 | REX 84 & the Operation Garden Plot Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a plan by the United States federal government to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of massive civil unrest or national emergency. Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen periodically. Plans for roundups of persons in the United States in times of crisis are constructed during periods of increased political repression such as the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy Era. For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list. According to scholar Diana Reynolds: The Rex-84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Exercise Plan; otherwise known as a continuity of government plan), indicates that FEMA in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies conducted a civil readiness exercise during April 5-13, 1984. It was conducted in coordination and simultaneously with a Joint Chiefs exercise, Night Train 84, a worldwide military command post exercise (including Continental U.S. Forces or CONUS) based on multi-emergency scenarios operating both abroad and at home. In the combined exercise, Rex-84 Bravo, FEMA and DOD led the other federal agencies and departments, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Veterans Administration through a gaming exercise to test military assistance in civil defense. The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was authorization for the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of martial rule. Existence of a master military contingency plan, "Garden Plot" and a similar earlier exercise, "Lantern Spike" were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in "Garden Plot and the New Action Army." Rex 84 was mentioned during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported on by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987. A number of websites and alternative publications that span the political spectrum have hypothesized upon the basic material about Rex 84, and in many cases hyperbolized it into a form of urban legend or conspiracy theory. Rex 84 is sometimes cited as an extension of the fictional King Alfred Plan, a strategy to detain African Americans. Nonetheless, the basic facts about Rex 84 and other contingency planning readiness exercises--and the potential threat they pose to civil liberties if fully implemented in a real operation--are taken seriously by scholars and civil liberties activists. |
 | Exterior Building Cleaning Ken Barlow Cleaning System video of exterior building cleaning method. KBCS is the nation's leading exterior cleaning company for large industrial projects. Buildings such as the US Pentagon, the world's largest office building, were cleaned using our far superior state-of-the-art technology, as well as the National Institute of Health, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the US Treasury Buildings in Washington, DC, to name only a few. |
 | Drugs Inc.: Lies and Law Reinforcements pt.3/5 The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934; is a United States federal law passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons. The Act was passed after the repeal of Prohibition, and it mandates that transfers of the covered firearms across state lines be reported to the Department of the Treasury (this function has since been transferred to the Department of Justice). The transfer tax of $200 placed on the transfer of firearms controlled by the Act was roughly equivalent to five months' salary in 1934. --------------------------------------- In the United States, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, was an insignificant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis based on big business interests that took advantage of the political climate of racism and anti-drug rhetoric to close the free market to hemp products. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by "Drug Czar" Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp or marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions and a complex Regulation 1 codifying the elaborate rules of enforcement marijuana cannabis or hemp handlers were subject to. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by U.S Marines; the hemp was used as a substitute for other raw materials that were blocked by Japan. The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[1] and hearings [2]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death". Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments. By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed. The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp reporting that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km²), to 1,200 acres (5 km²), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[3] In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[4] In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[5] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[6]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act. Although modern America uses the spelling "marijuana", in keeping with the most common spelling, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt11 Part 11 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Jon Kyl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: KYL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, as I understand it -- and I'm going to ask you to correct me if I'm wrong, to your knowledge -- the administration position on Guantanamo Bay is that, while it would be nice if we didn't have the need for it and we'd like to be able to close it, we can't because the terrorists who represent a threat to the United States need to be held somewhere and there are no better alternatives. KYL: Almost nobody wants them in the United States. You can't just let them go. Sending them to foreign countries is problematic, among other reasons for the reasons you discussed. Is that your understanding? And, if not, what is your understanding? GONZALES: Yes. KYL: Do you have any different reasons for desiring to close Gitmo, for example, because to your knowledge or suspicion, is there anything going on down there that might be a violation of either U.S. law or applicable treaties or conventions? GONZALES: Quite the contrary. I think if people who have gone down there in this body, from the House, other countries, have come away favorably impressed with what's going on down there. KYL: I just want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Hatch. It would be nice if we didn't have to have any prisons for that matter. And it would certainly be good if we didn't have to have a place for these threats to America. But they do have to be held somewhere, and I know of no better alternative than where they're being held right now. Let me ask you this question about a matter that you know I'm very interested in -- and as a matter of fact in a related, potentially