Jump to content
The Education Forum

The ultimate government conspiracy


Ron Ecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's some good info in this article. To me the only questionable thing about it is the author's notion or hope that the U.S. military might not go along with martial law in the U.S. I think the military was certainly prepared to stage an open coup in November 1963 (if the government's cover got blown in Dallas). Would it be no less prepared to discard the Constitution now or tomorrow?

I know of nothing that any U.S. military leaders have said during the years of the current regime in criticism of the regime's campaign against the Constitution. But of course they would think twice about criticizing their commander in chief. What I do vividly remember is General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Martial Law Threat is Real: Good Thing the Military is Breaking Down

Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:24:56 AM PST

With Congress complicit or supine, the best hope for preventing martial law may be a fear in the White House that the troops might not follow orders.

By Dave Lindorff

The looming collapse of the US military in Iraq, of which a number of generals and former generals, including former Chief of Staff Colin Powell, have warned, is happening none too soon, as it may be the best hope for preventing military rule here at home.

From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress.

The first step, or course, was the first Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, which the president has subsequently used to claim—improperly, but so what? —that the whole world, including the US, is a battlefield in a so-called "War" on Terror, and that he has extra-Constitutional unitary executive powers to ignore laws passed by Congress. As constitutional scholar and former Reagan-era associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein observes, that one claim, that the US is itself a battlefield, is enough to allow this or some future president to declare martial law, "since you can always declare martial law on a battlefield. All he’d need would be a pretext, like another terrorist attack inside the U.S."

The 2001 AUMF was followed by the PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, which undermined much of the Bill of Rights. Around the same time, the president began a campaign of massive spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, conducted without any warrants or other judicial review. It was and remains a program that is clearly aimed at American dissidents and at the administration’s political opponents, since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would never have raised no objections to spying on potential terrorists. (And it, and other government spying programs, have resulted in the government’s having a list now of some 325,000 "suspected terrorists"!)

The other thing we saw early on was the establishment of an underground government-within-a-government, though the activation, following 9-11, of the so-called "Continuity of Government" protocol, which saw heads of federal agencies moved secretly to an underground bunker where, working under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, the "government" functioned out of sight of Congress and the public for critical months.

It was also during the first year following 9-11 that the Bush/Cheney regime began its programs of arrest and detention without charge—mostly of resident aliens, but also of American citizens—and of kidnapping and torture in a chain of gulag prisons overseas and at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay.

The following year, Attorney General John Ashcroft began his program to develop a mass network of tens of millions of citizen spies—Operation TIPS. That program, which had considerable support from key Democrats (notably Sen. Joe Lieberman), was curtailed by Congress when key conservatives got wind of the scale of the thing, but the concept survives without a name, and is reportedly being expanded today.

Meanwhile, last October Bush and Cheney, with the help of a compliant Congress, put in place some key elements needed for a military putsch. There was the overturning of the venerable Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which barred the use of active duty military inside the United States for police-type functions, and the revision of the Insurrection Act, so as to empower the president to take control of National Guard units in the 50 states even over the objections of the governors of those states.

Put this together with the wholly secret construction now under way--courtesy of a $385-million grant by the US Army Corps of Engineers to Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc--of detention camps reportedly capable of confining as many as 400,000 people, and a recent report that the Pentagon has a document, dated June 1, 2007, classified Top Secret, which declares there to be a developing "insurgency" within the U.S, and which lays out a whole martial law counterinsurgency campaign against legal dissent, and you have all the ingredients for a military takeover of the United States.

As we go about our daily lives--our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing—we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.

Bruce Fein isn’t an alarmist. He says he doesn’t see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever." (It may be significant that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, has called for the revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq, but not of the earlier 2001 AUMF which Bush claims makes him commander in chief of a borderless, endless war on terror.)

