From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ Could It Happen Here? Mother Jones April 1988 Since coming to office in 1991, President Reagan has relentlessly portrayed the Nicaraguan government as totalitarian, and the Sandinistas as betrayers of their own revolution. As evidence, members of the Reagan administration point to Nicaragua's state of emergency, similar in the United States to martial law. But according to documents recently released under the Freedom of information Act, the Reagan administration is in no position to point fingers. The United States has contingency plans for establishing martial law in this country, not only in times of war, but also if there is what the Defense Department calls "a complete breakdown in the exercise of government functions by local civilian authorities." What's more, there's a little-known 1971 memorandum prepared by the deputy secretary of defense which also provides justification for military control similar to martial law. Martial law was defined in an internal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) memo written in 1982. (FEMA is the agency responsible for developing plans to deal with national emergencies and for providing "continuity of government" in the event of a nuclear war.) The memo, written by FEMA official John Brinkerhoff to agency director Louis Giuffrida, notes that martial law "suspends all prior existing laws. functions. systems, and programs of civil government, replacing them (from a management standpoint, as a minimum) with a military system. By 'all' systems, one means all courts, mails, garbage collection, fire fighting, agricultural extension services, schools, aviation control, toll bridges-in a word, all." Martial law is expected to be proclaimed by the. president, although "senior military commanders" also enjoy the power to invoke it in the absence of a presidential order. according to a Department of Defense Directive signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci-who has since become the secretary of defense. Despite the existence of these martial law contingency plans, Justice Department spokesperson John Russell says martial law could never be invoked in the United States, pointing to "the Posse Comitatus Act, [which] bars the military from engaging in law enforcement." The Posse Comitatus Act provides small comfort, however, because another Pentagon document, authored by Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard in 1971, cites two "Constitutional exceptions" to the act's restrictions. The Packard memo, entitled "Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances," lists the exceptions as: "to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disasters or calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation"; and "to protect Federal property and Federal government functions when the need for protection exists..." These are loopholes, it would appear, large enough to drive a tank through. The Packard directive claims that Congress intended for there to be an exception to Posse Comitatus "when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable..." Like the Carlucci document, Packard's directive says turning over law enforcement to the army will "normally" require a Presidential Executive Order, but that this requirement can be waived in "cases of sudden and unexpected emergencies ... which require that immediate military action be taken." During last year's congressional hearings into the Iran-contra scandal, a brief reference was made to planning efforts by FEMA and by Lt. Col. Oliver North at the National Security Council to outline a martial Law scenario premised upon? among other things, a domestic crisis involving national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad. North, during the period in question, was FEMA liaison at the National Security Council, and was the NSC planner of a series of domestic war games mentioned by Brinkerhoff. Members of Congress who sought to ask about North's involvement in such planning were stifled by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who as chair of the joint Iran-contra committee ruled that such matters were inappropriate for public discussion. With directives on the books that dearly allow for the imposition of martial law, public discussion about the conditions for military control seems more important than ever. There is serious reason to question whether plans for martial law can ever be justified on legitimate national security grounds; after all, even in World War II, martial law was imposed only in the Hawaiian islands, which at the time were a U.S. territory and naval outpost, not a state. Of course, whatever the likelihood of martial law being instituted in the United States in wartime or peacetime, the Nicaraguan government hasn't had a chance tn show whether it would lift restrictions in peacetime. Since the Sandinistas came power and the CIA-backed contra began, Nicaragua hasn't had any peace. Whether the Sandinistas follow through fully with their plans, announced in January, to lift the state of emergency in Nicaragua, Americans might well ask, in light of the planning going on at FEMA and the Pentagon, how the government would act if faced with a similar level of "civil disturbance." ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)