Continuity of Government & The “ENDGAME” Scenario

Back in 1987 during joint congressional hearings into the Iran-Contra affair, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX) asked Lt. Col. Oliver North, Reagan’s point-man on the National Security Council:

Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel]: Mr. Chairman?

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), immediately squelched Brooks’ inquiry:

Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

Since those 1987 hearings, the “arrangements” alluded to by Sen. Inouye about this prickly topic, Continuity of Government (COG), have yet to result in an open hearing before relevant congressional committees.

Why?

On March 31, Peter Dale Scott posted an informative piece on CounterPunch asking that very question. Why is Congress being sandbagged by the Bush administration on the thorniest of issues: the suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the potential declaration of martial law in the event of a “catastrophic national emergency.” Scott writes,

In August 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the House that he and the rest of his Committee had been barred from reviewing parts of National Security Presidential Directive 51, the White House supersecret plans to implement so-called “Continuity of Government” in the event of a mass terror attack or natural disaster.1

While it is certainly a reasonable proposition to most citizens that the federal government should be prepared for disasters, man-made or otherwise, throughout its history COG has been tainted by its proximity to repressive police measures directed against the population (viewed as a hostile force to be “contained”), up to, and including the use of the bluntest of instruments: martial law.

Yet the Bush administration, driven by its desire to maximize power within the Executive branch, has used COG as a cover for creating a “post-Constitutional” police state.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the White House moved quickly. John C. Yoo, a Bush appointee in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) , wrote a 20-page response to an inquiry sent to the office by White House Counsel Timothy E. Flanigan. A Federalist Society veteran of the 2000 Florida recount battle that ended when the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, Flanigan sought the OLC’s advice on “the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States,” according to the New York Times.

Yoo responded how the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure might apply if the military used “deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens.” Times reporter Tim Golden wrote:

Mr. Yoo listed an inventory of possible operations: shooting down a civilian airliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside an American city; employing surveillance methods more sophisticated than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces “to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire.”

It was all the ammunition the administration needed. Yoo’s memorandum handed the Executive branch virtual carte blanche for its “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” the Bush regime’s odious “public-private partnership” amongst telecom corporations and the National Security Agency’s (NSA) illegal monitoring of Americans’ electronic communications.

Golden went on to report,

Mr. Yoo noted that those actions could raise constitutional issues, but said that in the face of devastating terrorist attacks, “the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.” If the president decided the threat justified deploying the military inside the country, he wrote, then “we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection.”2

Could such “infringements of individual liberties” include the preventative detention of “illegal immigrants,” political enemies, or others deemed “suspect” by a “Unitary Executive Theory” that alleges the president possesses virtually unlimited power as “commander-in-chief” during a “time of war”?

According to Bush regime acolytes, the answer apparently is “yes.” Subsequent reporting last week by the Washington Post, after reviewing the declassified version of Yoo’s memo confirm this analysis.

In early 2006, Peter Dale Scott uncovered a $385 million open-ended government contract awarded a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide “temporary detention and processing capabilities.” Scott wrote,

The contract — announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR — calls for preparing for “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies, such as “a natural disaster.” The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when. …

After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security.3

The DHS contract to KBR followed the April 2002 creation of the Pentagon’s Northern Command (NORTHCOM), specifically empowered for domestic U.S. military operations. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this “the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946.”

Scott, citing Rumsfeld’s announcement, said that NORTHCOM is responsible for “homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)…. He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters.”

But state moves to entangle the American people in a seemingly inextricable web of repressive measures don’t stop there. In a follow-up article on KBR detention camp contracts, Scott described how the construction of these facilities are part of a long-term DHS plan titled ENDGAME, whose goal is the “removal” of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security,

Endgame is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) multi-year strategic enforcement plan. It stresses the effective and efficient execution of the critical service DRO provides its partners and stakeholders to enforce the nation’s immigration and naturalization laws. The DRO strategic plan sets in motion a cohesive enforcement program with a ten-year time horizon that will build the capacity to “remove all removable aliens,” eliminate the backlog of unexecuted final order removal cases, and realize its vision. …

Detention can be affected by unforeseen events occurring in other countries, such as natural disasters (i.e., earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), war, and economic/political crises. These events can produce a “shock” to DRO detention. Such shocks can produce large numbers of illegal aliens, additional detention needs, and the inability to remove aliens from the U.S. back to countries in crisis. Though these immigration emergencies are relatively short-term in nature, they can have a drastic and enduring impact on available detention space.4

Commenting on ENDGAME, Scott wrote,

Significantly, both the KBR contract and the ENDGAME plan are open-ended. The contract calls for a response to “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies, such as “a natural disaster.” “New programs” is of course a term with no precise limitation. So, in the current administration, is ENDGAME’s goal of removing “potential terrorists.”