Indeed, the revised Insurrection Act (10. USC 331-335) approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush last October, specifically says that the president can federalize the National Guard to "suppress public disorder" in the event of "national disorder, epidemic, other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." That determination, the act states, is solely the president’s to make. Congress is not involved.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has added an amendment to the upcoming Defense bill, restoring the Insurrection Act to its former version—a move that has the endorsement of all 50 governors--but Fein argues that would not solve the problem, since Bush still claims that the U.S. is a battlefield. Besides, a Leahy aide concedes that Bush could sign the next Defense Appropriations bill and then use a signing statement to invalidate the Insurrection Act rider.

Fein argues that the only real defense against the looming disaster of a martial law declaration would be for Congress to vote for a resolution determining that there is no "War" on terror. "But they are such cowards they will never do that," he says.

That leaves us with the military.

If ordered to turn their guns and bayonets on their fellow Americans, would our "heroes" in uniform follow their consciences, and their oaths to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States? Or would they follow the orders of their Commander in Chief?

It has to be a plus that National Guard and Reserve units are on their third and sometimes fourth deployments to Iraq, and are fuming at the abuse. It has to be a plus that active duty troops are refusing to re-enlist in droves—especially mid-level officers.

If we are headed for martial law, better that it be with a broken military. Maybe if it’s broken badly enough, the administration will be afraid to test the idea.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/112020/784

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's some good info in this article. To me the only questionable thing about it is the author's notion or hope that the U.S. military might not go along with martial law in the U.S. I think the military was certainly prepared to stage an open coup in November 1963 (if the government's cover got blown in Dallas). Would it be no less prepared to discard the Constitution now or tomorrow?

I know of nothing that any U.S. military leaders have said during the years of the current regime in criticism of the regime's campaign against the Constitution. But of course they would think twice about criticizing their commander in chief. What I do vividly remember is General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Martial Law Threat is Real: Good Thing the Military is Breaking Down

Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:24:56 AM PST

With Congress complicit or supine, the best hope for preventing martial law may be a fear in the White House that the troops might not follow orders.

By Dave Lindorff

The looming collapse of the US military in Iraq, of which a number of generals and former generals, including former Chief of Staff Colin Powell, have warned, is happening none too soon, as it may be the best hope for preventing military rule here at home.

From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress.

The first step, or course, was the first Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, which the president has subsequently used to claim—improperly, but so what? —that the whole world, including the US, is a battlefield in a so-called "War" on Terror, and that he has extra-Constitutional unitary executive powers to ignore laws passed by Congress. As constitutional scholar and former Reagan-era associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein observes, that one claim, that the US is itself a battlefield, is enough to allow this or some future president to declare martial law, "since you can always declare martial law on a battlefield. All he’d need would be a pretext, like another terrorist attack inside the U.S."

The 2001 AUMF was followed by the PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, which undermined much of the Bill of Rights. Around the same time, the president began a campaign of massive spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, conducted without any warrants or other judicial review. It was and remains a program that is clearly aimed at American dissidents and at the administration’s political opponents, since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would never have raised no objections to spying on potential terrorists. (And it, and other government spying programs, have resulted in the government’s having a list now of some 325,000 "suspected terrorists"!)

The other thing we saw early on was the establishment of an underground government-within-a-government, though the activation, following 9-11, of the so-called "Continuity of Government" protocol, which saw heads of federal agencies moved secretly to an underground bunker where, working under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, the "government" functioned out of sight of Congress and the public for critical months.

It was also during the first year following 9-11 that the Bush/Cheney regime began its programs of arrest and detention without charge—mostly of resident aliens, but also of American citizens—and of kidnapping and torture in a chain of gulag prisons overseas and at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay.

The following year, Attorney General John Ashcroft began his program to develop a mass network of tens of millions of citizen spies—Operation TIPS. That program, which had considerable support from key Democrats (notably Sen. Joe Lieberman), was curtailed by Congress when key conservatives got wind of the scale of the thing, but the concept survives without a name, and is reportedly being expanded today.

Meanwhile, last October Bush and Cheney, with the help of a compliant Congress, put in place some key elements needed for a military putsch. There was the overturning of the venerable Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which barred the use of active duty military inside the United States for police-type functions, and the revision of the Insurrection Act, so as to empower the president to take control of National Guard units in the 50 states even over the objections of the governors of those states.

