WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [1].
You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE [3].
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work. [4]
Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES [5].
FTR #1126 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment. [6]
Introduction: We begin a series of programs highlighting various aspects of the “three-dimensional chess” aspect of the Covid-19 “bio-psy-op” we feel is underway. Actually six or seven dimensional chess might be a better way of expressing this analytical concept.
It is of paramount importance for listeners/readers to understand that the conceptual breakdown is for cognitive clarity only. The bio-psy-op” is multi-dimensional in its entirety and must be understood to be a type of “fascist/totalitarian lasagna” with many layers to be consumed.
In this program, we present ways in which the Covid-19 outbreak is subverting democracy, both inside and outside of the United States.
Although he has only flirted with exercising them, to date, Trump does indeed have some emergency powers [7] that can be invoked to further his agenda” ” . . . . The most notable aspect of presidential emergency action documents might be their extreme secrecy. It’s not uncommon for the government to classify its plans or activities in the area of national security. . . . By contrast, we know of no evidence that the executive branch has ever consulted with Congress — or even informed any of its members — regarding the contents of presidential emergency action documents. . . . That is a dangerous state of affairs. The coronavirus pandemic is fast becoming the most serious crisis to face this country since World War II. And it is happening under the watch of a president who has claimed [8] that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want.’ It is not far-fetched to think that we might see the deployment of these documents for the first time and that they will assert presidential powers beyond those granted by Congress or recognized by the courts as flowing from the Constitution. . . .”
Next, we add that the Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse is spawning totalitarian manifestations–not surprisingly–at the Department of Justice [9] headed by “ex” CIA officer William Barr. ” . . . . The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus — the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release. ‘Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ‘So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.’ . . .”
It will come as no surprise to veteran listeners, the Pentagon has contingency plans [10] for varying degrees of governmental and/or civic disability. ” . . . . But Coronavirus is also new territory, where the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law. . . .”
The military’s contingency plans have been partially activated [11]: ” . . . . While being hit with coronavirus at rates equivalent to the civilian population, the U.S. military has activated its ‘defense support of civil authorities’ apparatus, establishing liaisons in all 50 states, activating units and command posts, and moving forces to provide medical, transportation, logistics, and communications support in New York and Washington states. Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson, the command of Army North (ARNORTH), has requested and received approval for the deployment of ground units in response to the now declared national emergency. . . .”
We note, in passing, that, although not in effect at this point, discussion of “martial law” are far more than just social media fodder, to coin a term. ” . . . . Because of so many rumors flying in social media, the Pentagon established a ‘rumor control’ website to beat down stories of military-imposed quarantines and even martial law. And it said it was going to limit details of both the specific numbers of coronavirus cases and operational details. . . .”
Martial law discussion has been spurred by, among other things, Trump’s ruminations [12] about what he can and will do: “. . . . Earlier Saturday, Mr. Trump said that he is considering declaring an ‘enforceable’ quarantine affecting some residents of the New York metropolitan area, possibly including New Jersey and Connecticut. He called the region a ‘hot spot’ of the coronavirus outbreak [13] sweeping the country. . . . Mr. Trump reiterated in his remarks before the send off of the USNS Comfort [14] that he was considering a quarantine of the area. The Comfort is a naval hospital boat which is carrying over 1,000 beds and 1,200 medical personnel to New York City. . . . Using active duty troops to enforce a quarantine would require the president to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the armed services for law enforcement. . . .”
Trump has plenty of company [15]: ” . . . . In Hungary, a new law has granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. Mr. Orban, who declared a state of emergency this month, now has the sole power to end the emergency. Parliament, where two-thirds of the seats are controlled by his party, approved the legislation on Monday. . . .‘The draft law is alarming,’ said Daniel Karsai, a lawyer in Budapest who said the new legislation had created ‘a big fear’ among Hungarians that ‘the Orban administration will be a real dictatorship.’ . . .”
Orban’s Hungary has been joined by, among others, the long-standing British democracy: ” . . . . some of the provisions . . . . will give the government unchecked control. The legislation gives sweeping powers to border agents and the police, which could lead to indefinite detention and reinforce ‘hostile environment’ policies against immigrants, critics said. ‘Each clause could have had months of debate, and instead it’s all being debated in a few days,’ said Adam Wagner, a lawyer who advises a parliamentary committee on human rights. . . . ‘These are eye-watering powers that would have not been really imaginable in peacetime in this country before,’ said Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, a rights group. She called the measures ‘draconian.’ . . . .”
Privacy is being dramatically curtailed [16] under cover of combatting the virus: ” . . . . As Thomas Gaulkin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted [17] earlier this month, many Americans— often fierce in their objections to perceived government overreach into their lives—might normally object to dystopian images of flying robots policing lockdowns. But these, of course, are not normal times. ‘If drones do begin to hover over U.S. streets to help control this pandemic,’ Gaulkin wrote, ‘it will be yet another visible reminder that we’ve entered a public health Twilight Zone where Americans have no better option than to embrace what was once only imaginable, and never real.’ . . . ”
The alpha predator of the electronic surveillance landscape is Peter Thiel’s Palantir [18]. They have landed two key government contracts in connection with the Covid-19 outbreak:” . . . . Palantir, the $20 billion-valued Palo Alto tech company backed by Facebook-funder Peter Thiel, has been handed a $17.3 million contract with one of the leading health bodies leading the charge against COVID-19. It’s the biggest contract handed to a Silicon Valley company to assist America’s COVID-19 response, according to Forbes’ review of public contracts, and comes as other Californian giants like Apple and Google try to figure out how best to help governments fight the deadly virus. . . . The money, from the federal government’s COVID-19 relief fund, is for Palantir Gotham licenses, according to a contract record reviewed by Forbes. That technology is designed to draw in data from myriad sources and, regardless of what form or size, turn the information into a coherent whole. The ‘platform’ is customized for each client, so it meets with their mission needs, according to Palantir. . . . Palantir Gotham is slightly different to Foundry, a newer product that’s aimed more at general users rather than data science whizzes, with more automation than Gotham. As Forbes previously reported [19], Foundry is being used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ingest information from all manner of hospitals across America to see where best to provide more or less resource. . . . Palantir is now working with at least 12 governments on their responses to coronavirus, according to two sources with knowledge of its COVID-19 work. That includes the U.K.’s National Health Service, which is using Foundry for similar purposes as the CDC. . . .”
Exemplifying the multi-dimensional chess scenario in connection with the “bio-psy-op” is the GOP’s plan to use the Covid-19 outbreak to scapegoat China and tar the Democrats and Joe Biden with the same brush. Of particular note in this regard is the Steve Bannon‑J. Kyle Bass-Tommy Hicks, Jr. triumvirate discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112. [20]
At the epicenter of the anti-China effort, Bannon is networked with Bass, who is asymmetrically invested with regard to the Hong Kong and Chinese economies. Hicks, in turn, is a co-investor with Bass, co-chairman of the RNC, and one of the prime movers of the interagency governmental networks involved in the anti-China destabilization operation. This networked relationship affords investors like Bass and Hicks the ultimate position from which to profit from “insider” information.
The synthesis of covert operations and electoral politics reminds us of the 1952 election, in which Arthur Bliss Lane occupied a key position in the Crusade For Freedom, as well as the GOP. (We discussed this in AFA #37 [21], and utilized information from, among other sources, Blowback [22] by Christopher Simpson.
