Privatized Prisons for Immigrants: The Expansion Continues

Libertad ⇒ “Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny.” — (Emiliano Zapata's letter to Pancho Villa)

Since the launch of the “global war on terror,” a large majority of Americans have conveniently been led to cower under the pseudo-protective umbrella of a permanent Nation Security State. Last year I wrote several posts about the current prison-industrial complex and the increasing number of privatized prisons being used to house thousands of detained immigrants. The rise of the prison-industrial complex is one the most disturbing things going on in this country. According to a recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics - released on June 30, 2006 and revised in July 2007 - there are over 2 million people behind bars in the United States.

At the time of the report, there were about 180,000 in federal custody, 1.2 million in state custody, and 760,000 in local jails. The BJS statistics also reported there were over 90,000 immigrants (both documented and undocumented) who were held over 12 months by three jurisdictions: the Federal system housed 33,701; California housed 15,849; and Texas housed 9,227.

In a recent “year in review” report, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had rounded up more than 30,000 immigrants - doubling the number from last year. According to Detention Watch Network, a D.C. based advocacy group, more than 186,600 immigrants were deported in 2006. However, more disturbingly, in 2007, ICE had detained more than 300,000 immigrants. These frightening statistics only confirm this country’s commitment to lock up an insurmountable amount of people; and the reality of it all, this is an integral part of the globalization of capital.

Prison Construction Continues to Mushroom
Private prisons are changing the face of American incarceration. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like winning the lottery. Analysts say profit margins are higher at detention centers than prisons, according to a 2006 New York Times article. The explosive growth in the detention business has drawn many cities and counties to partner these corporations in exchange for lucrative federal contracts.

Last month, Louisiana-based Emerald Correctional Management LLC made a pitch to the Caldwell Commissioners Court to build a $30 million, 1,000-bed private detention center in Central Texas. The proposed facility would be built between Lytton Springs and Dale, about 30 miles southeast of Austin. ICE would house men and women separately. In November, Homeland Security agreed to pay Los Angles County $51 million to house 1,400 immigrants at the Mira Loma Detention Center, making it the largest facility of its kind in California. According to the contract obtained by the Daily Journal, County officials will charge the Homeland Security $100.09 a day to house a detainee.

One week before Christmas, the city of Aurora, Colorado held a town meeting to debate the proposed plan to expand the existing 400-bed facility, Aurora ICE Processing Center, into a 1,500-bed center, making it the second largest detention center. The largest is located in Raymondville, TX with 2,000-beds. The Aurora ICE Processing Center is run and operated by the Geo Group (formerly known as the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation). According to Geo, the facility can currently hold up to “400 males, females, children (unsentenced).” The detainees being held in the Aurora Processing Center are the immigrants that have been picked up from Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Utah.

In order to diffuse the tension that was beginning to build up in Aurora, Carl Rusnok, a spokesman for ICE, made sure to state that ICE had no influence in GEO’s decision to expand their facility and that there is “no guarantee” that ICE would require an additional “1,100 beds at the Aurora facility.”

Recently, the Miami Herald reported on the military’s plan to build a tent encampment to detain up to 45,000 migrants seeking asylum in the event of a Caribbean migrant crisis. Last May, at a cost of $16.5 million, “the Navy hired a Jacksonville contractor to build concrete buildings with 525 toilets and 248 showers on an empty corner of the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.”

This is part of a larger plan by Homeland Security, dubbed “Operation Vigilant Sentry.” Vigilant Sentry is a massive operation that also includes federal, state and local law enforcement agencies “to thwart a mass influx of boat people fleeing political upheaval or natural disaster in the Caribbean.”

According to Reuters, part of the encampment was finished a few years ago. The site can currently “hold up to 400 migrants in tents and cots stored in shipping containers on the base. A barbed-wire fence separates it from a neighboring galley and bar.” Reuters is also reporting that is will cost the federal government $110 million to finish the site.

However, one must be concern if the Bush administration is planning to replicate Australia’s use of ‘offshore’ processing camps - infamously known as the ‘Pacific Solution’ - to process all asylum claims. Adopted in 2001 by the Howard Government, the ‘Pacific Solution’ was the name given to Australia’s immigration policy to detain all asylum seekers who arrive independently, without permission to offshore detention centers in the Pacific Ocean such as Christmas Island, the tiny island nation of Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island until it can process their asylum requests.