Put this together with the wholly secret construction now under way--courtesy of a $385-million grant by the US Army Corps of Engineers to Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc--of detention camps reportedly capable of confining as many as 400,000 people, and a recent report that the Pentagon has a document, dated June 1, 2007, classified Top Secret, which declares there to be a developing "insurgency" within the U.S, and which lays out a whole martial law counterinsurgency campaign against legal dissent, and you have all the ingredients for a military takeover of the United States.

As we go about our daily lives--our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing—we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.

Bruce Fein isn’t an alarmist. He says he doesn’t see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever." (It may be significant that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, has called for the revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq, but not of the earlier 2001 AUMF which Bush claims makes him commander in chief of a borderless, endless war on terror.)

Indeed, the revised Insurrection Act (10. USC 331-335) approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush last October, specifically says that the president can federalize the National Guard to "suppress public disorder" in the event of "national disorder, epidemic, other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." That determination, the act states, is solely the president’s to make. Congress is not involved.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has added an amendment to the upcoming Defense bill, restoring the Insurrection Act to its former version—a move that has the endorsement of all 50 governors--but Fein argues that would not solve the problem, since Bush still claims that the U.S. is a battlefield. Besides, a Leahy aide concedes that Bush could sign the next Defense Appropriations bill and then use a signing statement to invalidate the Insurrection Act rider.

Fein argues that the only real defense against the looming disaster of a martial law declaration would be for Congress to vote for a resolution determining that there is no "War" on terror. "But they are such cowards they will never do that," he says.

That leaves us with the military.

If ordered to turn their guns and bayonets on their fellow Americans, would our "heroes" in uniform follow their consciences, and their oaths to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States? Or would they follow the orders of their Commander in Chief?

It has to be a plus that National Guard and Reserve units are on their third and sometimes fourth deployments to Iraq, and are fuming at the abuse. It has to be a plus that active duty troops are refusing to re-enlist in droves—especially mid-level officers.

If we are headed for martial law, better that it be with a broken military. Maybe if it’s broken badly enough, the administration will be afraid to test the idea.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/112020/784

You said "...(if the government's cover got blown in Dallas).....". Two teams fighting it out? If so, there would have been a "Blood Bath" and many people would have died on the streets with JFK. When failure was evident they had to drift into the shadows from where they had came. "a failed mission". Army Intel new about the Texas Connection. Military was not going to make a hit on JFK, nor were the Cubans, nor the Miami/ NO Mafia... US military? They were there to stop it. The Texas boys were there, well planed and thought out... ways, means, and opertunity. LHO was set up... Fat Dumb and not to happy.

Ruby? well he had a debt to pay... or else....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Yes, Ron this is the 'nightmare of nightmare' scenario! The camps are being built. The laws all in place and tested on 9/11 and after more laws and more laws......I have repeatedly warned about this on this Forum and to anyone who will listen..but most in America and without say 'it can't happen here/there'. I'm afraid they are very wrong and Franks has it correct...it is only a matter of time - unless the American sheeple wake-up and ACT...fast and with effect!

All evidence IMO shows that is where those in power want to head and are headed. I do not know if the military would allow or not...it might split on that and the formation of Blackwater and other private military assets may be a kind of back-up, along with special forces, to force any who might try to stage a pro-Contitutional 'mutany' when the order is given. It will be ugly any which way.

It can happen here. The Chileans thought it couldn't happen there. The Kenyan's though it couldn't happen there. New Yorkers and most in USA thought 9/11 couldn't happen self-infllicted.....the next big one is going to be very, VERY ugly indeed!....

it all started to tilt in the 'wrong direction' IMO on 11/22/63.

Pardon the intrusion. Am a new person on the forum. Of course you are correct. We are 'poised'......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Yes, Ron this is the 'nightmare of nightmare' scenario! The camps are being built. The laws all in place and tested on 9/11 and after more laws and more laws......I have repeatedly warned about this on this Forum and to anyone who will listen..but most in America and without say 'it can't happen here/there'. I'm afraid they are very wrong and Franks has it correct...it is only a matter of time - unless the American sheeple wake-up and ACT...fast and with effect!