It is relevant that in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.” On Feb. 17 of this year, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.” Two days earlier, citing speeches critical of Bush by Al Gore, John Kerry, and Howard Dean, conservative columnist Ben Shapiro called for “legislation to prosecute such sedition.”5

But is the DHS’ ENDGAME “only” a program for “removing all removable aliens”? Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, environmental activist Lewis Seiler and former congressman Dan Hamburg ponder the real questions posed by such antidemocratic initiatives:

What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.6

While the deployment of NORTHCOM and ENDGAME scenarios are singular features of the Bush administration’s power-grab following the 9/11 attacks, its repressive architecture was built upon already-existing plans for suspending the Constitution and implementing a martial law regime.

During the urban rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s, the Pentagon drew up a series of blueprints for precisely those contingencies. Variously code-named “Cable Splicer” and “Garden Plot,” the U.S. military and local police who served as Pentagon auxiliaries (falling under the purview of the military’s chain of command) performed a series of exercises that envisioned the suspension of civil liberties, the rounding up of dissidents and their incarceration in detention camps for the duration of an (unspecified) “crisis.”

During the 1980s, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was designated the lead agency that would implement Ronald Reagan’s 1988 Executive Order 12656, stating that COG procedures come into play in the event of “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”

Some aspects of Reagan’s Rex-84 “emergency preparedness” operations advocated rounding up and detaining some 400,000 “refugees,” in the context, as Peter Dale Scott reported, of “‘uncontrolled population movements’ over the Mexican border into the United States.”

Since then, but especially in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon has continuously updated–and trained for–their implementation. Indeed, one can view the creation of NORTHCOM as perhaps the single most important “mission critical” link driving current COG planning.

According to researcher Frank Morales,

Training under [U.S. Army Field Manual] FM 19-15/Garden Plot must be “continuous” and “must develop personnel who are able to perform distasteful and dangerous duties with discipline and objectivity.” Dangerous to the local citizenry given that “every member of the control force must be trained to use his weapon and special equipment (including) riot batons, riot control agent dispersers and CS grenades, grenade launchers, shotguns, sniper rifles, cameras, portable videotape recorders, portable public address systems, night illumination devices, fire fighting apparatus, grappling hooks, ladders, ropes, bulldozers, Army aircraft, armored personnel carriers, and roadblock and barricade materials.”7

COG is predicated on the assumption that the military will act as a “force-multiplier” for local law enforcement, which in this age of militarized policing are already highly-repressive organizations replete with military-grade firepower, but also “less than lethal” weaponry, equipment and “special operations” units better-suited for the battlefield than an urban setting in a typical American city.

While September 11 may have been the “catastrophic and catalyzing event,” referenced by the now-defunct Project for a New American Century, COG planning has been in the works for decades, as were Pentagon blueprints for the invasion and occupation of Central Asia and the Middle East.

Predating 9/11, COG is viewed by elite policy planners as an instrument for the continuity of a repressive national security state, one targeting first and foremost, the American people. COG, as an instrumentality for containing the internal threat, is predicated on defending the capitalist mode of production and the political/social relations of class society as it enters a period of profound crisis.

In terms of a repressive discourse, NORTHCOM, under Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R. 5122)(2), signed into law by president Bush on October 17, 2006, allows the chief executive to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in the U.S. The law also permits the president to usurp control of state-based national guard units, even without the consent of the governor or local authorities in the affected region, to “suppress public disorder.” Frank Morales, exposing the onerous nature of the law writes,

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.” …

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration. …

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.8

In the absence of massive public opposition to existing martial law plans by the Bush regime or future U.S. administrations–Democratic as well as Republican–the prospect of America continuing as a free and open society is a mirage at best.