The Pacific Solution has been criticized by human rights groups and by the UN. Asylum-seekers in offshore processing centers had no recourse to the appeals system available in Australia. Part of the policy included mandatory detention for adults and children seeking asylum for the duration of their processing by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). Particular concerns have been expressed by many over the detention of children in Australia’s Immigration Detention Centers. Although the US military did not mention if the new site will also house the children of asylum seekers, one does have to wonder what will happen to the children once the asylum seekers are captured by the Coast Guard.

If so, it would be wise for this government to also take note of the latest developments regarding Australia’s Pacific Solution. During the latter months of 2007, the newly elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, began dismantling the discredited policy. Rudd confirmed that the detention centers on Manus Island and on Nauru would be closed.

Influencing Incarceration
The private prison industry exerts whatever pressure it can to encourage state legislators to privatize state prisons. The rise of modern prison privatization was based on the notion that government was doing a poor job of incarceration. The phenomenon of private prisons and their corollary industries, private inmate transportation, private inmate food services and private inmate medical services, came into the public eye in the mid-1980s, when the fledgling Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) opened its first detention center in Houston, TX. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (now Geo Group), the prison-management division of global security giant Wackenhut Security, entered the market soon after. These developments drew little attention, but this changed in 1985 and 1986 when governments began to contract with private firms to operate secure facilities that functioned as county jails and state prisons.

For too long now, the American public has looked on in despair or resignation as private corporations shape public policies to advance the interests of their industry, often at the expense of the common good. Nearly, 50 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of “a permanent arms industry of vast proportions” in addressing the looming “military-industrial complex.” While the former general was well aware of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, he also was well aware that war profiteers in the US had their own agendas, too.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

What makes this industry so complex is that it’s comprised of think tanks, former corporate executives, consultants and shareholders of top US defense companies “who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government.” Subsidized by the Complex, pro-war think tanks have become a major force in promoting our current (Afghanistan and Iraq) and upcoming (Iran) wars. Billions of dollars are sent, without hearings and often unquestioned because they’re ostensibly for “defense,” to Congressional districts across the country. This process, of course, fuels incumbent campaigns for re-election.

The fact is, politicians, regardless of party affiliations march to the drums played by US multinational corporations who fund their political careers. As we try to understand the prison industrial complex, we have to look at all of these pieces together.

Like the military-industrial complex, the prison industrial complex is also a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of the actual need. One of the principal mechanisms used to advance their cause comes from a little-known organization called the American Legislative Council (ALEC), a conservative public policy think tank with members that include private corporations, trade organizations, and 2,400 state and federal legislators. ALEC’s primary function is to draft model legislation for legislator-members to take back to their home jurisdictions and do their best to turn into law; it’s essentially a forum for corporations and government to “co-author” laws.

In 2000, over 3,100 bills based on ALEC’s model legislation were introduced into legislatures by its members, with 450 such bills signed into law. According to ALEC itself, the most productive of ALEC’s various divisions is the Criminal Justice and Homeland Security Task Force, which has passed its model legislation into real laws. Due in large part to these laws, the population of incarcerated Americans has risen dramatically from 740,000 prisoners in 1985 to more than 2.2 million in 2006. Although ALEC takes care to obscure the role played by corporations standing to benefit from its legislative initiatives, it comes as no surprise that both CCA and Geo Group have been private-sector members of ALEC, that both have been among its major benefactors of ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Force. It is also important to note that CCA executives have co-chaired Criminal Justice Task Force for many years.

It is hard to say what role, if any, CCA and/or Geo Group has played in the drafting and promoting of ALEC-sponsored legislation aimed at expanding our prison population. However, one thing is for certain, each company pays thousands of dollars in annual membership dues for a seat at the drafting table with influential legislators. While some try to downplay the idea that government has been taken over by powerful special interests, the simple fact is that for-profit prison operators need to maintain a steady flow of prisoners in order to prosper.