Exemplary, as well, of the bio-psy-op as synthesis of covert operation and political crusading is the GOP’s cynical manipulation of emergency appropriations to achieve their longstanding objective of crippling state and local governments, as well as driving the Postal Service into bankruptcy. Privatizing postal service has been a right-wing/GOP objective for a long time. ” . . . . Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows what is really happening: McConnell is trying to get more money for businesses while continuing to shortchange state and local governments. After all, “starve the beast” — forcing governments to cut services by depriving them of resources — has been Republican strategy for decades. This is just more of the same. . . . Oh, and Trump personally [23] has ruled out aid for the Postal Service. . . .”
1a. Although he has only flirted with exercising them, to date, Trump does indeed have some emergency powers that can be invoked to further his agenda” ” . . . . The most notable aspect of presidential emergency action documents might be their extreme secrecy. It’s not uncommon for the government to classify its plans or activities in the area of national security. . . . By contrast, we know of no evidence that the executive branch has ever consulted with Congress — or even informed any of its members — regarding the contents of presidential emergency action documents. . . . That is a dangerous state of affairs. The coronavirus pandemic is fast becoming the most serious crisis to face this country since World War II. And it is happening under the watch of a president who has claimed [8] that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want.’ It is not far-fetched to think that we might see the deployment of these documents for the first time and that they will assert presidential powers beyond those granted by Congress or recognized by the courts as flowing from the Constitution. . . .”
The past few weeks have given Americans a crash course in the powers that federal, state and local governments wield during emergencies. We’ve seen businesses closed down, citizens quarantined and travel restricted. When President Trump declared emergencies on March 13 under both the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act, he boasted, “I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about.”
The president is right. Some of the most potent emergency powers at his disposal are likely ones we can’t know about, because they are not contained in any publicly available laws. Instead, they are set forth in classified documents known as “presidential emergency action documents.”
These documents consist of draft proclamations, executive orders and proposals for legislation that can be quickly deployed to assert broad presidential authority in a range of worst-case scenarios. They are one of the government’s best-kept secrets. No presidential emergency action document has ever been released or even leaked. And it appears that none has ever been invoked.
Given the real possibility that these documents could make their first appearance in the coronavirus crisis, Congress should insist on having full access to them to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution and basic principles of democracy.
Presidential emergency action documents emerged during the Eisenhower administration as a set of plans to provide for continuity of government after a Soviet nuclear attack. Over time, they were expanded to include proposed responses to other types of emergencies. As described in one declassified government memorandum [24], they are designed “to implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations.”
Other government documents have revealed some of the actions that older presidential emergency action documents — those issued up through the 1970s — purported to authorize. These include suspension of habeas corpus by the president (not by Congress, as assigned in the Constitution), detention of United States citizens who are suspected of being “subversives,” warrantless searches and seizures and the imposition of martial law.
Some of these actions would seem unconstitutional, at least in the absence of authorization by Congress. Past presidential emergency action documents, however, have tested the line of how far presidents’ constitutional authority may stretch in an emergency.
For example, a Department of Justice memorandum from the Lyndon B. Johnson administration discusses a presidential emergency action document that would impose censorship on news sent abroad. The memo notes that while no “express statutory authority” exists for such a measure, “it can be argued that these actions would be legal in the aftermath of a devastating nuclear attack based on the president’s constitutional powers to preserve the national security.” It then recommends that the president seek ratifying legislation from Congress after issuing the orders.
Much less is known about the contents of more recent presidential emergency action documents — but we do know they exist. They undergo periodic revision to take into account new laws, conditions and concerns. The Department of Justice reviews the proposed changes for legal soundness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency plays a coordinating role and the National Security Council provides policy direction and final approval.
Based on budgetary requests from the Department of Justice to Congress and other documents, it appears that presidential emergency action documents were revised in the late 1980s, in the 2000s and again starting in 2012 and continuing into the Trump administration. The latest numbers available suggest there are between 50 and 60 such documents in existence.
There is no question that presidential emergency action documents could be used in a pandemic like that caused by the coronavirus. A 2006 Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum [25] addressed that agency’s plan under President Bush’s 2005 “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza [26].” The concern was how to maintain operations in response to a pandemic that proved to be “persistent, widespread, and prolonged.” The memo’s authors offered [27] the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 bullet points of actions, including to “review presidential emergency action documents” and “select those most likely to be needed” by the commission.
The most notable aspect of presidential emergency action documents might be their extreme secrecy. It’s not uncommon for the government to classify its plans or activities in the area of national security. However, even the most sensitive military operations or intelligence activities must be reported to at least some members of Congress. By contrast, we know of no evidence that the executive branch has ever consulted with Congress — or even informed any of its members — regarding the contents of presidential emergency action documents.
That is a dangerous state of affairs. The coronavirus pandemic is fast becoming the most serious crisis to face this country since World War II. And it is happening under the watch of a president who has claimed [8] that Article II of the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want.” It is not far-fetched to think that we might see the deployment of these documents for the first time and that they will assert presidential powers beyond those granted by Congress or recognized by the courts as flowing from the Constitution.
Even in the most dire of emergencies, the president of the United States should not be able to operate free from constitutional checks and balances. The coronavirus crisis should serve as a wake-up call. Presidential emergency action documents have managed to escape democratic oversight for nearly 70 years. Congress should move quickly to remedy that omission and assert its authority to review these documents, before we all learn just how far this administration believes the president’s powers reach.
Elizabeth Goitein is a co-director and Andrew Boyle is a lawyer at the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
1b. The Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse is spawning totalitarian manifestations, including–not surprisingly–at the Department of Justice headed by “ex” CIA officer William Barr.
The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States.
Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported [28] on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.
…
The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for [29] controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could deploy [30] right now to try to slow the coronavirus outbreak.
The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.
In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”
The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”
The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus — the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.
“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”
Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.
“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.
The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.
Trump recently declared [31] the coronavirus crisis a national emergency.
Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.
“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10©, again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”
Reimer said forcing people to have hearings over video rather than in person would threaten civil liberties.
“If it were with the consent of the accused person it would be fine,” he said. “But if it’s not with the consent of the accused person, it’s a terrible road to go down. We have a right to public trials. People have a right to be present in court.”
The department also wants Congress to change the law to explicitly say that people with COVID-19 — the illness caused by the novel coronavirus — are not included among those who may apply for asylum. And the department asked for the same change regarding people who are “subject to a presidential proclamation suspending and limiting the entry of aliens into the United States,” according to the draft legislative language.
Layli Miller-Muro, the CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, which advocates for women and girls fleeing violence, said the language would block anyone on a presidential travel ban list from seeking asylum in the U.S.
“I think it’s a humanitarian tragedy that fails to recognize that vulnerable people from those countries are among the most persecuted and that protecting them is exactly what the refugee convention was designed to do,” she said.
The asylum request comes as the Trump administration says it will begin denying entry to all migrants illegally crossing the U.S. southern border, including those seeking asylum.
“I hope we come out of this with a sense of oneness, interconnectedness,” Miller-Muro said of the coronavirus pandemic. “Borders can’t protect us. Viruses do not care.”
2. It will come as no surprise to veteran listeners, the Pentagon has contingency plans for varying degrees of governmental and/or civic disability. ” . . . . But Coronavirus is also new territory, where the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law. . . .”
Even as President Trump says he tested negative for coronavirus, the COVID-19 pandemic raises the fear that huge swaths of the executive branch or even Congress and the Supreme Court could also be disabled, forcing the implementation of “continuity of government” plans that include evacuating Washington and “devolving” leadership to second-tier officials in remote and quarantined locations.
But Coronavirus is also new territory, where the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called “extraordinary circumstances”.
Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law.
According to new documents and interviews with military experts, the various plans – codenamed Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac – are the underground laws to ensure government continuity. They are so secret that under these extraordinary plans, “devolution” could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America.