related, matter, there is a scandal now brewing with regard to the National Basketball Association. Sports entities, in particularly the NFL, major league baseball, basketball, the NCAA -- amateur athletics, have for a long time been concerned about Internet betting, which is illegal under most state laws and we have our federal laws as well. You have -- and you're aware that on October 13th the president signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to augment enforcement efforts by targeting offshore gambling operations that are not readily subject to U.S. prosecution. KYL: There are additional, existing laws -- the Federal Wire Act and money laundering laws that can be and have been used to go after these Internet gambling operators. I realize that you can't comment on any existing cases, but I'd like for you to just express to the committee generally what your views are with respect to the department's intentions with respect to going after these illegal Internet gambling operations. GONZALES: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your leadership on this issue. We do believe it's a serious issue because, when you talk about Internet gambling, it's highly-addictive. Quite frankly, I think it affects our youth. I think it can be tied to money laundering and fraud, and we think it's tied to organized crime. There are existing laws on the books, and we can and do enforce those laws. There are challenges because of the existing laws, challenges because, much of the time, the evidence is offshore. We may have difficulty in getting the evidence. Also, because it involves another country, there are sometimes serious issues of extradition. So we appreciate the additional tools of this Unlawful Internet Gambling Act which bans certain financial payments to support Internet Gambling. And, as you know, Treasury and the Federal Reserve have primary responsibility for the issuance of these regulations after consulting with the Department of Justice. We've provided input, and so my understanding is that those regs are moving forward. KYL: The regs -- the proposed regs have been made public. My question really was a broader one. You have engaged in prosecutions under other laws as well, and I was simply giving you an opportunity to express your intentions to continue to enforce all of these laws to the extent that they need to be enforced. GONZALES: We certainly intend to do that, and you have my commitment, Senator. KYL: Incidentally, I may have not been clear in my reference to the NBA. I'm not suggesting that there's evidence of illegal Internet gambling with respect to that, but simply wanted to point out that these sports depend on the public's view that they are unadulterated, that they're clean, that they are not being affected by illegal forces. And that's why they're so supportive of this legislation, to make sure that illegal Internet gambling does not, in any way, intrude into those sports. And I think Americans have a right to have that assurance. Mr. Attorney General, the FBI is facing a mounting caseload of applications from foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States or to adjust status. The FBI, of course, does background checks, but there is a huge backlog, as you know. What technologies or resources can Congress secure for the FBI to ensure that's it's able to timely process applications without compromising the safety and security of the American people? GONZALES: This is a problem that I have discussed with the director. You're talking about background checks, individuals from other countries. It does take us a long time in some cases, because of the fact it requires us to get information and records from other countries. I know that the director is focused on trying to get additional resources, additional individuals, maybe contract work out to helping in this endeavor. And so he's also looking at new computer system technology, taking advantage of technology... KYL: Let me just interrupt because of the time. There's a huge backlog. It shouldn't exist. Do we need to provide additional resources, Congress? GONZALES: I don't know whether or not additional resources are required from the Congress. I do know that additional resources within the bureau have to be focused on this issue. And it may be -- the director may come to me and say, "Well, if we do that, we're not going to be able to protect America from terrorism the way we ought to be in other areas." And so I don't know the answer to that. But certainly more resources are necessary. We may already have the resources within the bureau. I suspect the director will say no. KYL: We need to know if there's something else we can do, because you cannot compromise security and we cannot tolerate the long backlogs that currently exist. So something needs to give here. And if it is that we need more resources, Congress needs to be advised. Let me quickly, while I have just a second, ask one final question. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection -- DHS reports that 16 percent of foreign nationals apprehended illegally crossing the southern border have criminal histories. That's about 140,000 individuals in the year 2005. And if that's not alarming enough, DOJ and the GAO indicate that criminal aliens in the U.S. are re-arrested on an average of six to eight times per offender, which puts a huge strain on both federal, state and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts and our jails. Is the Department of Justice undertaking any initiatives with DHS to proactively identify and prosecute and remove criminal aliens? And, here again, is there any authority or resource that Congress needs to provide to DOJ to assist in the prosecution of these criminal aliens? GONZALES: I think that, quite candidly, Senator, if you were to talk to my board of U.S. attorneys, they would say we need more resources. And so, we're always looking at ways to try to find those resources within the existing budget. Obviously the president has to consider a number of priorities with respect to the budget that he submits to the Congress. And the Congress, of course, ultimately makes the decision as to where those priorities should come out. But we're having to be smart. We're trying to have -- to be more efficient. But it does present or has presented some challenges for us. KYL: In effect -- Mr. Chairman, could I just do one follow-up question? In effect, are you saying... LEAHY: Go ahead. KYL: ... you understand the president's budget priorities and needs all across the government but, if more resources could be made available to you, you could certainly take advantage of them, could certainly use them? GONZALES: We certainly would put them to good use. LEAHY: Of course, you're also aware that the president said if we put any money in there beyond what he's asked for, he'll veto the bill? |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