Politics is the only reason the Bush Administration feels bound to continue with a policy that is demonstrably inhumane and unjust. It has exploited our broken immigration system and manufactured a political crisis by demonizing immigrants. Today, the calculated and ubiquitous use of pejorative rhetorical descriptors define every element of the government’s framing of the immigration issue - “terrorist,” “Muslim” “illegal,” “etc” - a process that only serves to establish a socially accepted discourse around racism and the repression of all people of color, whether they live in the US or not. The prison industrial complex is profiting from an evil in the US that neither Democrats nor Republicans will seek to remedy.

The corporate will has replaced the will and conscience of the people. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to their constituency. How many people must be restrained, denied human dignity, treated as inhuman for society to finally wake up? How many people must be detained under the name of so-called safety and morality for society to finally realize our society is inching toward totalitarianism?

Immigration reform should not lie in an uncompromising policy of deterrence based on detention as a form of collective punishment but on treating those who arrive unlawfully with compassion and justice. Nor does it lie in a draconian system, which is costly and difficult to enforce, but more importantly perpetuates the inhumane elements of a flawed system that has undermined the integrity of this country.

It is not in this country’s best interests to deprive people of their dignity and the right to earn a living. This can only reduce them to a state of fragility that will leave them ill-equipped to make sensible decisions about their future. Further, it seriously undermines their integration into society as strong, independent and resourceful citizens with existing and beneficial links to the community.

By definition, human rights are universal; however, by detaining these unfortunate immigrants, this country not only has isolated them from society but also has deemed them unworthy of the most basic human rights. As a result, this country now faces a legal and moral crisis of such monstrous dimensions that it threatens our centuries-old understanding of human rights, of what is fair, humane and just.

There is much to be done to help reunite these people with their families and to heal their fractured minds and broken spirits. Now is the time to demand that this country show the same care and compassion to all immigrants whether they arrive on these shores armed with the relevant visa or not. Seeking a better life is a human right, not a crime.

functional

5 Responses to “Privatized Prisons for Immigrants: The Expansion Continues”

5 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the Comments (RSS) feed.

Barbara Lee: A look back to 2001

Alone on the Hill

Barbara Lee

News: Self-described 'Army brat' Barbara Lee explains why she cast Congress' only vote against giving the president a free hand to attack suspected terrorists.

"It was a vote of conscience," says California Democratic Representative Barbara Lee.

On September 15, the US Congress approved a resolution authorizing President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11. The measure passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. The lone dissenting vote was a colonel's daughter and longtime maverick from California -- Democrat Barbara Lee.

"I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States," Lee said on the House floor on Sept. 15. "There must be some of us who say, 'Let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today -- let us more fully understand the consequences.'"

In the emotionally charged aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Lee's lone vote of dissent brought gridlock to the telephone system in her Capitol Hill office and threats against her life. In the wake of the vote, the Capitol Police assigned a detail of plainclothes officers to guard Lee 24 hours a day.

Lee, whose congressional district includes the liberal bastions of Berkeley and Oakland, is a former social worker who got her start in politics as an aide to legendary progressive Rep. Ron Dellums. When Dellums retired in 1998, Lee won his seat; she was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

Lee, the daughter of a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army, insists that she isn't a pacifist. Inevitably, however, she has been compared to Jeanette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, who in 1917 voted against the United States's entry into World War I and, later in her career, voted against declaring war on Japan in the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

This is not the first time Lee has taken a lonely stand against military action. In 1998, she was one of only five members of the House to vote against authorizing the bombing of Iraq over its refusal to allow weapons inspections by the United Nations. In 1999, she was the only member of the House to vote against sending US forces into Yugoslavia. Lee spoke with MotherJones.com on Sept. 19.

Mother Jones: I read that you made up your mind as you were sitting in the National Cathedral during the prayer service for the victims. You listened, as so many Americans did, to the dean of the National Cathedral as he prayed that "as we act, we not become the evil we deplore." At that moment, you said, you knew what you had to do.

Barbara Lee: Well, the vote was a very agonizing vote. Like the nation, I'm grieving and searching, in mourning, angry, trying to sort through all my feelings. I think everyone is doing that. And of course the memorial service was a time to really stop and reflect on all those who so tragically died, the victims and their families, and what an appropriate testimonial to them would be. ... And so in that context I was listening to the members of the clergy, searching to try and see if I could find some direction and clarity. You know, in moments like these -- when you're agonizing, when you're uncertain in terms of the ramifications of any very serious actions that you're going to take -- you have to go within, and use your head and your heart, and all the faculties that you have, to try to make decisions. And so, as I thought about that one line in the prayer, I said, "You know, this is the right vote -- you've got to vote no."