“We’re in new territory,” says one senior officer, the entire post‑9/11 paradigm of emergency planning thrown out the window. The officer jokes, in the kind of morbid humor characteristic of this slow-moving disaster, that America had better learn who Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy is.
He is the “combatant commander” for the United States and would in theory be in charge if Washington were eviscerated. That is, until a new civilian leader could be installed.
‘We’re in territory we’ve never been in before’
What happens, government expert Norman Ornstein asked last week, if so many members of Congress come down with the coronavirus that the legislature cannot meet or cannot muster a quorum? After 9/11, Ornstein and others, alarmed by how little Washington had prepared for such possibilities, created a bipartisan Continuity of Government Commission to examine precisely these and other possibilities.
It has been a two-decade long futile effort, Ornstein says, with Congress uninterested or unable to either pass new laws or create working procedures that would allow emergency and remote operations. The rest of the federal government equally is unprepared to operate if a pandemic were to hit the very people called upon to lead in an emergency. That is why for the first time, other than planning for the aftermath of a nuclear war, extraordinary procedures are being contemplated.
In the past, almost every imagined contingency associated with emergency preparedness has assumed civil and military assistance coming from the outside. One military officer involved in continuity planning calls it a “cavalry” mentality: that military assistance is requested or ordered after local civil authority has been exhausted.
“There might not be an outside,” the officer says, asking that she not be named because she is speaking about sensitive matters.
In recognition of the equal vulnerability of military forces, the Pentagon has instituted unprecedented restrictions on off-base travel. Last Wednesday it restricted most overseas travel for 60 days, and then on Friday issued supplemental domestic guidance that essentially keeps all uniformed personnel on or near military bases. There are exceptions, including travel that is “mission-essential,” the Pentagon says.
Mission essential in this regard applies to the maze of more than a dozen different secret assignments, most of them falling under three larger contingency plans:
- CONPLAN 3400, or the military’s plan for “homeland defense,” if America itself is a battlefield.
- CONPLAN 3500, “defense support of civil authorities,” where the military assists in an emergency short of armed attack on the nation.
- CONPLAN 3600, military operations in the National Capital Region and continuation of government, under which the most-secret plans to support continuity are nested.
All of these plans are the responsibility of U.S. Northern Command (or NORTHCOM), the homeland defense military authority created after 9/11. Air Force General O’Shaughnessy is NORTHCOM’s Colorado Springs-based commander.
On February 1, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper signed orders directing NORTHCOM to execute nationwide pandemic plans. Secretly, he signed Warning Orders (the WARNORD as it’s called) alerting NORTHCOM and a host of east coast units to “prepare to deploy” in support of potential extraordinary missions.
Seven secret plans – some highly compartmented – exist to prepare for these extraordinary missions. Three are transportation related, just to move and support the White House and the federal government as it evacuates and operates from alternate sites. The first is called the Rescue & Evacuation of the Occupants of the Executive Mansion (or RESEM) plan, responsible for protecting President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their families–whether that means moving them at the direction of the Secret Service or, in a catastrophe, digging them out of the rubble of the White House.
The second is called the Joint Emergency Evacuation Plan (or JEEP), and it organizes transportation for the Secretary of Defense and other national security leaders so that they can leave the Washington area. The Atlas Plan is a third, moving non-military leaders – Congressional leadership, the Supreme Court and other important figures – to their emergency relocation sites. Under Atlas, a still- secret bunker would be activated and cordoned, with government operations shifting to Maryland.
The three most compartmented contingencies – Octagon, Freejack, and Zodiac – call upon various military units in Washington DC, North Carolina and eastern Maryland to defend government operations if there is a total breakdown. The seventh plan – codenamed Granite Shadow [32] – lays out the playbook for extraordinary domestic missions that involve weapons of mass destruction. (I disclosed the existence of this plan in 2005, and its associated “national mission force”–a force that is on alert at all times, even in peacetime, to respond to a terrorist attack or threat with the nuclear weapon.)
Most of these plans have been quietly activated during presidential inaugurals and State of the Union addresses, the centrality of the weapons of mass destruction scenario seen in the annual Capital Shield [33] exercise in Washington. Last year’s exercise posited a WMD attack on Metro Station. Military sources say that only the massive destruction caused by a nuclear device – or the enormous loss of life that could be caused by a biological agent – present catastrophic pressure great enough to justify movement into extra-Constitutional actions and extraordinary circumstances plans.
“WMD is such an important scenario,” a former NORTHCOM commander told me, “not because it is the greatest risk, but because it stresses the system most severely.”
According to another senior retired officer, who told me about Granite Shadow and is now working as a defense contractor, the national mission force goes out on its missions with “special authorities” pre-delegated by the president and the attorney general. These special authorities are needed because under regulations and the law, federal military forces can supplant civil authority or engage in law enforcement only under the strictest conditions.
When might the military’s “emergency authority” be needed? Traditionally, it’s thought of after a nuclear device goes off in an American city. But now, planners are looking at military response to urban violence as people seek protection and fight over food. And, according to one senior officer, in the contingency of the complete evacuation of Washington.
Under Defense department regulations, military commanders are authorized to take action on their own – in extraordinary circumstances – where “duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation.” The conditions include “large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” involving “significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff codified these rules in October 2018, reminding commanders that they could decide, on their own authority, to “engage temporarily” in military control in circumstances “where prior authorization by the President is impossible” or where local authorities “are unable to control the situation.” A new Trump-era Pentagon directive calls it “extreme situations.” In all cases, even where a military commander declares martial law, the directives say that civil rule has to be restored as soon as possible.
“In scenarios where one city or one region is devastated, that’s a pretty straightforward process,” the military planner told me. “But with coronavirus, where the effect is nationwide, we’re in territory we’ve never been in before.”
An extended period of devolution
Continuity of government and protection of the presidency began in the Eisenhower administration with the possibility emerging that Washington could be obliterated in an atomic attack. The need to plan for a nuclear decision-maker to survive even a direct attack led to the building of bunkers and a maze of secret procedures and exceptions, many of which are still followed to this day. Congress was also folded in – at least Congressional leadership – to ensure that there would always be a Constitutional successor. And then the Supreme Court was added.
Before 9/11, continuity and emergency programs were broadened beyond nuclear war preparedness, particularly as hurricanes began to have such devastating effects on modern urban society. And because of the advent of pandemics, broadly beginning with the Avian Influenza, civil agencies responsible for national security, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the lead agency to respond to coronavirus, were also brought into continuity protection.
Despite well-honed plans and constant testing over 30 years, the attacks of September 11, 2001 severely tested all aspects of continuity movement and communications. Many of the procedures written down on paper were either ignored or thrown out the window. As a result, continuity had a second coming, billions spent by the new Department of Homeland and the other national security agencies to ensure that the Washington leadership could communicate and move, a whole new system established to be ready if a terrorist attack came without warning. Bunkers, many shuttered at the end of the Cold War, were reopened and expanded. Befitting the panic at the time, and the atomic legacy, the most extraordinary planning scenario posited a terrorist attack that would involve an improvised nuclear or radiological dispersal device in a major American city.
The terrorist attack scenario dominated until 2006, when the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans shifted federal government preparedness to formally adopt an “all-hazards” system. Civil agencies, the 50 states and local communities – particularly large cities – all began to synchronize emergency preparedness with common protocols. U.S. Northern Command was created to harness military assistance in domestic disasters, it’s three overarching contingency plans the product now of 15 years of trial and error.
