense Science

2Project SeesawThe JASON Defense Advisory Panel was also involved with “Project Seesaw” which included Selected Reports on Tesla’s Electromagnetic fields generated by pulses of relativistic electrons, laser and particle beam weapons, airborne Lasers (ABL) and waves by Interferometer.

Physicists John Emmett (left) and John Nuckolls were key Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory "pioneers" in laser and fusion technology.

Physicists John Emmett (left) and John Nuckolls were key Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory “pioneers” in laser and fusion technology.

“The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has led the world in laser fusion research since the early 1960s, and the National Ignition Facility ensures America’s continued excellence in a field of crucial importance to our nation. The research that will take place here at the National Ignition Facility has the potential to transform how we use energy.” —Jerry McNerney, U.S. representative, CA 11th District

Project SeesawJASON is an independent scientific advisory group that provides consulting services to the U.S. government on matters of defense science and technology. It was established in 1960.

3Project SeesawJASON typically performs most of its work under contract to the Department of Defense (DARPA and the U.S. Navy), the Department of Energy, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the FBI. Approximately half of the resulting JASON reports are unclassified.

Today the ‘JASON Group’ headquarters are located at the JASON Program Office at the MITRE Corporation, a not-for-profit federally funded research and development company.
Among it’s founders were scientists like Sidney Drell, Kenneth Watson, John Wheeler, Charles Townes, Marvin Goldberger (first chairman until 1966), and several others. JASON was created as an elite division within the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). It is often assumed that these scientists came up with this idea on their own, but take a look at what the official history of IDA says:
“IDA traces its roots to 1947, when Secretary of Defense James Forrestal established the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) to  provide technical analyses of weapons systems and programs. In the mid-1950s, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to form a civilian, nonprofit research institute. The Institute would operate under the auspices of a university consortium to attract highly qualified scientists to assist WSEG in addressing the nation’s most challenging security problems.

jason1The name “JASON” is sometimes explained as an acronym, standing either for “July-August-September-October-November”, the months in which the group would typically meet; or, tongue-in-cheek, for “Junior Achiever, Somewhat Older Now”. But neither explanation is right and in fact, the name is not an acronym at all. It’s simply a reference to the Greek Mythology: Jason. The wife of one of the founders (Mildred Goldberger) thought the name given by the defense department, Project Sunrise, was unimaginative and suggested the group be named for a hero and his search.

Russia beam weaponIn the late 1970s, there was fear that the Soviets may have achieved a technological breakthrough. Some U.S. defense analysts concluded that a large beam weapon facility was under construction near the Sino-Soviet border in Southern Russia.

The American response to this “technological surprise” was the Strategic Defense Initiative announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Teams of government scientists were urged to “turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Today, after a half-century of research and billions of dollars of investment, the SDI program is generally considered a failure, and there is still no realistic means of defense against a nuclear missile attack.

For many years scientists and researchers have sought for Tesla’s missing papers. It is conceivable that if Nikola Tesla knew a means for accurately projecting lethal beams of energy through the atmosphere, he may have taken it to the grave with him.

 

Samples of Documents from Tesla’s FBI File

Document1
Document2
Document3
Document4
Document5
Document6

 

Tesla's suite at the hotel New Yorker following his funeral, 1943

Tesla’s suite at the hotel New Yorker following his funeral on January 12, 1943. Left to right: Bogoljub Jevtic´, a member of the last Royal Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; Professor Boris Furlan, a Slovene active during the war in the United States, who went back to Yugoslavia where he was arrested and liquidated brutally; Sava Kosanovic´, Tesla’s nephew and member of the Royal Government in exile.

Tesla’s suite at the hotel New Yorker following his funeral, 1943

Articles in Tesla's hotel room after his death

Articles in Tesla’s hotel room after his death. Note cabinets and one of the invertor’s safes. Three packages of Nabisco crackers can be seen on one of the upper shelves of the cabinet at left.