MJ: Did you know before casting your vote that you were likely to be the only dissenting member of Congress?

Lee: Oh, no -- I did not know that. Many members have these same concerns. The use of restraint is of concern to a lot of them. We don't want to see this spiral out of control; we don't want to see the cycle of violence continue.

We all agree that we've got to bring these terrorists to justice and to make sure that they're never allowed to perpetrate such an evil act as they did. And so all of us are dealing with that. We know that the President has the authority to go to war under the War Powers Act. The Congress has a responsibility to provide the checks and balances and to exercise some oversight. I don't believe that we should disenfranchise the people of America in the war-making decision-making process. At least minimally, we should be able to know which nation we're planning to attack and have some input into that. We should know what the exit strategy is. I'm not talking about all the details of a war plan, but certainly we should have more than a five-hour debate. To me, that's just not the best way to make public policy.

I'm convinced that Congress's role in this is to look at every dimension of international terrorism and to help develop a strategy to combat it, to stamp it out, and ensure the safety of our country. That's why I voted for the $40 billion [disaster recovery and antiterrorism package]. You know, some people don't think I should have voted for that. But I'm convinced that we've got to secure our airports, finance anti-terrorism programs, and provide the resources needed to deal with this -- as well as to help the communities recover, and the families of the victims.

Some people were calling me un-American and all that. I know that I'm unified with our country. I feel and I know that my actions are as American as anyone else's. I'm trying to preserve the people's right to have some kind of oversight and some say in the cycle of violence that could occur if we go into war without an end in sight.

MJ: Were you prepared, coming off the floor of the House, for what was to follow? I read, for example, that you have been assigned bodyguards.

Lee: I knew when I realized that I was the only "no" vote that there'd be a lot of attention. But it wasn't a calculated vote. It was a vote of conscience. So I had not planned what the consequences were. You know, people are angry, they're frustrated. I try to explain my position, but there are some people who are just angry, and that's understandable. But I believe that many people in our country -- in the way the e-mails, the faxes, and letters are coming in -- are beginning to understand what the use of restraint means. And believe me, they understand when you explain that this resolution gives up a congressional role in declaring war against a sovereign nation. And that's a fact, that's what this does. ... And that does not mean that you don't want these terrorists to come to justice, that you don't want to stamp out terrorism. That's not even a question.

I believe that the fervor and the pain of the moment have caused people, understandably, to react emotionally. And all I'm saying is that Congress should step back. Congress has got to be the body of government that does that. We are not the CIA, we are not the FBI, we are not the White House, we are not the Defense Department. We are the United States Congress; we have our role. And we can't give up that role during a national-security crisis. The President already has his role and his authority to do what he needs to do. We do have a unique position, and our Constitution demands it. And for those of us who love America and consider ourselves good Americans, pro-Americans, waving the flag, we want to preserve that democracy, especially in times of crisis, and we want to preserve civil liberties, and we know and understand that it's got to be balanced with public safety. Because we've got to secure the country, make sure that lives are not lost, and ensure that none of our actions create a spiral that could get out of control.

MJ: Do you feel, after the initial blast of anger, that you're hearing more from people who are in support of your position?

Lee: I think it's changed. We're keeping really good tabs on e-mails and calls. We haven't, of course, sorted through all of them, but nationally they're running, I think, 60, 70 percent support, and in my district we're up to 80 percent.

MJ: Do you think that our civil liberties are in danger in the aftermath of this tragedy? There's talk, for example, of changing the wiretap laws.

Lee: I think that there's going to be a rush to judgment on civil liberties, and a clamping down, a suspension of our democratic rights. And I believe that those who are good Americans would want to see this not happen and that we debate how to find a balance between the public safety and the protection of civil liberties. But if you have a five-hour debate, a rush to judgment, on a bill that Attorney General [John] Ashcroft puts forward, and you don't give the Congress any political support to oppose that or to provide ways to ensure this balance, you're in for a very scary period. We've got to be vigilant.