3. The military’s contingency plans have been partially activated:
While being hit with coronavirus at rates equivalent to the civilian population, the U.S. military has activated its “defense support of civil authorities” apparatus, establishing liaisons in all 50 states, activating units and command posts, and moving forces to provide medical, transportation, logistics, and communications support in New York and Washington states.
Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson, the command of Army North (ARNORTH), has requested and received approval for the deployment of ground units in response to the now declared national emergency. The moves begin to implement two existing contingency plans—CONPLAN 3400 for “homeland defense” and CONPLAN 3500 for “defense support of civil authorities”—as well as numerous new orders specifically relating to coronavirus. Fourteen states have also appointed “dual-status commanders,” presidentially-approved National Guard officers who serve in both state and federal chains of command, with another 20 states to follow.
The Pentagon announced that the first dual-status commanders had been appointed in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington.
“The role of the dual-status commander is that he works for two different principals through two different chains of command,” says Army Maj. Gen. Giselle Wilz, head of the National Guard Bureau’s strategic plans and policy directorate. The dual-status commanders will report to Gen. Richardson as well as to the governors of each state.That is, except for Hawaii. That dual-status commander reports to U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) – an organization of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command that is responsible for Hawaii and the Pacific territories.
The federal military response, never before activated on a nationwide scale, is a patchwork of complex organizational schemes. While Gen. Richardson is the commander of the Joint Forces Land Component Command of U.S. Northern Command for all federal (and dual-status) ground troops in the continental United States and Alaska, USARPAC is in charge in the Pacific, reporting to NORTHCOM just as Gen. Richardson does. As “maritime” assets, the two hospital ships—the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, now in Los Angeles and New York—are also under a separate command, the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, which also serves as Naval Forces North (NAVNORTH) and the Joint Forces Maritime Component Commander for North America. And still another command, Marine Forces North (MARFORNORTH) operates side-by-side with ARNORTH, in charge of Marine Corps troops.
In total, Army North has deployed approximately 1,100 active duty servicemembers assigned to specific units, and they started moving to New York and Washington states immediately after they were assigned. The active duty units deployed include:
- Joint Task Force-Civil Support Headquarters, Fort Eustis, Virginia
- 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
- 4th Sustainment Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado
- 63rd Expeditionary Signal Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia
Joint Task Force-Civil Support was established in 1999 as the domestic response authority in case involving weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN). According to its website, “when directed, JTF-CS will deploy to an incident site, establish command and control of Department of Defense forces, and provide military assistance and support to civil authorities by saving lives, preventing further injury and providing temporary critical support to enable community recovery.”
But its secondary mission is what the federal government calls “all-hazards” response. “Although primarily charged with a CBRN response mission,” the Joint Task Force says, it “could be directed to respond to a natural or man-made disaster if asked to do so by U.S. Northern Command.“
On March 28th, Gen. Richardson also announced that four U.S. Army Reserve units would be called to active duty to support the federal response:
- Task Force 76 Headquarters, formed by the 76th Operational Response Command, Salt Lake City, Utah
- 377th Theater Sustainment Command Headquarters, New Orleans, Louisiana.
- 4th Expeditionary Sustainment Command Headquarters, San Antonio, Texas.
- 505th Military Intelligence Brigade Headquarters, San Antonio, Texas.
To align with the ten FEMA regions responsible for emergency management, Army North has also activated its ten Defense Coordinating Offices, senior Colonels who are embedded with each regional command center. These are a specialized planning cells that serve as military liaisons to coordinate federal assistance. Another 100 Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers are also now active, augmenting the Defense Coordination cells.
In announcing the activation and movement of forces, Army North was careful to specify that none of the units “will ... directly participate in civilian law enforcement activities.”
Similarly, Air Force Maj. Gen. Joseph Lengyel, chief of the National Guard Bureau and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “I’m hearing unfounded rumors about National Guard troops supporting a nationwide quarantine. Let me be clear: There has been no such discussion.”
Because of so many rumors flying in social media, the Pentagon established a “rumor control” website to beat down stories of military-imposed quarantines and even martial law. And it said it was going to limit details of both the specific numbers of coronavirus cases and operational details.
“Unit level readiness data for key military forces is information that is classified as a risk to operational security and could jeopardize operations and/or deterrence,” Alyssa Farah, the Pentagon’s press secretary, told Military Times. “If at some point in the future, a commander believes that the coronavirus could affect the readiness of our strategic deterrent or strategic response forces we would understandably protect that information from public release and falling into the hands of our adversaries―as we expect they would do the same.”
As of March 31, the Defense Department reported 1204 confirmed active cases of coronavirus throughout its community: 673 servicemembers, 247 civilians working for the military, 212 family members and 72 contractors. . . .
4. Trump floated the idea of a federally enforced quarantine of the New York metro area, along with New Jersey and parts of Connecticut. A federally enforced quarantine. It appeared Trump was proposing using the military to ensure no one leaves New York City, something that would require suspending the Posse Comitatus Act. That was what he tweeted about earlier on Saturday and later talked about during a press conference on the White House lawn and reiterated that it was under considering during a speech on the Naval hospital ship the USNS Comfort. Trump decided to make a big point to the public on a military ship that he was considering sending in the military to quarantine the tri-state area.
Declaring on Saturday that he decided a quarantine wasn’t necessary, Trump issued a “severe travel advisory” instead. The idea is now out there. Federally quarantining large cities with the military is now going to be one of things Trump is considering in order to seem like a ‘strong wartime leader’. Going ‘to war’ against New York City’s spread of the Chinese virus. That’s now part of his ‘being a wartime president’ theatrical repertoire.
The push for enforceably quarantining large (predominantly Democrat-controlled) metro areas hasn’t been limited to Trump. It was apparently Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis who put the idea of a federal quarantine for New York City in Trump’s head. DeSantis – who is now infamous for deciding to allow Florida’s beaches to remain open as Spring Break partiers filled Florida’s beaches before scattering back across the world [34] – has apparently decided to make New York City residents the main villain as his state becomes the new national ‘hot spot’ for COVID-19 cases. So when Trump pushed this idea, he was implicitly running political cover or DeSantis as Florida becomes a global COVID-19 infection vector [35].
Perceived political necessity to deflect political outrage over the COVID-19 outbreaks in ‘Red states’ may manifest in every state to some extent–will we see a nationwide GOP call for quarantining New York and California? Perhaps the American far right can use this as an excuse to use the military to turn US cities into giant prisons and act like they’re defending against a foreign invader. All of the ‘Patriot’ personalities that dominate modern right-wing American discourse like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson can explain to their growing audiences why suspending Posse Comitatus is required to defend against the New World Order’s viral invasion and this isn’t at all like the martial law scenarios they’ve spent decades warning their audiences against. ‘Blame it on New York (and/or California) and the Chinese virus’ can become the rallying cry of GOP officials for the rest of the election season. The higher the number of COVID-19 cases in ‘Red state’ America, the greater the calls for calling in the army to quarantine New York and eventually California. It’s like some sort of alternative Serpent’s Walk Nazi dream scenario playing out. So when Trump floated this idea it wasn’t just the random musings of an addled mind. It was the strategic musings of an addled mind that warns of many more musings about federal quarantines of large cities because a fascist dream scenario is taking shape [12].
Hours after President Trump said he was considering an “enforceable” quarantine [12] of all residents who leave the New York metro area, including possibly parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, Mr. Trump tweeted that a “quarantine will not be necessary.” Mr. Trump tweeted that he has asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state governors to create a “travel advisory.”
Earlier Saturday, Mr. Trump said that he is considering declaring an “enforceable” quarantine affecting some residents of the New York metropolitan area, possibly including New Jersey and Connecticut. He called the region a “hot spot” of the coronavirus outbreak [13] sweeping the country.