Articles in Tesla’s hotel room after his death

A model of Tesla's remote-controlled boat

A model of Tesla’s remote-controlled boat housed at the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Model of Tesla’s remote-controlled boat

Library archives at the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, Yugoslavia

The library archives at the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Library archives at the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, Yugoslavia

Suspected Soviet beam weapon installation

U.S. satellite reconnaissance photo of suspected Soviet beam weapon installation near Semipalatinsk. Published July 28, 1980. (Courtesy Aviation Week & Space Technology)

Suspected Soviet beam weapon installation
Death mask of Nikola Tesla

The death mask of Nikola Tesla in the offices of Gernsback Publications, New York City, in celebration of the Tesla centennial, June 25, 1956. The mask was heavily electroplated with copper, a process that took ten days, and was mounted on a marble-composition pedestal. Three medallions, executed in bas-relief on the base, commemorate Tesla’s greatest inventions: the Tesla oscillation transformer, the first AC induction motor, and the tower for wireless power transmission.

Death mask of Nikola Tesla

Resources:

Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla – Scientist and Inventor Biography

Nikola Tesla Timeline 1945 – Air Force Project Nick

Tesla – Master of Lightning: The Missing Papers

Project Seesaw

JASON Defense Advisory Panel: Reports on Defense Science

Selected Titles of JASON Reports

Three Selected JASON Defense Advisory Panel/Mitre

The UnMuseum – Nikola Tesla: Sorcerer of Lightning

The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla

Tesla’s Missing Papers. About 6 of them [Archive]

The 10 Inventions of Nikola Tesla That Changed The World

In Tribute | Nikola Tesla

Electricity | The Life Story of NIKOLA TESLA by wil cashen

Lost Lightning: The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla – Watch

The UnMuseum – Nikola Tesla: Sorcerer of Lightning

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights – Mind

Laser Inertial Fusion Energy – Lawrence

A History Of The Laser: A Trip Through The Light Fantastic

Governmentattic.org: Rummaging in the Governments attic

 

Creating Innovators: Why America’s Education System Is Obsolete

Tags

, , ,

povertyclr

A majority of students in public schools throughout the American South and West are low-income for the first time in at least four decades.

Public education’s biggest problem: It’s a failure.

There are solutions

America’s last competitive advantage — its ability to innovate — is at risk as a result of the country’s lackluster education system, according to research by Harvard Innovation Education Fellow Tony Wagner.

Taking the stage at Skillshare’s Penny Conference, Wagner pointed out the skills it takes to become an innovator, the downfalls of America’s current education system, and how parents, teachers, mentors, and employers can band together to create innovators.

American schools educate to fill children with knowledge — instead they should be focusing on developing students’ innovation skills and motivation to succeed:

Today knowledge is ubiquitous, constantly changing, growing exponentially… Today knowledge is free. It’s like air, it’s like water. It’s become a commodity… There’s no competitive advantage today in knowing more than the person next to you. The world doesn’t care what you know. What the world cares about is what you can do with what you know.

Global Achievement GapThe knowledge that children are encouraged to soak up in American schools — the memorization of planets, state capitals, the Periodic Table of Elements — can only take students so far. But “skill and will” determine a child’s ability to think outside of the box.

The Global Achievement Gap,” that set of core competencies that every student must master before the end of high school is:

- Critical thinking and problem solving (the ability to ask the right questions)

-  Collaboration across networks and leading by influence

- Agility and adaptability

- Initiative and entrepreneurialism

- Accessing and analyzing information

- Effective written and oral communication

- Curiosity and imagination

- and of course, the cornerstone to all education: BASIC LIFE SKILLS! Gardening, woodshop, Agricultural Education (FFA), balancing a checking account, setting a table, shaking the hand of someone you meet, etc…

Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change The World: Our country’s economic problems are based in its education system.

“We’ve created an economy based on people spending money they do not have to buy things they may not need, threatening the planet in the process,” he says. “We have to transition from a consumer-driven economy to an innovation-driven economy.”

In an effort to discern teaching and parenting patterns, Wagner interviewed innovators in their 20s, followed by interviews with their parents and the influential teachers and mentors in the students’ lives. He found stunning similarities between the teaching styles and goals he encountered with these influential teachers at all levels of education and concludes, “The culture of schooling as we all know it is radically at odds with the culture of learning that produces innovators.”

innovationFive ways in which America’s education system is stunting innovation:

1. Individual achievement is the focus: Students spend a bulk of their time focusing on improving their GPAs — school is a competition among peers. “But innovation is a team sport,” says Wagner. “Yes, it requires some solitude and reflection, but fundamentally problems are too complex to innovate or solve by oneself.”