MJ: Do you think there are enough members of Congress who are concerned about the civil-liberties issues?

Lee: I hope so. ... Somehow the public -- once we bury our dead and get out of this mourning period -- has got to be on the Congress consistently with regard to their input into this. We gave away that franchise in the resolution on war-making powers. But on civil liberties, it's not too late.

MJ: Have any of your colleagues been angry with you?

Lee: Oh, no. Even Republicans with whom I disagree ideologically have told me that even though they really disagree with my vote they at least know that I believe in something. Many very conservative members have been quite respectful. I think that they all are struggling through this. This was not any vote I cast to demonstrate any hostility toward any person or party or the Administration.

MJ: Last Friday night, on the House floor, you cited Wayne Morse, one of two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam. You quoted Morse as saying, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." Then you added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today." But don't you think that there's a loss of institutional memory on Capitol Hill, that there are Members of Congress who would say, "Wayne who?"

Lee: Oh, yes. So much today is poll-driven. You know, we need people to become empowered at this moment, now that our civil liberties are being eroded. We need people to become more involved in the political process. I believe that firmly.

I wish the press were paying more attention to the erosion of the Constitution and the slippery slope that we're getting into, by giving up the right of the Congress to talk about when and how and where we go to war. I don't think that's been covered enough, and it should be. That's an important right to preserve in a state of national crisis such as this.

Looking at HR 1528, Sensenbrenner's FASCISM

You've Been Drafted: Uncle Sam Wants You for the War on Drugs

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

I want to thank the over 4,400 people who have sent emails to their Representatives opposing Congressman Sensenbrenner's draconian mandatory minimum sentencing bill. This bill is now garnering national attention.

This bill would have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

We need your help to fight this bill, including your ideas.

We alerted you last week to the bill, entitled "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" (H.R. 1528). Thousands of you have faxed Congress in opposition to the bill and we've already raised $2,000 online to fight it. Thank you!

We already told you about many of the terrible provisions in this legislation, but we are especially concerned about a section of the bill that turns every American into an agent of the state. Here's how it works:

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.

Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

• You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.
• Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.
• You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.
• Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

In each of these cases you face jail time if you don't call the police within 24 hours. It doesn't matter if the offender is your friend or relative. It also doesn't matter if you need 48 hours to think about it. You have to report the person to the government within 24 hours or go to jail. You also have to assist the government in every way, including wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to cooperate would cost you at least two years in prison (possibly up to ten). In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.

This is what we're up against in Congress and, as I told you last week, it's not going to be easy. Sensenbrenner, the chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee, usually gets what he wants. Lots of people are afraid to challenge him. But we have a duty to our children to stop our country from turning into a police state. I'm sure you feel this duty, as well.

Here's what you can do:

• If you haven't already, please e-mail your member of Congress.
• Send us your creative ideas. How can we galvanize the American people against this bill? Email actionfeedback@drugpolicy.org .
• If you didn't give money last week, please give today. Even $25 goes a long way (for instance, $25 will allow 100 voters to fax their members of Congress in opposition to this bill.)
• Submit a letter-to-the-editor to your local paper urging your member of Congress to oppose the bill.
• Send this email to everyone you know. Unless tens of thousands of Americans speak up this bill could become law. It's already passed out of subcommittee. The sponsor is now trying to line up the votes he needs to get it out of the full committee. From there it goes to the floor for a full House vote.

The provision that would turn Americans into spies is not the only thing wrong with this bill. Read the full text of HR 1528 and learn more.

Sincerely,

Bill Piper
Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

Preparedness

Connecting the dots; everyone is doing it

Can these dots we've seen (and I've blogged one at a time) be logically fit together? A great blogger points out they do all fit together; but what would be the motive when BuZh and Cheney get their way on all things already?

Are we being tested, as with the B52 'incident', are we just being made totally insane with anxiety and waiting for the shoe to drop, are these totally, utterly madmen in control with no redeeming social features? Heres' one man's recent word coinage, PREPARDEDNESS. -V

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Preparedness

One of the many "unprecedented" features of the Bush administration's domestic policy has been its drive in using US military forces within the territorial United States. We certainly saw the push to bring in military force in under martial law after Katrina, when Bush infamously tried to "wrest authority" of Louisiana from that state's governor. Shortly after this effort, he then further requested that Congress repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This latter request he made, not in response the chaotic conditions in post-hurricane New Orleans, indeed, not specifically for that situation at all, but, rather, for some imagined avian flu epidemic, which his administration felt would need a forceful military response. There is hardly any situation the Bush administration imagines that should not be met with a forceful military response and, perhaps sensing this, neither effort produced the desired resultant at the time.