“I am giving consideration to a QUARANTINE of developing ‘hot spots’, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A decision will be made, one way or another, shortly,” Mr. Trump tweeted [36] Saturday afternoon.
Speaking to reporters on the White House South Lawn, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had spoken to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis about the pandemic. Mr. Trump said DeSantis, a Republican, told the president that he wanted to stop the flow of New Yorkers who may be infected with the new COVID-19 virus into the state.
“We’d like to see New York quarantined because it’s a hotspot — New York, New Jersey, maybe one or two other places, certain parts of Connecticut quarantined. I’m thinking about that right now,” Mr. Trump said. “We might not have to do it but there’s a possibility that sometime today we’ll do a quarantine — short-term two weeks for New York, probably New Jersey and parts of Connecticut.”
Mr. Trump also said “I’ll speak to the governor about it later.”
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said a few hours later on CNN that he had not spoken to Mr. Trump about a quarantine, but said it would be a “preposterous idea.”
“I don’t believe that any federal administration could be serious about physical lockdowns of states or parts of states across this country,” Cuomo said. “I don’t believe it’s legal. I think it would be economic chaos. I don’t think the American people would stand for it and I think it makes absolutely no sense and I don’t believe any professional would support it.”
Mr. Trump reiterated in his remarks before the send off of the USNS Comfort [14] that he was considering a quarantine of the area. The Comfort is a naval hospital boat which is carrying over 1,000 beds and 1,200 medical personnel to New York City.
“I am now considering, and will make a decision very quickly, very shortly, a quarantine, because it’s such a hot area,” Mr. Trump said. “We’ll be announcing that one way or another fairly soon.”
Mr. Trump also said that the quarantine would not affect truck drivers passing through the region, or trade in anyway.
The chief of the National Guard, General Joseph Lengel, has said there is no consideration being given to using the military to enforce a quarantine. However, he has also said that the National Guard troops called up by state governors can be used to support law enforcement operations — but they are under control of the governor.
Using active duty troops to enforce a quarantine would require the president to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the armed services for law enforcement.
Cuomo [37], a Democrat, told reporters [38] shortly after Mr. Trump’s first remarks on it that he had not spoken to the president about quarantining the metro region. Cuomo also said he didn’t know what an enforceable quarantine means, but “I don’t even like the sound of it.”
“I don’t even know what that means. I don’t know how that could be legally enforceable. And from a medical point of view, I don’t know what you’d be accomplishing,” Cuomo said.
The governor added that there were no geographical constraints when the state required people in the city of New Rochelle to stay home.
“So we never set any geographic constraints, right? Mandatory quarantine is a scary concept, because it sounds like you’re saying to people can’t leave this district. We never did that,” Cuomo said.
Cuomo said that he spoke with Mr. Trump Saturday morning about four temporary hospital sites in New York City. Cuomo said there have been 728 deaths in New York, an increase of over 200 from the previous day. There are over 50,000 cases of coronavirus in New York alone, with New Jersey following with 8,825 cases.
Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey also said he had not received any information from the administration about a potential quarantine.
…
In a statement, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont indicated that he did not believe a federally mandated quarantine would be necessary.
“Regarding the President’s consideration of a quarantine of New York, as well as parts of Connecticut and New Jersey, our state has already called on residents to stay at home. Further, if interstate travel is absolutely necessary, our state has directed travelers to self-quarantine to prevent against further transmission of the virus,” Lamont said.
…
Meanwhile, DeSantis announced Saturday checkpoints along major interstates, such as I‑95 and I‑10, to check for drivers for New York and New Orleans.
5. Trump has plenty of company: ” . . . . In Hungary, a new law has granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. Mr. Orban, who declared a state of emergency this month, now has the sole power to end the emergency. Parliament, where two-thirds of the seats are controlled by his party, approved the legislation on Monday. . . .‘The draft law is alarming,’ said Daniel Karsai, a lawyer in Budapest who said the new legislation had created ‘a big fear’ among Hungarians that ‘the Orban administration will be a real dictatorship.’ . . .”
Orban’s Hungary has been joined by, among others, the long-standing British democracy: ” . . . . some of the provisions . . . . will give the government unchecked control. The legislation gives sweeping powers to border agents and the police, which could lead to indefinite detention and reinforce ‘hostile environment’ policies against immigrants, critics said. ‘Each clause could have had months of debate, and instead it’s all being debated in a few days,’ said Adam Wagner, a lawyer who advises a parliamentary committee on human rights. . . . ‘These are eye-watering powers that would have not been really imaginable in peacetime in this country before,’ said Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, a rights group. She called the measures ‘draconian.’ . . . .”
In Hungary, the prime minister can now rule by decree. In Britain, ministers have what a critic called “eye-watering” power to detain people and close borders. Israel’s prime minister has shut down courts and begun an intrusive surveillance of citizens [39]. Chile has sent the military to public squares [40] once occupied by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections.
As the coronavirus pandemic brings the world to a juddering halt [41] and anxious citizens demand action, leaders across the globe are invoking executive powers and seizing virtually dictatorial authority with scant resistance.
Governments and rights groups agree that these extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. States need new powers to shut their borders, enforce quarantines and track infected people. Many of these actions are protected under international rules, constitutional lawyers say.
But critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak, with few safeguards to ensure that their new authority will not be abused.
The laws are taking swift hold across a broad range of political systems — in authoritarian states like Jordan, faltering democracies like Hungary, and traditional democracies like Britain. And there are few sunset provisions to ensure that the powers will be rescinded once the threat passes.
“We could have a parallel epidemic of authoritarian and repressive measures following close if not on the heels of a health epidemic,” said Fionnuala Ni Aolain, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights.
As the new laws broaden state surveillance, allow governments to detain people indefinitely and infringe on freedoms of assembly and expression, they could also shape civic life, politics and economies for decades to come.
The pandemic is already redefining norms. Invasive surveillance systems in South Korea and Singapore, which would have invited censure under normal circumstances, have been praised [42]for slowing infections. Governments that initially criticized China for putting millions of its citizens under lockdown have since followed suit.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has authorized his country’s internal security agency to track citizens using a secret trove of cellphone data developed for counterterrorism. By tracing people’s movements, the government can punish those who defy isolation orders with up to six months in prison.
And by ordering the closing of the nation’s courts [43], Mr. Netanyahu delayed his scheduled appearance to face corruption charges.
In some parts of the world, new emergency laws have revived old fears of martial law. The Philippine Congress passed legislation [44] last week that gave President Rodrigo Duterte emergency powers and $5.4 billion to deal with the pandemic. Lawmakers watered down an earlier draft law that would have allowed the president to take over private businesses.
“This limitless grant of emergency powers is tantamount to autocracy,” a Philippine rights group, the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties, said in a statement. The lawyers noted that Mr. Duterte had once compared the country’s Constitution to a “scrap of toilet paper.”
Some states are using the pandemic to crack down on dissent. In Jordan, after an emergency “defense law” gave wide latitude to his office, Prime Minister Omar Razzaz said his government would “deal firmly” with anyone who spreads “rumors, fabrications and false news that sows panic.”
Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha of Thailand has assumed the authority to impose curfews and censor the news media. Journalists there have been sued and intimidated for criticizing the government’s response to the outbreak.
While the virus itself may have cooled protesters’ will to crowd public squares, Chile’s declaration of a “state of catastrophe” and the military’s presence on city streets has muted raging dissent that rocked the nation for months [45].
The pandemic has also disrupted planned elections. This month, Bolivia suspended a much anticipated presidential election that had been scheduled for early May. A disputed election last year set off violent protests and forced President Evo Morales to resign [46].