2. Specialization is celebrated and rewarded: High school curriculum is structured using Carnegie units, a system that is 125 years old, says Wagner. He says the director of talent at Google once told him, “If there’s one thing that educators need to understand, it’s that you can neither understand nor solve problems within the context and bright lines of subject content.” Learning to be an innovator is about learning to cross disciplinary boundaries and exploring problems and their solutions from multiple perspectives.

3. Risk aversion is the norm: We penalize mistakes. The whole challenge in schooling is to figure out what the teacher wants. And the teachers have to figure out what the superintendent wants or the state wants. It’s a compliance-driven, risk-averse culture. Innovation, on the other hand, is grounded in taking risks and learning via trial and error. Educators could take a note from design firm IDEO with its mantra of “Fail early, fail often.” And at Institute of Design at Stanford, they are considering ideas like, we’re thinking F is the new A. Without failure, there is no innovation.

4. Learning is profoundly passive: For 12 to 16 years, we learn to consume information while in school. Our schooling culture has actually turned us into the “good little consumers” that we are. Innovative learning cultures teach about creating, not consuming.

5. Extrinsic incentives drive learning: “Carrots and sticks, “As and Fs”. Young innovators are intrinsically motivated. They aren’t interested in grading scales and petty reward systems. Parents and teachers can encourage innovative thinking by nurturing the curiosity and inquisitiveness of young people, it’s a pattern of “play to passion to purpose.” Parents of innovators encouraged their children to play in more exploratory ways. Fewer toys, more toys without batteries, more unstructured time in their day. Those children grow up to find passions, not just academic achievement. That passion matures to a profound sense of purpose. Every young person I interviewed wants to make a difference in the world, put a ding in the universe.

principles-reinvented-educationWe have to transition to an innovation-driven culture, an innovation-driven society. A consumer society is bankrupt — it’s not coming back. To do that, we’re going to have to work with young people — as parents, as teachers, as mentors, and as employers — in very different ways. We as a country need the capacity to solve more different kinds of problems in more ways. It requires us to have a very different vision of education, of teaching and learning for the 21st century. It requires all of us to have a sense of urgency about the problem that needs to be solved.

The system has become obsolete. It needs reinventing, not reforming.

 

 

 

Resources:

America’s Education

Creating Innovators

Education Futures

IDEO | A Design and Innovation Consulting Firm

Fixing America’s Educational System

Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will

‘Common Core’ For Private and Homeschools | lisa’s leaks

Mises on Economics, Education, and The Experts | lisaleaks

Common Core Curriculum and Agenda 21 | lisa’s leaks

Ethics in Education Leadership | COMMON CORE

lisaleaks » Education – Rssing.com

lisaleaks | TheBlaze.com

lisaleaks | Minds

 

 

 

Poverty Is The Worst Form Of Violence

lisaleaks:

Once a person possesses power over others, that person is loathe to relinquish even a small share of it. The most obvious result of this hunger to maintain and increase power is the presence of warfare. This might manifest in wars against other groupings of people such as international conflict. And it shows up in the need to control fellow members of the same tribe or nation.

Originally posted on bluejayblog:

Today, I’m going to reflect upon a subject about which most of us feel extreme discomfort.  It’s a subject that we’d rather put on hold so we can think more upbeat, “positive” thoughts.  It’s a subject that involves many disturbing aspects of how humanity creates and maintains today’s version of civilization.  It’s a subject that I can only glimpse at briefly in this post.  It’s a subject of which I only had short, real-life experiences.

Poverty-graphic

Mohandas K. Gandhi said, “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” The statement begs analysis.

Overall, poverty has political causes in as much as famine is a human caused problem.  Left to our own devices, we people can find a way to not only survive, but to thrive.  I posit that people wish to improve their living situations, but we sometimes suffer setbacks due to variables in weather and resource availability. We still maintain the…

View original 662 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 668 other followers