All evidence IMO shows that is where those in power want to head and are headed. I do not know if the military would allow or not...it might split on that and the formation of Blackwater and other private military assets may be a kind of back-up, along with special forces, to force any who might try to stage a pro-Contitutional 'mutany' when the order is given. It will be ugly any which way.

It can happen here. The Chileans thought it couldn't happen there. The Kenyan's though it couldn't happen there. New Yorkers and most in USA thought 9/11 couldn't happen self-infllicted.....the next big one is going to be very, VERY ugly indeed!....

it all started to tilt in the 'wrong direction' IMO on 11/22/63.

Pardon the intrusion. Am a new person on the forum. Of course you are correct. We are 'poised'......

As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On.

Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler.

What's a forensic psychologist?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Yes, Ron this is the 'nightmare of nightmare' scenario! The camps are being built. The laws all in place and tested on 9/11 and after more laws and more laws......I have repeatedly warned about this on this Forum and to anyone who will listen..but most in America and without say 'it can't happen here/there'. I'm afraid they are very wrong and Franks has it correct...it is only a matter of time - unless the American sheeple wake-up and ACT...fast and with effect!

All evidence IMO shows that is where those in power want to head and are headed. I do not know if the military would allow or not...it might split on that and the formation of Blackwater and other private military assets may be a kind of back-up, along with special forces, to force any who might try to stage a pro-Contitutional 'mutany' when the order is given. It will be ugly any which way.

It can happen here. The Chileans thought it couldn't happen there. The Kenyan's though it couldn't happen there. New Yorkers and most in USA thought 9/11 couldn't happen self-infllicted.....the next big one is going to be very, VERY ugly indeed!....

it all started to tilt in the 'wrong direction' IMO on 11/22/63.

Pardon the intrusion. Am a new person on the forum. Of course you are correct. We are 'poised'......

As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On.

Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler.

What's a forensic psychologist?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Forensic psychology defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology

Bill, don't quite understand your apparent trivialization of the prospect of Martial Law..though it would awake the sleeping Public...a bit too late, I fear.....it would set in motion a rapid devolution of the whole society and polity and would be ugly and might not be at all temporary. Those of us on the progressive side of things and apt to resist - no matter how 'politely' are going to be those who suffer most and get put in camps first. See 'ya there!

Peter, I'm not trivializing ML, I'm saying it is unlikely to be instituted in USA no matter what happens, mainly being uninforceable, as the military are busy elsewhere, and it would radicalize too many other Peter Lemkins.

I can look up the defination myself; I wanted to hear from Richard Welser, who has forensic psycho on his resume.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......General Tommy Franks saying, after he led the invasion of Afghanistan and announced his retirement, that another terrorist attack in America will bring martial law. Not may or might, but will.

Yes, Ron this is the 'nightmare of nightmare' scenario! The camps are being built. The laws all in place and tested on 9/11 and after more laws and more laws......I have repeatedly warned about this on this Forum and to anyone who will listen..but most in America and without say 'it can't happen here/there'. I'm afraid they are very wrong and Franks has it correct...it is only a matter of time - unless the American sheeple wake-up and ACT...fast and with effect!

All evidence IMO shows that is where those in power want to head and are headed. I do not know if the military would allow or not...it might split on that and the formation of Blackwater and other private military assets may be a kind of back-up, along with special forces, to force any who might try to stage a pro-Contitutional 'mutany' when the order is given. It will be ugly any which way.

It can happen here. The Chileans thought it couldn't happen there. The Kenyan's though it couldn't happen there. New Yorkers and most in USA thought 9/11 couldn't happen self-infllicted.....the next big one is going to be very, VERY ugly indeed!....

it all started to tilt in the 'wrong direction' IMO on 11/22/63.

Pardon the intrusion. Am a new person on the forum. Of course you are correct. We are 'poised'......

As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On.

Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler.