The interim president, who promised to serve only as a caretaker, has since consolidated power and announced her plan to run for an elected term. The country’s election tribunal said on Thursday [47] that it would hold the elections sometime between June and September.
In the United States, the Justice Department asked Congress for sweeping new powers, including a plan to eliminate legal protections for asylum seekers and detain people indefinitely without trial [9]. After Republicans and Democrats [48] balked, the department scaled back and submitted a more modest proposal.
Rights groups say governments may continue to absorb more power while their citizens are distracted. They worry that people may not recognize the rights they have ceded until it is too late to reclaim them.
Some emergency bills were waved through so quickly that lawmakers and rights groups had no time to read them, let alone debate their necessity. Rights advocates have also questioned the speed with which states have drafted lengthy legislation.
Certain governments have a set of desired powers “ready to go” in case of emergency or crisis, said Ms. Aolain, the United Nations special rapporteur. They draft laws in advance and wait “for the opportunity of the crisis to be presented,” she said.
It is far from clear what will become of the emergency laws when the crisis passes. In the past, laws enacted in a rush, like the Patriot Act that followed the Sept. 11 attacks, have outlived the crises they were meant to address.
Over time, emergency decrees permeate legal structures and become normalized, said Douglas Rutzen, the president of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law in Washington, which is tracking new legislation [49] and decrees during the pandemic.
“It’s really easy to construct emergency powers,” Mr. Rutzen said. “It’s really difficult to deconstruct them.”
The pandemic may be a boon to governments with an autocratic bent.
“A Real Dictatorship”
In Hungary, a new law has granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. Mr. Orban, who declared a state of emergency this month, now has the sole power to end the emergency. Parliament, where two-thirds of the seats are controlled by his party, approved the legislation on Monday.
Critics say the new legislation could allow Mr. Orban’s government to further erode democratic institutions and persecute journalists and members of the opposition. The law will permanently amend two articles of the criminal code that will further limit freedom of expression and penalize people for breaching quarantine orders. It will also suspend all elections and referendums.
Under one measure, anyone who disseminates information that could hinder the government’s response to the epidemic could face up to five years in prison. The legislation gives broad latitude to the public prosecutor to determine what counts as distorted or false information.
“The draft law is alarming,” said Daniel Karsai, a lawyer in Budapest who said the new legislation had created “a big fear” among Hungarians that “the Orban administration will be a real dictatorship.”
“There is not enough trust in the government in this respect,” he said.
Others pointed to the government’s track record of prolonging emergency legislation long after a crisis. One such decree, issued at the height of Europe’s migration crisis five years ago, is still in effect.
“Eye-Watering Powers”
Robust democracies are also using the pandemic to expand their power.
Britain has a long history of democracy and well-established democratic customs. Nevertheless, a coronavirus bill that was rushed through Parliament at a breakneck pace affords government ministries the power to detain and isolate people indefinitely, ban public gatherings including protests, and shut down ports and airports, all with little oversight.
Introducing the bill in Parliament, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, called it “a departure from the way that we do things in peacetime.” He said the measures would be “strictly temporary and proportionate to the threat that we face.”
But some of the provisions — called Henry VIII powers, after the notorious 16th-century monarch — will give the government unchecked control. The legislation gives sweeping powers to border agents and the police, which could lead to indefinite detention and reinforce “hostile environment” policies against immigrants, critics said.
“Each clause could have had months of debate, and instead it’s all being debated in a few days,” said Adam Wagner, a lawyer who advises a parliamentary committee on human rights.
“Everybody’s been trying just to read it, let alone properly critique it,” he said of the legislation, which runs to 340 pages.
“These are eye-watering powers that would have not been really imaginable in peacetime in this country before,” said Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, a rights group. She called the measures “draconian.”
Ms. Carlo fears that Britain will “swing from crisis to crisis, health panic to health panic, and then find that we’ve lost.”
“We risk easily finding ourselves in a perpetual state of emergency,” she said.
6. Narendra Modi of India has used the Covid-19 outbreak to further his Hindutva fascist agenda: Media voices that were critical of Modi’s handling of the Kashmir crisis and recent police beatings and harassment of Muslims in Mumbai and New Delhi have been harrassed and/or driven into silence under cover of the coronavirus outbreak.
“Media Dissent Fades as Modi Tightens Grip” by Vindu Goel and Jeffrey Gettleman; [50]The New York Times; 4/3/2020. [50]
7a. Privacy is being dramatically curtailed under cover of combatting the virus: ” . . . . As Thomas Gaulkin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted [17] earlier this month, many Americans— often fierce in their objections to perceived government overreach into their lives—might normally object to dystopian images of flying robots policing lockdowns. But these, of course, are not normal times. ‘If drones do begin to hover over U.S. streets to help control this pandemic,’ Gaulkin wrote, ‘it will be yet another visible reminder that we’ve entered a public health Twilight Zone where Americans have no better option than to embrace what was once only imaginable, and never real.’ . . . ”
Earlier this week, the Elizabeth, New Jersey police department gave residents a look at one of the drones officials there will use to help monitor residents and enforce social distancing measures aimed at slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus. “These drones will be around the City with an automated message from the Mayor telling you to STOP gathering, disperse and go home,” the department said.
The city, which has seen close to 1,500 confirmed COVID cases, is one of a growing number of communities in the United States that is either deploying or considering the use of unmanned drones to support their shelter-in-place directives—a practice that has been used, seemingly with success, in countries like France [52] and China [53]. But on Wednesday, the Elizabeth police department was forced to clarify in a second video emphasizing that the drones were only there to spread “an automated notice about keeping your social distance.”
“We are just trying to save lives, not trying to be big brother,” the department said [54] on Facebook. “There is no recording and no pictures being taken, it is a tool of encouragement to follow the rules.”
The episode underscores the looming tensions for federal and local governments between civil liberties and efforts to combat a deadly pandemic that has paralyzed the country. The U.S. government was caught flat-footed by the public health crisis, thanks to Donald Trump ignoring months of warnings and relying on wishful thinking rather than action. But with America now the epicenter of the pandemic, the administration is trying to play catch-up, with Jared Kushner—the president’s unqualified son-in-law and senior adviser—leading [55] a coronavirus response team that has floated a number of potential measures, including a national surveillance system to monitor outbreaks. That has raised privacy concerns, with critics likening it to the Patriot Act put into place following 9/11. “This is a genuine crisis—we have to work through it and do our best to protect people’s health,” Jessica Rich, a former director of the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection bureau, told [56] Politico. “But doing that doesn’t mean we have to destroy privacy.”
Within the federal government itself, there has been a clumsy acknowledgement that there are limits to what the U.S. can do in its efforts to contain the virus. “We are not an authoritarian nation,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams said [57] on Fox News last month, soon after the World Health Organization declared coronavirus a pandemic. “So we have to be careful when we say, ‘Let’s do what China did, let’s do what South Korea did.’” (South Korea is a democracy.) Still, actions by the Trump administration to loosen data sharing rules around healthcare and the national coronavirus surveillance proposal from Kushner’s team have raised concerns from privacy advocates—particularly given the longstanding fears about how the Trump administration has used surveillance and technology in its immigration enforcement and other controversial policies, along with the president’s erosion of democratic norms.
“We dealt with similar issues in 9/11,” Rich said. “One reason that the government doesn’t have all of this data is there’s a lot of concern about big brother maintaining large databases on every consumer on sensitive issues like health, and for good reason.” Indeed, for critics, the privacy questions extend beyond the present moment when governments are grappling with the deadly pandemic — what happens when this crisis passes? Is it possible to get the toothpaste back in the tube? “My biggest concern is that tech will emerge more powerful than it was,” Burcu Kilic, who leads a digital right program at consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, told Politico. “When things get back to normal, do you think they’ll want to regulate them?”
