Political Crossfire Forums

[Cricket]

about FEMA and its camps? Or am I the only one who thinks it is extremely odd that these exist with no one taking umbrage?

[agentkgb]

Why would FEMA be unconstitutional?

[Cricket]

Well, check this out and see what you think.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

[agentkgb]

So you're saying martial law is wrong, or FEMA itself, or the camps? Or all? I would certainly agree that martial law is wrong.

[Cricket]

All are wrong, in my opinion. Keeping in mind that a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, any organization having the purpose of incarcerating its own citizens (sans crime) cannot be a good organization. I'm not sure if you know about this:

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

...

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

Original Article:

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911

[agentkgb]

But what does that have to do with FEMA? Ending martial law would solve the problem there is no reason to take FEMA with it.

[Cricket]

Hmmm. That's a point. But I think if we got rid of martial law we would get rid of FEMA in the process. It's like getting rid of anti semitism in Nazi Germany. Not much use for the Gestapo. I'll look this up.

[Cricket]

Here is a bit of an example of why FEMA is not a good Samaritan org. God help anyone they "help". Aftermath of Katrina:

Two car loads of us headed over to Falls Creek, a youth camp for Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma that agreed to have its facilities used to house Louisiana refugees. I'm afraid the camp is not going to be used as the kind people of the churches who own the cabins believe it was going to be used.
Jesse Jackson was right when he said "refugees" was not the appropriate word for the poor souls dislocated due to Katrina. But he was wrong about why it is not appropriate. It's not appropriate because they are detainees, not refugees.

(...) We then started lugging in our food products. The foods I had purchased were mainly snacks, but my mother - God bless her soul - had gone all out with fresh vegetables, fruits, canned goods, breakfast cereals, rice, and pancake fixings. That's when we got the next message: They will not be able to use the kitchen. Excuse me? I asked incredulously.

FEMA will not allow any of the kitchen facilities in any of the cabins to be used by the occupants due to fire hazards. FEMA will deliver meals to the cabins. The refugees will be given two meals per day by FEMA. They will not be able to cook. In fact, the "host" goes on to explain, some churches had already enquired about whether they could come in on weekends and fix meals for the people staying in their cabin. FEMA won't allow it because there could be a situation where one cabin gets steaks and another gets hot dogs - and... it could cause a riot. It gets worse.

He then precedes to tell us that some churches had already enquired into whether they could send a van or bus on Sundays to pick up any occupants of their cabins who might be interested in attending church. FEMA will not allow this. The occupants of the camp cannot leave the camp for any reason. If they leave the camp they may never return. They will be issued FEMA identification cards and "a sum of money" and they will remain within the camp for the next 5 months.

My son looks at me and mumbles "Welcome to Krakow."

[agentkgb]

Where is that from?
And the fact that FEMA was incredibly ineffective after Katrina is certainly not something I'll argue with, but it means that FEMA should be reformed, not taken out.
And I still don't see how it's unconstitutional.

[Cricket]

Sorry. It was taken off a blog called Boing Boing, I think.

You call incarcerating people for five months without a normal life style, refusing offers of food and church attendence "ineffective"? I can think of some words for it, but not ineffective. I think they are very effective at what they do, which is to deprive people of their liberty without due process of law.

[agentkgb]

Cricket wrote: Sorry. It was taken off a blog called Boing Boing, I think.

You call incarcerating people for five months without a normal life style, refusing offers of food and church attendence "ineffective"? I can think of some words for it, but not ineffective. I think they are very effective at what they do, which is to deprive people of their liberty without due process of law.
Which is why we fix FEMA, not get rid of it. Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but it seems like some things that FEMA sometimes does are unconstitutional, not FEMA itself. I doubt that FEMA was founded with the idea of demolishing people's liberties. That's what armies are for if a government wants to have more power, not relief agencies.

[bigstick61]

FEMA is unconstitutional because it's creation, existence, operations, and funds for this are not authorized at all by any part of the Constitution. Something which is not allowed by law is by its nature illegitimate and illegal. What FEMA does is something which should be left to the States.

[Cricket]

I read that 75% of the funding that goes to FEMA is used for terrorist control, which these days could well mean political dissenters. My point in posting the above article was that FEMA is geared to build and run prison camps and that is what they do, as evidenced by their hapless Katrina victims.

Here is an excerpt from a Greg Palast article (Palast Charged with Journalism in the First Degree)

On August 22, for LinkTV and Democracy Now! we videotaped the thousands of Katrina evacuees still held behind a barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It's been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of W) are still in this aluminum ghetto in the middle of nowhere. One resident, Pamela Lewis said, "It is a prison set-up" -- except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.

