(*Editors
Note | This is the first part of a three-part series on the Homeland Security
Act (HSA). The first part reviews the origins of the Act in the Hart-Rudman
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Tomorrow, Part 2 will discuss
Cheney's plan for global dominance and how that relates to homeland security.
Wednesday, Part 3 will detail some of the HSA provisions themselves and briefly
discuss what worries civil libertarians.)
Homeland Security Act: The Rise of the
American Police State
(Part
1 of a Three Part Series)
By
Jennifer Van Bergen
t
r u t h o u t | Report
Monday,
2 December, 2002
"It
is far more dangerous and threatening to our few remaining civil liberties than
he appears willing to suggest," writes Professor E. Nathaniel Gates of
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law about William Safire's recent article on the
Homeland Security Act. "I had the rather grim and unfortunate duty of
reviewing the legislation to which Safire refers in some detail," says
Gates.1
The
Act, sponsored by Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) (whom the ACLU just
astonishingly recruited as a consultant), and criticized by nearly every source
on the internet, nonetheless passed the House 299-121. Why? Was it the
continuing fear of terrorism?
I
do not think so.
Although
Bush apparently did not seriously consider the Homeland Security Act (HSA)
provisions until after the attacks, its provisions were, like those of the USA
PATRIOT Act, in the works long before September 11.
The
Act, furthermore, promotes the creation of what one senator once called "a
global security system" controlled by the United States, not to mention a
budding police state in America. This agenda falls neatly in line with the plan
for American global dominance endorsed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and
Rumsfeld.
Finally,
the Homeland Security Act was structured on the recommendations of a special
commission that was closely connected to, if not derived from, the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), which one author notes "has had its hand in every
major twentieth century conflict."
Homeland Security, the Hart-Rudman
Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations2
"[T]he
proposal for a Homeland Security Department originated in 1998 with the
launching of the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission," officially called the
United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, according to
William F. Jasper.3
The
report issued by the Hart-Rudman Commission ("the Commission"),
"Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change," is dated
January 31, 2001.
The
"Executive Summary"4 of the Commission Report ("the
Summary") declares: "In the new era, sharp distinctions between
'foreign' and 'domestic' no longer apply." The Commission does "not
equate security with 'defense.'" However, they "do believe in the
centrality of strategy, and of seizing opportunities as well as confronting
dangers."
"The
risk," says the Summary, "is not only death and destruction but also
a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global
leadership." (Emphasis added.)
The
Commission recommended "the creation of a new independent National
Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating,
and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland
security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security -
the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol - transferred to
it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility
for overseeing the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure,
including information technology."
This
is indeed the basic blueprint of the Homeland Security Act.
Of
the "twelve" Hart-Rudman commissioners, Jasper writes, nine were
members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR or "the Council"),
which Jasper calls "the semi-secret, private organization that serves as
the most visible element of the Internationalist Power Elite."
According
to the CFR, the bipartisan 14-member panel was put together in 1998 by
then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), to
make strategic recommendations on how the United States could ensure its
security in the 21st century.
The
Council states that it is a "non-governmental, non-partisan
organization" that "is dedicated to increasing America's
understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy."
Its stated goals are "to add value to the public debate on international
affairs, energize foreign policy discussions nationwide by making the Council a
truly national organization with membership across the country, identify and
nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders, and make the Council the
source for ideas and clear and accurate information on key international issues
for the interested public."
Membership
to the Council is limited and based on recommendations by other members.
"[T]he
'conservatives' who populate the Bush administration - Dick Cheney, Colin
Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Zoellick, George Tenet, Paul
Wolfowitz, et al. - are drawn from the CFR stable," says Jasper. He also
states that Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Representative Dick Gephardt
are both CFR.
Bi-partisan?
Lieberman sponsored S. 2452, an earlier version of the Homeland Security Act,
which was absorbed into HR 5710, the final version that passed the House.