Municipalities like Elizabeth and Daytona Beach, Florida that are making use of drones [58] to enforce social distancing are getting a taste of what normal might look like, thanks to the pandemic. As Thomas Gaulkin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted [17] earlier this month, many Americans— often fierce in their objections to perceived government overreach into their lives—might normally object to dystopian images of flying robots policing lockdowns. But these, of course, are not normal times. “If drones do begin to hover over U.S. streets to help control this pandemic,” Gaulkin wrote, “it will be yet another visible reminder that we’ve entered a public health Twilight Zone where Americans have no better option than to embrace what was once only imaginable, and never real.”
7b. The alpha predator of the electronic surveillance landscape is Peter Thiel’s Palantir [18]. They have landed two key government contracts in connection with the Covid-19 outbreak: ” . . . . Palantir, the $20 billion-valued Palo Alto tech company backed by Facebook-funder Peter Thiel, has been handed a $17.3 million contract with one of the leading health bodies leading the charge against COVID-19. It’s the biggest contract handed to a Silicon Valley company to assist America’s COVID-19 response, according to Forbes’ review of public contracts, and comes as other Californian giants like Apple and Google try to figure out how best to help governments fight the deadly virus. . . . The money, from the federal government’s COVID-19 relief fund, is for Palantir Gotham licenses, according to a contract record reviewed by Forbes. That technology is designed to draw in data from myriad sources and, regardless of what form or size, turn the information into a coherent whole. The ‘platform’ is customized for each client, so it meets with their mission needs, according to Palantir. . . . Palantir Gotham is slightly different to Foundry, a newer product that’s aimed more at general users rather than data science whizzes, with more automation than Gotham. As Forbes previously reported [19], Foundry is being used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ingest information from all manner of hospitals across America to see where best to provide more or less resource. . . . Palantir is now working with at least 12 governments on their responses to coronavirus, according to two sources with knowledge of its COVID-19 work. That includes the U.K.’s National Health Service, which is using Foundry for similar purposes as the CDC. . . .”
Palantir, the $20 billion-valued Palo Alto tech company backed by Facebook-funder Peter Thiel, has been handed a $17.3 million contract with one of the leading health bodies leading the charge against COVID-19.
It’s the biggest contract handed to a Silicon Valley company to assist America’s COVID-19 response, according to Forbes’ review of public contracts, and comes as other Californian giants like Apple and Google try to figure out how best to help governments fight the deadly virus.
The deal was signed on April 10 with a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) subsidiary agency, the Program Support Center (PSC), which provides “shared services across the federal government.”
The money, from the federal government’s COVID-19 relief fund, is for Palantir Gotham licenses, according to a contract record reviewed by Forbes. That technology is designed to draw in data from myriad sources and, regardless of what form or size, turn the information into a coherent whole. The “platform” is customized for each client, so it meets with their mission needs, according to Palantir.
…
Palantir Gotham is slightly different to Foundry, a newer product that’s aimed more at general users rather than data science whizzes, with more automation than Gotham. As Forbes previously reported [19], Foundry is being used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ingest information from all manner of hospitals across America to see where best to provide more or less resource. That includes supplies of COVID-19 personal protection equipment like masks and respirators.
Forbes also revealed earlier this week that the U.S. Coast Guard, a department within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), had contracted Palantir for $8 million [59] for its own COVID-19 response efforts. The tech company declined to talk about the nature of the work, whilst the Coast Guard hadn’t commented at the time of publication.
Palantir is now working with at least 12 governments on their responses to coronavirus, according to two sources with knowledge of its COVID-19 work. That includes the U.K.’s National Health Service, which is using Foundry for similar purposes as the CDC.
Despite the ostensibly controversy-free deal with the British health body, the reception was somewhat frosty. That was, in part, because of Palantir’s links to the U.S. military intelligence complex; it was funded by the CIA’s venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel, and was said to have helped find Osama bin Laden. The uneasiness from privacy bodies was also related to Palantir’s work with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has drawn some criticism from human rights groups.
Calling California For Coronavirus Contracts
Outside of California, a handful of tech companies are signing off COVID-19 relief contracts. The federal government sales arm of Dell, the Texan hardware and software business, signed off on a $35 million deal to provide Veterans Affairs with Microsoft security technology and services.
Other Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Google and Oracle have been offering solutions to help ease the crisis. Oracle, as Forbes exclusively reported [60], is working on a giant database to track the impact of COVID-19 treatments on patients. On Friday, Apple and Google announced they were collaborating [61] on a project for a pro-privacy contact tracing app to help people know if they’ve been in the same area as someone who’d contracted the virus.
But in terms of Silicon Valley companies, whom many were hoping would rapidly develop coronavirus-fighting tech, it’s Palantir that’s leading, in money terms at least.
7c. About the above-mentioned Foundry:
In the last week, staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) started logging into a new web app. It promises to help them watch where COVID-19 is spreading and checks how well equipped hospitals are to deal with the spike in cases of the fatal virus, according to two sources familiar with the work. According to those sources, it was built by Palantir [62], a $20 billion-valued big data company whose data harvesting work for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has provoked criticism from human rights groups.
With the CDC project, it’s avoiding any such controversy, partly because it isn’t ingesting personally-identifiable information, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivities of the government contract. Instead, the sources said the tech, based on its big data gathering and analysis technology called Palantir Foundry, takes in a range of anonymized data from U.S. hospitals and healthcare agencies, including lab test results, emergency department statuses, bed capacity and ventilator supply. Palantir is also developing models for the outbreak of the virus to help CDC predict where resources are required, they added.
“In the U.S. we are continuing to work closely with our partners at HHS, including CDC, and across the government agencies to ensure they have the most comprehensive, accurate and timely view of information as the COVID-19 response effort evolves,” a Palantir spokesperson said.
The CDC hadn’t responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Such tech would give the CDC a clear understanding of what’s happening in any given U.S. geography, whether at state, county or city level, at a single moment in time. The information would help the CDC decide where to allocate resources, such as masks and ventilators, one source said. That could prove vital given the rush to meet a pervasive and urgent need for ventilators [63], in particular.
Palantir is one of several tech companies, including Google and Oracle [60], flexing their prowess in data gathering and analysis in efforts to stem the coronavirus. Some ideas, such as using locations from mobile phones to track movements of people [64], have prompted concerns that once the crisis ebbs, increased surveillance will be hard to unwind. Palantir’s tool does not use any personally-identifiable data at this point, but could do in the future, said one of the sources.
Similar to Palantir’s U.K. work
The app, which CDC staff started to use in the last few days, is hosted by Amazon Web Services as part of a partnership for the CDC project, one of the sources said. Palantir has long used the cloud giant for back-end infrastructure.
The U.S. data gathering app looks a lot like a project revealed in the U.K. last week, where reports indicated Palantir was also providing its Foundry platform, alongside Amazon Web Services and Microsoft, to assist the National Health Service (NHS) in the coronavirus crisis.
Palantir’s Foundry will help the NHS determine current occupancy levels at hospitals, down to the number and type of beds, as well as the capacity of accident and emergency, departments and waiting times, wrote [65] the U.K. government late last week. The tool is also gathering details of the lengths of stay for coronavirus patients, the U.K. project coordinators said.
“Palantir is a data processor, not a data controller, and cannot pass on or use the data for any wider purpose without the permission of NHS England,” it added.