Which doesn't mean that White House efforts ended there. For, in conjunction with the Military Commisions Act of 2006, which scrapped habeas corpus, the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, also passed merrily by Congress, effectively repealed posse comitatus. Given the proper circumstances, these two dispensations now allow Bush to toss anyone in prison without judicial review and can use the US military -- on US soil -- to do it. But what, exactly, would have to happen for such circumstances to present themselves?

In May of 2007, the White House issued NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51, signed by George Bush . This document lays the foundation for Bush to ensure "continuity of Federal Government structures and operations" -- a phrase that is truly state of the art in its ambiguity. Bush will ensure this continuity in the event of a "catastrophic emergency," a calamity defined as "any incident" that can or may result in

extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

Within two months of the signing of this directive, the Department of the Treasury, of all things, held a "disaster drill" in Tampa, Fl. for some also-imagined disaster in order to ensure that financial institutions could "rebound" in the face of, to borrow a phrase from the above directive, a "disruption severely affecting the ... economy." A month after this drill and after DHS chief Michael Chertoff declared that his "gut" was sensing something ominous, United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) announced plans to hold a five day session for "federal responders" and others that will

exercise their response abilities against a variety of potential threats during Exercise Vigilant Shield ‘08.

VS-08, as it is called, is described as

the nation’s premier exercise of terrorism preparedness sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security, and several other linked exercises as part of the National Level Exercise 1-08. These linked exercises will take place October 15-20 and are being conducted throughout the United States...

Much of this wordage is obviously and purposefully vague.

On top of all this preparedness, the US government also employs religion to quell popular resistance and has established "clergy response teams," using chaplains to convince people to submit because, according to Romans 13, "the government is established by the Lord." (click through and watch the KSLA news report.)

This is an interesting convergence of activity, not the least of which is the release of the latest "bin Laden" video, especially in light of the extremely negative performance, not only of Wall Street, but of the economy as a whole. The latest jobs report, which detailed a net loss of jobs for the first time in five years, combined with the further pummeling stocks and the US dollar are receiving, all spell nothing but gloom. Given the various federal directives and exercises planned or currently implemented, it is not hard to imagine that almost any "disruption" could be co-opted, claiming such a disruption, however Bush defines it, is "severely affecting the economy."

Now, I know this all sounds rather conspiratorial and, frankly, the one thing that is missing is motive. I cannot for the life of me understand why any administration would gear up for martial law and salivate at the thought of imprisoning who knows how many people. I just don't see the upside of any of this. What is the point? With toadies installed throughout the federal government and a compliant Congress, the Bush administration is pretty much doing whatever it wants anyway, so why bother creating conditions like this? Surely Bush and Cheney have realized that, if they haven't been tossed out already for lying the country into war and killing and maiming tens of thousands of Americans, chances are there isn't much else they can do to bestir any sense of outrage among the American population.

Besides, if one thing is guaranteed to rile up a population, it is arbitrary arrest and detention by a military that was not supposed to be used against citizens. Though, considering the gitmo-like state many Katrina victims live in at the moment -- with no end in sight -- I'm not even sure that would do it, so dull and bedimmed do Americans seem right now.

Perhaps to most megalomaniacs, martial law and the US military are nice tools to have at one's disposal, but I don't see the complacent population of this country suddenly rising up in any sense of that phrase, unless, of course, many of them start getting arrested and arbitrarily thrown into Halliburton detention centers. The whole notion is ultimately destined to defeat itself. Besides, once the clergy are dispatched to calm the rabble, we'll all be sucking thumbs and rocking in a corner, praising Jesus. I'm sure of it.

Perhaps, in the most diabolical sense, the whole thing, the whole blasted surveillance police-state is a McGuffin; something designed to look important and especially nefarious, while the real plot continues merrily along.

I wish I knew.

posted by theBhc at 3:08 PM