What's a forensic psychologist?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Forensic psychology defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology

Bill, don't quite understand your apparent trivialization of the prospect of Martial Law..though it would awake the sleeping Public...a bit too late, I fear.....it would set in motion a rapid devolution of the whole society and polity and would be ugly and might not be at all temporary. Those of us on the progressive side of things and apt to resist - no matter how 'politely' are going to be those who suffer most and get put in camps first. See 'ya there!

Peter, I'm not trivializing ML, I'm saying it is unlikely to be instituted in USA no matter what happens, mainly being uninforceable, as the military are busy elsewhere, and it would radicalize too many other Peter Lemkins.

I can look up the defination myself; I wanted to hear from Richard Welser, who has forensic psycho on his resume.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On.

Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler.

What's a forensic psychologist?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Forensic psychology defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology

Bill, don't quite understand your apparent trivialization of the prospect of Martial Law..though it would awake the sleeping Public...a bit too late, I fear.....it would set in motion a rapid devolution of the whole society and polity and would be ugly and might not be at all temporary. Those of us on the progressive side of things and apt to resist - no matter how 'politely' are going to be those who suffer most and get put in camps first. See 'ya there!

Peter, I'm not trivializing ML, I'm saying it is unlikely to be instituted in USA no matter what happens, mainly being uninforceable, as the military are busy elsewhere, and it would radicalize too many other Peter Lemkins.

I can look up the defination myself; I wanted to hear from Richard Welser, who has forensic psycho on his resume.

BK"

--------------

I think the Wiki description is good. Rather than repeat what it says better than I could with limited time I will list the areas in which I serve that function. Evaluations of capacity to stand trial, participation in multidisciplinary evaluations of competency/need for guardianship, child custody evaluations, psychological evals for parents and children involved with the department of social services (child abuse, neglect, potential for abuse etc.) and neuropsychological evaluations addressing the sequelae of various cerebral insults (vascular disease, closed head trauma/TBI, effects of exposure to purported toxins, anoxia and the like. - all factors affecting cognitive function (this last is actually more frequently done in a non-forensic context) - though anytime you do anything, it can land up in court.

I also deal with many of the issues/concerns of a general clinical psychologist, for example, a large part of my practice involves psychoeducational assessments for children (and some adults) and I see many folks in the therapeutic context - many children and families as well as individual adults. I do not 'do' marital therapy, however....... have to admit my limitations (regarding that, for example, and other specific subdomains.... I have many limitations ).... for example, and as an aside, I did 'do' marital therapy at one time but found I was mostly mediocre at it. Plus, it was particularly frustrating inasmuch as many relationships seemed to be pretty well trashed by the time things got so bad that a couple sought that help....

----------

Regarding martial law and troops......

The new Praetorian Guard was created in my home state in the US. Guess which that is....

Guess also how easily (and happily, I bet) those 'troops' will shoot you on the street. 'They' have a track record elsewhere....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since martial law would be expected to be imposed upon a significant percentage of a domestic population in revolt -- that is, an informed, impassioned, ethical, astute, committed population -- I see no chance whatsoever that the ruling class would attempt to fix what is not broken, and in the process actually rile up the sheep.

The "threat" of martial law keeps folk like us huffing and puffing -- which is why it continues to be fostered.

I've got news for you: The key to enslavement of the many by the few is the illusion of freedom.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for Martial Law in USA, I don't think so. It isn't necessary. But it fhat's what they want, Bring It On.

Pardon my interusion too, but I have a question for Richard Wesler.

What's a forensic psychologist?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Forensic psychology defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology

Bill, don't quite understand your apparent trivialization of the prospect of Martial Law..though it would awake the sleeping Public...a bit too late, I fear.....it would set in motion a rapid devolution of the whole society and polity and would be ugly and might not be at all temporary. Those of us on the progressive side of things and apt to resist - no matter how 'politely' are going to be those who suffer most and get put in camps first. See 'ya there!

Peter, I'm not trivializing ML, I'm saying it is unlikely to be instituted in USA no matter what happens, mainly being uninforceable, as the military are busy elsewhere, and it would radicalize too many other Peter Lemkins.