According
to it's website, the Commission "was chartered to review in a
comprehensive way U.S. national security requirements for the next
century." The Addendum "provided a 'baseline' of the national
security apparatus, and was completed in draft form by the summer of 2000 as
the Commission's main Phase III effort began in earnest."
The
Commission claims: "To our knowledge no product has been previously
produced that describes the national security structures and processes of the
U.S. government in such detail."
Those
recommendations ultimately were followed closely by the Homeland Security Act,
although Bush appears to have been reluctant to follow them before 9/11.5
Jasper's
conclusion about the connection between the Hart-Rudman Commission and the
Council on Foreign Relations seems sound. There is a significant amount of
information about the Commission on the Council on Foreign Relations' website,
including a report by a "Council-Sponsored Independent Task Force on
Homeland Security Imperatives, Co-Chaired by Gary Hart and Warren B. Rudman,
Directed by Stephen E. Flynn (2002)" which concludes that "America Is
Still At Risk" and "Recommends Providing Federal Funds, Recalibrating
Transportation Security Agenda; Strengthening Local, State, and Federal Public
Health and Agricultural Agencies, Empowering Front Line Agents, and Supporting
National Guard Units."
The
Council states that the Independent Task Force "which makes
recommendations for emergency action, included two former secretaries of state,
three Nobel laureates, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a
former director of the CIA and FBI, and some of the nation's most distinguished
financial, legal, and medical experts. One of the country's leading authorities
on homeland security, Council Senior Fellow Stephen Flynn, directed the Task
Force."
The
Task Force "does not seek to apportion blame about what has not been done
or not done quickly enough. The report is aimed, rather, at closing the gap
between our intelligence estimates and analysis-which acknowledge immediate
danger on the one hand-and our capacity to prevent, mitigate and respond to
these attacks on the other."
According
to Jasper, Bush's homeland security proposal, announced nine days after
September 11th, "follows the Hart-Rudman outline perfectly."
Jim
Marrs wrote in his book, RULE BY SECRECY, that critics of the Council have
noted "that the CFR has had its hand in every major twentieth century
conflict." Marrs quotes one CFR insider, Admiral Chester Ward, retired
judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy and a longtime CFR member, as saying
that the one common objective of CFR members is "to bring about the
surrender of sovereignty and the national independence of the United States ...
Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in
the control of global government."6
According
to Marrs: "Nearly every CIA director since Allen Dulles has been a CFR
member, including Richard Helms, William Colby, George Bush, William Webster,
James Woolsey, John Deutsch, and William Casey." Noting that Article II of
the CFR's bylaws state that anyone revealing details of CFR meetings in contravention
of the CFR's rules could be dropped from membership, Marrs concludes that the
Council qualifies as "a secret society."
Sounds
a little like the Bush administration.
-------
Jennifer Van Bergen is a regular contributor
to TruthOut. She has a J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is a
contributing editor of Criminal Defense
Weekly, an adjunct faculty member of the New School Online University, a
division of the New School for Social Research, and an active member of the
ACLU.
1
Email to author, November 20, 2002 (quote used with permission). See Gates' bio
at: http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty/index.html#gates
2
I have made liberal use of the websites of the Commission and the Council:
www.nssg.gov and www.cfr.org. Quotes in this section come from their sites
respectively, except Jasper quotes or where otherwise indicated.
3
William F. Jasper, "Rise of the Garrison State,"
www.jbs.org/congress/alerts/homeland/garrison.htm.
This
is the John Birch Society website, an unlikely source for such information. It
is the only site this author found that expressly connects the Homeland
Security Act to the prior work of the Hart-Rudman Commission and Council on
Foreign Relations.
4
All quotes from the Executive Summary are from:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01013102.htm.
5
www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-garfinkle111202.asp,
www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp
6
Jim Marrs, RULE BY SECRECY (Harper Collins, 2000). All cites on CFR from pages
31-8.