The response to Palantir’s involvement in the U.K. has been cautious in light of its previous surveillance work, notably its production of tools that helped ICE target undocumented immigrants in America. It has close ties to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the CIA, an investor via the agency’s In-Q-Tel venture fund, and was credited with helping find Osama Bin Laden before his killing. The company was founded by a social theory Ph.D. Alex Karp, a long-time associate of Palantir investor Peter Thiel [66], the billionaire venture capitalist who was also an early backer of Facebook.
It’s unclear just how much Palantir will make from the work. According to public records, the most recent contract signed by Palantir with the CDC was in early February for $675,000 for unspecified hardware and software license renewals. Palantir also signed a contract for just $28,000 with the Food and Drug Administration late last month for use of the Palantir Gotham tool, which is typically used to help government agencies find criminals or criminal groups within masses of data. . . .
8. Exemplifying the multi-dimensional chess scenario in connection with the “bio-psy-op” is the GOP’s plan to use the Covid-19 outbreak to scapegoat China and tar the Democrats and Joe Biden with the same brush.
Of particular note in this regard is the Steve Bannon‑J. Kyle Bass-Tommy Hicks, Jr. triumvirate discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112. [20]
At the epicenter of the anti-China effort, Bannon is networked with Bass, who is asymmetrically invested with regard to the Hong Kong and Chinese economies. Hicks, in turn, is a co-investor with Bass, co-chairman of the RNC, and one of the prime movers of the interagency governmental networks involved in the anti-China destabilization operation.
This networked relationship affords investors like Bass and Hicks the ultimate position from which to profit from “insider” information.
The synthesis of covert operations and electoral politics reminds us of the 1952 election, in which Arthur Bliss Lane occupied a key position in the Crusade For Freedom, as well as the GOP. (We discussed this in AFA #37 [21], and utilized information from, among other sources, Blowback [22] by Christopher Simpson.
The strategy could not be clearer: From the Republican lawmakers blanketing Fox News to new ads [68] from President Trump’s super PAC to the biting criticism on Donald Trump Jr.’s Twitter feed [69], the G.O.P. is attempting to divert attention from the administration’s heavily criticized response to the coronavirus by pinning the blame on China.
With the death toll from the pandemic already surpassing 34,000 Americans [70] and unemployment soaring to levels not seen since the Great Depression, Republicans increasingly believe that elevating China as an archenemy culpable for the spread of the virus, and harnessing America’s growing animosity toward Beijing, may be the best way to salvage a difficult election.
Republican senators locked in difficult races are preparing commercials condemning China. Conservatives with future presidential ambitions of their own, like Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, are competing to see who can talk tougher toward the country where the virus first emerged. Party officials are publicly and privately brandishing polling data in hopes Mr. Trump will confront Beijing.
Mr. Trump’s own campaign aides have endorsed the strategy, releasing an attack ad [71] last week depicting Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic nominee, as soft on China. The ad relied heavily on images of people of Asian descent, including former Gov. Gary Locke of Washington, who is Chinese-American, and it was widely viewed as fanning the flames of xenophobia [72]. . . .
. . . . The strategy includes efforts to leverage the U.S.-China relationship against Mr. Biden, who Republicans believe is vulnerable because of his comments [73] last year playing down the geopolitical challenge posed by China and what Republicans claim was high-paying work that his son, Hunter, has done there. (A lawyer for the younger Mr. Biden said he was uncompensated for his work.)
Mr. Biden, for his part, has criticized Mr. Trump’s warm words for China. On Friday, his campaign released a video [74] assailing the president for not pressing Mr. Xi to let the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into his country and for being “more worried about protecting his trade deal with China than he was about the virus.”
On a conference call with reporters, Antony J. Blinken, a senior Biden adviser, noted that in January and February “the president praised China and President Xi more than 15 times.” He attributed the flattery to the administration’s not wanting to “risk that China pull back on implementing” the initial trade agreement the two countries signed in January. [75] . . .. . . . The president’s hopes for securing a major trade agreement with China have been reinforced by a coterie of his advisers, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,who have often prevailed in internal battles over White House hard-liners.
But with the coronavirus death toll growing and the economy at a standstill, polls show that Americans have never viewed China more negatively [76].
In a recent 17-state survey conducted by Mr. Trump’s campaign, 77 percent of voters agreed that China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak, and 79 percent of voters indicated they did not think China had been truthful about the extent of infections and deaths, according to a Republican briefed on the poll. . . .
. . . . “At this moment in time a trade deal is not the right topic of discussion,” said Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, who said the pandemic had highlighted the country’s reliance on China in the same painful fashion that the oil crisis of the 1970s revealed how it was at the mercy of the Middle East. “This has exposed our dependency on China for P.P.E. and for critical drugs.”
Mr. Hawley, a first-term Missouri senator has also denounced China, calling for a United States-led international commission to determine the origin of the virus and demanding that American victims be allowed to sue the Chinese government.
“This is the 9/11 of this generation,” said Mr. Hawley, adding that he hopes Mr. Trump “keeps the pressure high.”He said Republicans should make the issue central this fall and demonstrate “how are we going to come out of this stronger by actually standing up to the Chinese.”
Few Republicans have been more outspoken than Mr. Cotton, an Arkansan who was warning about the virus at the start of the year when few lawmakers were paying attention, and has been urging Senate candidates to make China a centerpiece of their campaigns.
“China unleashed this pandemic on the world and they should pay the price,” Mr. Cotton said. “Congress and the president should work together to hold China accountable.” . . .
9. Exemplary, as well, of the bio-psy-op as synthesis of covert operation and political crusading is the GOP’s cynical manipulation of emergency appropriations to achieve their longstanding objective of crippling state and local governments, as well as driving the Postal Service into bankruptcy. Privatizing postal service has been a right-wing/GOP objective for a long time. ” . . . . Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows what is really happening: McConnell is trying to get more money for businesses while continuing to shortchange state and local governments. After all, “starve the beast” — forcing governments to cut services by depriving them of resources — has been Republican strategy for decades. This is just more of the same. . . . Oh, and Trump personally [23] has ruled out aid for the Postal Service. . . .”
. . . . Right now the economy is in the equivalent of a medically induced coma, with whole sectors shut down to limit social contact and hence slow the spread of the coronavirus. We can’t bring the economy out of this coma until, at minimum, we have sharply reduced the rate of new infections and dramatically increased testing so that we can quickly respond to any new outbreaks. . . .
. . . . Since we’re nowhere close to that point — in particular, testing is still far behind [78] what’s needed — we’re months away from a safe end of the lockdown. This is causing severe hardship for workers, businesses, hospitals and — last but not least — state and local governments, which unlike the federal government must balance their budgets. . . .
. . . . What policy can and should do is mitigate that hardship. And the last relief package did, in fact, do a lot of the right things. But it didn’t do enough of them. . . .
. . . . It’s true that Senate Republicans are trying to push through an extra $250 billion [79] in small-business lending — and Democrats are willing to go along. But the Democrats also insist that the package include substantial aid for hospitals and for state and local governments. And Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is refusing to include this aid.
McConnell claims that he would be willing to consider additional measures in later legislation. But let’s get real. There is absolutely no reason not to include the money now.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows what is really happening: McConnell is trying to get more money for businesses while continuing to shortchange state and local governments. After all, “starve the beast” — forcing governments to cut services by depriving them of resources — has been Republican strategy for decades. This is just more of the same.
This reality leaves Democrats with no choice except to stand firm while they still have leverage. Bear in mind that McConnell could have the money he wants tomorrow if he were willing to meet them halfway. So far, however, he isn’t. Oh, and Trump personally [23] has ruled out aid for the Postal Service.