  1. Peter Dale Scott, “Congress, the Bush Administration and Continuity of Government Planning: The Showdown,” CounterPunch, Monday, March 31, 2008. []
  2. Tim Golden, “After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law,” New York Times, October 24, 2004. []
  3. Peter Dale Scott, “Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps,” Pacific News Service, February 8, 2006. []
  4. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ENDGAME, Office of Detention and Removal Strategic Plan, 2002-2012,” June 27, 2003. []
  5. Peter Dale Scott, “10-Year U.S. Strategic Plan for Detention Camps Revives Proposals from Oliver North,” Pacific News Service, February 21, 2006. []
  6. Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg, “Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2008; Page B-7. []
  7. Frank Morales, “U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War at Home,” in Police State America, ed. Tom Burghardt, ATS/Solidarity, Toronto, Montreal, 2002, p. 73. []
  8. Frank Morales, “Bush Moves Toward Martial Law,” Toward Freedom, October 26, 2006. []
Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website.

15 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Jim Cronin said on April 7th, 2008 at 9:28am #

    There was a flurry of paranoia when the contract was let to build the detention facility, but after a time, the issue disappeared, and this is the first mention of it in quite some time.

    So where is this detention facility or facilities? Why has not a single “progressive” website done a follow up on this since the initial fuss, and where are the photos of the place? You can’t hide a detention facility, especially one supposedly designed to imprison all the “progressives” who might object to martial law or the hypothetical fake incident or catastrophe that would precipitate it.

    I have no doubt that it is possible, considering the ideology of the Neocons and many others in government. But the existence of plans does not guarantee their implementation. It was widely rumored during the Vietnam War that Nixon was going to do the same, a rumor that decades later was revealed as one contingency plan the Nixon Administration actually discussed. But it wasn’t implemented. If this detention facility is being built, or exists, I’d like to see some proof.

  2. hp said on April 7th, 2008 at 9:56am #

    Jim, go to Google and type in “detention camps being built in USA.”
    That ought to do it.

  3. Jim Cronin said on April 7th, 2008 at 12:48pm #

    All I see in the Youtube video in question, is an outdated train repair facility. From its architectural style, it was probably built in the days when people still used a lot of passenger trains, and when a lot of what moves in trucks today was freighted by rail. The filmmaker had no trouble repeatedly driving around, there was no military presence aside from an aged air force switch engine which may be there for repair, and the facility’s parking lot is filled with many civilian automobiles. This last means there is a local workforce coming from a local community, where everyone would know if the facility were being turned into a concentration camp. Of course, the filmmaker did not bother to do what any novice journalist knows, talk to people, make phone calls, etc. Sorry, this is not evidence.

  4. hp said on April 7th, 2008 at 12:54pm #

    Jim, I Googled the exact same phrase and came up with more than 1,200,000 results. To look at one video and decide, is not exactly robust truth seeking.

  5. Alex said on April 7th, 2008 at 4:29pm #

    This reminds me of the part in Star Wars Three (Revenge of Sith) when the Senator Palpatine (soon to be Emperor) granted himself emergence powers before the Galactic Senate to combate a threat. This threat was secretly created by him. During Palpatine’s speech, Natalie Portman’s character (a Senator of the Republic) quiped: ” So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause. ..”

    I wonder if the US Senate had a thunderous applause when granting President Bush dictorial powers?

  6. Tom Burghardt said on April 7th, 2008 at 4:59pm #

    Jim wrote:

    “But the existence of plans does not guarantee their implementation.”

    Jim, you’re correct–as far as it goes. However, the broader question is this: why is the state building detention facilities, or to be more precise, allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for open-ended contracts for their construction?

    I do tend to steer-clear of the paranoid end of the spectrum when it comes to these issues, but having said that, do keep in mind the Pentagon, as I pointed out in my piece, have been training for so-called “civil disturbance assistance” to local law enforcement agencies for decades; “Cable Splicer” and “Garden Plot” are not mere historical footnotes, nor is the fact that in the wake of 9/11, the federal government created a new military command-NORTHCOM, specifically chartered to operate in the continental U.S., a first; nor is it simply a coincidence the feds passed legislation substantially weakening Posse Comitatus, and finally, it also isn’t a secret that FEMA and Bush applied significant pressure on Louisiana governor Blanco, to federalize the national guard during Katrina.