I can look up the defination myself; I wanted to hear from Richard Welser, who has forensic psycho on his resume.

BK"

--------------

I think the Wiki description is good. Rather than repeat what it says better than I could with limited time I will list the areas in which I serve that function. Evaluations of capacity to stand trial, participation in multidisciplinary evaluations of competency/need for guardianship, child custody evaluations, psychological evals for parents and children involved with the department of social services (child abuse, neglect, potential for abuse etc.) and neuropsychological evaluations addressing the sequelae of various cerebral insults (vascular disease, closed head trauma/TBI, effects of exposure to purported toxins, anoxia and the like. - all factors affecting cognitive function (this last is actually more frequently done in a non-forensic context) - though anytime you do anything, it can land up in court.

I also deal with many of the issues/concerns of a general clinical psychologist, for example, a large part of my practice involves psychoeducational assessments for children (and some adults) and I see many folks in the therapeutic context - many children and families as well as individual adults. I do not 'do' marital therapy, however....... have to admit my limitations (regarding that, for example, and other specific subdomains.... I have many limitations ).... for example, and as an aside, I did 'do' marital therapy at one time but found I was mostly mediocre at it. Plus, it was particularly frustrating inasmuch as many relationships seemed to be pretty well trashed by the time things got so bad that a couple sought that help....

----------

Regarding martial law and troops......

The new Praetorian Guard was created in my home state in the US. Guess which that is....

Guess also how easily (and happily, I bet) those 'troops' will shoot you on the street. 'They' have a track record elsewhere....

Richard, Thanks for the response. But not to confuse Martial Law and Marital Law.

I too, went to school in Ohio (U. Dayton), and when Kent State happened I was traveling in Germany, where armed students took over the campuses in Frankfrort. When they saw my ID from Ohio they took me to see one of their student revolutionary leaders, I think they called him "Danny the Red." But since he couldn't speak English nor me German, we just had coffee and lunch without getting much conspiracy done.

I had previously been up against the National Guard at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. They're pretty much college kids on scholarship and citizen soldiers, who don't have it in them to shoot their own, though that doesn't hold up to what happened at Kent State.

Historically, the first declaration of Martial Law was when George Washington called out the National Guard from the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in order to put down a rebellion of those against the Whiskey Tax in Western Pennsylvania. Washington personally led the troops to the front, and the Whiskey Rebels fled without a fight.

The threat of Martial Law was more serious in the 60s, with the race riots and huge anti-War marches on Washington, and reflected in the counter-intelligence records compiled by the Army Intelligence, using the National Guard and Army Reserve networks in each city as the primary source of information.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree when some point out that the catalyst (traditionally) for martial law is some version of active rebellious, aggressive behavior by some group or other, or a more generally chaotic disruptive situation (the events generally surrounding the events at KSU).

What we have been experiencing is, and it's been stated elsewhere by better than me, is a creeping fascism and progressively greater social control following the pattern of 30's Germany and other rises of dictatorship.... Naomi Wolfe speaks about this pattern very eloquently - watch her on YouTube.

The concern many have about the implementation of martial law resolves from events believed to reflect a coherent evolution and pattern that both reflects increased statism and that provide the framework for effective implementation of martial law legally and logistically.

As noted by others, the actual event of martial law (however one might define that moment) could happen as a result of the events Peter discussed. I'm one of those wackos who believes there are folks in existence who plan to remove active dissent from the American scene. And they encompass both republicans and democrats. Among many other heinous examples, the notorious 'thought crimes bill' in the senate is surely a harbinger. Also, why else build the camps?........ Rather an ominous development. Roosevelt once stated, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." IF you expand the definition of 'politics' a bit, it is not so hard to recognize that the events that have been transpiring since before 9/11, including it and all that has subsequently followed, have hardly been 'accidental'.