This was written Sept 12, 2006. So it appears that the Katrina victims are still incarcerated. They do what they do do well and I can't see how anyone can find them benevolent.

But I had a reason for bringing this up here. It seems that Texans are talking about rioting over the trans Texas Corridor, if it comes to that. Since Bush has done away with Posse Comitatis and any other safeguards against using military on civilians; and since these prison camps are set up to deal with just such an eventuality, I am very concerned that we may be sitting on a tinderbox. I believe that the whole thing is unconstitutional and should be taken out of existence---from martial law to these camps. But what do we do?

[Medius]

Cricket wrote: I read that 75% of the funding that goes to FEMA is used for terrorist control, which these days could well mean political dissenters. My point in posting the above article was that FEMA is geared to build and run prison camps and that is what they do, as evidenced by their hapless Katrina victims.

Here is an excerpt from a Greg Palast article (Palast Charged with Journalism in the First Degree)

On August 22, for LinkTV and Democracy Now! we videotaped the thousands of Katrina evacuees still held behind a barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It's been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of W) are still in this aluminum ghetto in the middle of nowhere. One resident, Pamela Lewis said, "It is a prison set-up" -- except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.

This was written Sept 12, 2006. So it appears that the Katrina victims are still incarcerated. They do what they do do well and I can't see how anyone can find them benevolent.

But I had a reason for bringing this up here. It seems that Texans are talking about rioting over the trans Texas Corridor, if it comes to that. Since Bush has done away with Posse Comitatis and any other safeguards against using military on civilians; and since these prison camps are set up to deal with just such an eventuality, I am very concerned that we may be sitting on a tinderbox. I believe that the whole thing is unconstitutional and should be taken out of existence---from martial law to these camps. But what do we do?

Actually, just to be clear, I do not believe that Bush has made a dent in Posse Comitatis in reality, just in perception. It is my opinion that Posse Comitatis is a reinforcement of the already existing limitations on the Constitutional powers given to Congress in deploying troops.

Quote: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

I think this to be pretty cut and dry. There is no authorization in the Constitution for the use of military force internally, however, this alone enumerates the purpose for which the militia may be called to service by the federal government.

They may be thusly used to execute the laws of the union (constitutionally these are very few and are all supportive of rights not restrictions). They may be used to supress insurrections or repel invasions. Both of these would be necessity need to be an action taken against the repsective state that the state did not condone or would violate constitutionally protected rights.

[Cricket]

Hello, Medius. Would you say that the Texans rioting around the capital (Austin) would constitute insurrection?

[Medius]

Cricket wrote: Hello, Medius. Would you say that the Texans rioting around the capital (Austin) would constitute insurrection?

It depends on how they choose to protest. If it is violently it may be insurrection, in which case congress is within their power to call forth the militia under the constitution.

If they have enough numbers and cohesion to rally together under the flag of violence, they should exert their power in a much better method of protest. They should cease all payment of taxes. If their numbers are great enough, they can do some serious damage and convince others around the nation to do the same.

[Cricket]

Good points, all. Here, check this link out and see what you think.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1470402

[perdidochas]

Cricket wrote: Well, check this out and see what you think.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm


Do you have a non "Alternative Realty" source for this?

[Cricket]

Not in video that I'm aware of. Here is a transcript

Indianapolis / Marion County - Amtrak railcar repair facility (closed); controversial site of a major alleged detention / processing center. Although some sources state that this site is a "red herring", photographic and video evidence suggests otherwise. This large facility contains large 3-4 inch gas mains to large furnaces (crematoria??), helicopter landing pads, railheads for prisoners, Red/Blue/Green zones for classifying/processing incoming personnel, one-way turnstiles, barracks, towers, high fences with razor wire, etc. Personnel with government clearance who are friendly to the patriot movement took a guided tour of the facility to confirm this site. This site is located next to a closed refrigeration plant facility.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

[perdidochas]

Cricket wrote: Not in video that I'm aware of. Here is a transcript

Indianapolis / Marion County - Amtrak railcar repair facility (closed); controversial site of a major alleged detention / processing center. Although some sources state that this site is a "red herring", photographic and video evidence suggests otherwise. This large facility contains large 3-4 inch gas mains to large furnaces (crematoria??), helicopter landing pads, railheads for prisoners, Red/Blue/Green zones for classifying/processing incoming personnel, one-way turnstiles, barracks, towers, high fences with razor wire, etc. Personnel with government clearance who are friendly to the patriot movement took a guided tour of the facility to confirm this site. This site is located next to a closed refrigeration plant facility.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

Again, I want something mainstream media, government source or academic, not "alternative reality" crap.