    What’s important to keep in mind is that John Yoo and OLC’s October 2001 memorandum to the Bush administration on the issue of substantially altering the military’s policing role in the event of an emergency has the weight of law on its side, insofar as it represents the DoJ’s legal opinion of what is, and what isn’t permissible.

    That we’re discussing such contingencies in the first place, is a reflection of the sorry state of democratic institutions in the U.S. The point I was trying to make in the piece is the dire threat posed by a runaway Executive branch and a Congress and Judicial branch all-too-eager to cede power on questions of “national security” and the “war on terror.”

    How this ultimately plays out is anyone’s guess, but the issue to be kept out front is how vital it is to defend our constitutional guarantees, particularly against those who would weaken protections against “unreasonable search and seizure” i.e., Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and all that follows in its wake, such as “Real ID,” intrusive biometric identification, etc., etc. Not to mention, the Executive’s unchallenged assertion of power to annul treaties, such as the International Convention Against Torture, the Anti-Missile Treaty, on and on.

    Its not just neocons who would assert these Executive “rights.” Should Clinton or Obama assume the presidency, I seriously doubt either of them would yield on what they now consider to be precedents by the Bush administration.

  7. hp said on April 7th, 2008 at 5:13pm #

    Not mentioned but looming like a dark cloud as well, is the draft. Though there is no draft at the time, there are a number of ‘drafts’ ready in Congress and the boards and personnel are appointed and ready to go. As it is right now, they’re probably on yellow alert or some such designation, I would imagine.

  8. John Hatch said on April 7th, 2008 at 6:03pm #

    It seems to me that the Bush regime has taken or is taking all the steps necessary toward a fascist state. I really don’t think Bush/Cheney are going anywhere anytime soon, and short of a bloody revolution or a benign military coup, America is pretty much finished. Ronnie deluded himself into thinking that he won the Cold War, but it turns out Marx was right all along.

  9. Jim Cronin said on April 7th, 2008 at 7:18pm #

    Good points, Tom. Thanks.

  10. Tom Burghardt said on April 7th, 2008 at 8:06pm #

    John Hatch wrote:

    “It seems to me that the Bush regime has taken or is taking all the steps necessary toward a fascist state. I really don’t think Bush/Cheney are going anywhere anytime soon, and short of a bloody revolution or a benign military coup, America is pretty much finished. Ronnie deluded himself into thinking that he won the Cold War, but it turns out Marx was right all along.”

    Of course Marx was right! Still is! 😉

    Personally, John, I think the “f” word is used far too frequently for it to have resonance today. “Fascism” in the present context–at least barring some horrible catastrophe–is better represented in contemporary America by Mussolini’s original defintion, corporatism. Call me old-fashioned, but I hardly see a lumpenized middle class flocking to a up-dated version of Hitler’s storm troopers. Even Pinochet and the neo-Nazi Argentine generals had a mass base, one rooted in the old rightist clerical/nationalist cliques and the middle class. Bushism as a rallying cry? Hardly.

    While *certain* segments of the Christian Right may have fit the bill in the early 1990s, Operation Rescue, for example, and the terrorist Army of God–both driven by a far-right, theocratic ideology with a mass base–those forces by and large have been dispersed; not primarily by the state, but by radical, grass roots, left-wing activists organized in groups such as BACORR and Refuse and Resist! The same goes for neo-Nazi bonehead formations. Anti-Racist Action and others took the field and routed them. I don’t mean to trivialize such forces, but there’s nothing on the contemporary scene that compares to the direct action antiaborts or the Militia Movement of the ’90s. The Minutemen? I don’t think so. Dangerous, yes, but an immediate threat in terms of forming a mass fascist movement? Hardly.

    Bush/Cheney are reflective of particular class interests, primarily what we’ve come to know as the military-industrial-security complex. Whether or not they stay or go is almost irrelevant.. I pose the question again: would Clinton or Obama do anything concretely different? The answer, in my opinion, is no. Class money has now swung to the Democrats, just as in did in 1992 when the forces holding Reaganism together ran their course.

    After all, the ground work for the USA Patriot Act was laid, not by reactionary, Neaderthal Republicans but by “liberal” Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Remember the 1996 ” Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act”? Remember the FBI’s Carnivore and the NSA’s Echelon? These were programs begun under and supported by Democrats. Bush/Cheney may have give us the doctrine of “preemptive war,” but Clinton/Gore gave us the equally repulsive doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” And for the same objective reasons: shore-up and expand the contours of the American (capitalist) Empire. Clinton in the Balkans, Bush further east in Central Asia. Both are marked by failure, not success.

    We’ve already had two “soft” coups; one was Clinton’s impeachment–a failure, the other the 2000 decision by the Supreme Court to end the Florida vote count and thus, hand the presidency to Bush. In terms of a “brand” the ruling class identifies with, Bush/Cheney are the political equivalent of the Chevy Vega! A military coup is never “benign;” don’t ever go there! But whether or not America is finished, depends, in the final analysis, on us.

  11. mjc said on April 7th, 2008 at 11:01pm #

    So, is the election of a Democrat president and congress a sufficient condition to declare martial law?

  12. A. Magnus said on April 8th, 2008 at 2:03pm #

    Martial law will be declared at the exact moment when the ruling elites decide it is more profitable to exert overt control over the population as opposed to mere ideological control and social engineering like they do now. Its implementation will be totally scripted and everyone already in positions of power and trust including the mass media will be complicit in its enactment. When the elites feel they are so secure in their FEMA bunkers that their rule cannot be effectively challenged, THAT is when they will betray us all.

  13. Tom Burghardt said on April 9th, 2008 at 6:01pm #

    A. Magnus writes:

    “Martial law will be declared at the exact moment when the ruling elites decide it is more profitable to exert overt control over the population as opposed to mere ideological control and social engineering like they do now. Its implementation will be totally scripted and everyone already in positions of power and trust including the mass media will be complicit in its enactment. When the elites feel they are so secure in their FEMA bunkers that their rule cannot be effectively challenged, THAT is when they will betray us all.”

    Unfortunately, you’re no doubt correct in your assessment, right down to its scripted nature with ruling class complicity all around.

  14. Robert Gates (not SecDef) said on May 9th, 2008 at 2:31pm #

    Bottom line on so called detention camps is this. All you really need is a large area, run some razor wire around and presto temp detention camps. It has been done in the deserts of Iraq, except they would use dozers and equipment to dig large holes 200 feet by 200 feet to put POW’s down in temp detention. Then the guards are at the top and looking down. Nothing terrible complicated needed.

  15. Jeannie said on February 1st, 2009 at 3:16pm #

    You speak of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act signed and placed into action. I am an American citizena and I have been attacked by the military’s direct energy weapons for the past six years and I cannot get anyone in government to stop them. In the 2008 Act, it make it legal to use their torture weapons on us. Before 2008, Bush was using them on me anyway and he didn’t care that it was illegal. the weapon used on me is called the Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC). If you would google http://www.defensetech.org and under Search All Archives, type in Hack Your Nervous System. Scroll to Air Force Plan: Hack Your Nervous System. Scroll further in that article to Heavily Censored Document. That is an award/contract signed by the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida to study the “sensory consequences of electromagnetic laser induced plasma channels” which is what they are using on me and it is deadly. I have written Bush in February 2006 telling him to stop torturing me with his weapons and he did not stop and still, February 1,2009, has not stopped. I have been to the FBI, the local police, written my Senators, written the news media and everyone is numb. They are numb because it isn’t happening to them; therefore they don’t care. I know where this Direct Energy Weaapon use is going and it’s headed for a horrible country like China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yeman, Egypt; all those countries that act like Hitler. Please help in some way to help me to get the government to stop the use of these weapons on me. There are other weapons they use such as microwave ultrasonic weapons. All of these are used from military and police aircraft. Please see ifl you can reach out to your members and let’s start a network to expose what the white house is doing. Obama had nominated a man named Lynn, Sr. to run the U*ndersecretary of Defense Office and he came from the largest contractor to produce these direct energy weapons in the u.s. Help!
    Jeannie