It is true that the 'elites' would prefer a continuation of the imperceptible (by the mass of folks) accomplishment of de facto martial law over time. Problem is that events also move of their own accord, the 'unexpected consequences' thing, and acts may be performed that catalyze the populace (or portions of) to more actively resist. (the attack on Iran - still progressing in planning and geopolitical movement - possibly imminent confrontation with Russia over Kosovo.... also the nuclear weapons to be installed and aimed at Russia from Poland and CZ .... I know, I know.... they are 'defensive' missil systems against rockets from Iran... yep. Anyway, I'm sure that with imagination more scenarios could be imagined such as the utter collapse of the economy with resultant extreme turmoil and dissent. And this would as likely be ushered in by a dem or a republican president. Actually this last, is the vehicle I currently deem more likely. But who knows?

The camps exists, the laws drastically reducing ... no, eliminating Constitutional rights exists, the psychological operation of 9/11 exists, hegemonic war exists, torture, tragically exists, control of the vast bulk of media exists (very important from Bernays-ian and CIA Mockingbird-ish perspectives) and the list goes on and on.

So, regarding the issue of whether or not an actual definable implementation of martial law occurs, with, I suppose, Blackwater goons in the streets, the immediate control on freedoms etc. .... well, that's already happening insidiously. Blackwater trains members of police departments all over the country (e.g., my personal weapons course was taught by a county detective who received some of his training at Blackwater in NC) and Blackwater troops are increasingly being utilized at airports and elsewhere. The police departments have become more like military establishments - at least in the sense of the power/force they can now project as well as their 'misbehaviors' being recorded across the country. Even the august Homeland Security (I think Hitler used that term along with 'Fatherland') has employed fairly high level experts (and authoritarians, I presume) from the Stasi and from the KGB .... 'advise and consult' I always say.... ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

In any case, the argument has many many pieces. These are but a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

The old clichê is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” and you cite an article which claims that this is an internet rumor. FYI Wolf (as his name is correctly spelled) died November 9. 2006. None of his obituaries indicate the Wolf who would have been pushing 82 at the time of his supposed hiring left the Germany in his later years.

The articles on the notoriously unreliable Prison Planet and similar sites offer no verifiable evidence. The only citation provided is a claim by someone named “Al Martin” that Primakov made “the admission that Wolf would be hired was made in a BBC radio interview”. Funny that this interview on a station normally listened to by millions of people seems only to have been heard by one person.

The anonymous author claimed that “Martin…has in the past proven accurate in getting ahead of the news curve”, the only evidence for that is that the “political analyst” “had previously reported that Primakov had been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security” of course that story seems to be unconfirmed as well. So is credibility for one unconfirmed story is based on a previous one.

Since over three years later no one outside of a few conspiracy mongering sites and forums is reporting the hire of Primakov and Wolf if true they are presumably secret, odd than that a KGB veteran would spill the beans. Martin also claims that Primakov talks about working for Bush openly but I’ve seen no evidence of that other than the same circle of sites repeating each others claims like a gaggle of Chicken Littles playing telephone. Sheeple are the people who believe this crap. I've long wondered if Alex Jones is a operative of his fellow rightwing Texans Bush and Rove he serves their purposes wonderfully making a good chunk of their opponent look like lunatics. I wonder how many people on this forum alone acepted this story uncriticlly

Martin has proven himself to be a bit unreliable because he ‘forgot’ to mention Primakov only very briefly headed the KGB under Gorbachev literally during the last few day (OK months) of the USSR before heading the SVR it’s successor under Yeltsin. Less ominously he was also Yeltsin’s Foreign then Prime Minister. He doesn’t seem to have been involved in the repression/black ops/domestic spying end but was rather was Middle East expert.

Oh wait the author of the Prison Planet article also claimed that “sources close to Martin have told Alex Jones confidentially that the appointment of Wolf was also confirmed by a US Congressman.” Heck now I’m convinced.

PrisonPlanet article:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...04wolfhired.htm

Wolf obits:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15634347/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1944161,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6132684.stm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/09/news/obits.php?page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110901967.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituari...olf-423686.html

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?...y_ID=E1_RTGGJTD

Primakov bios/articles:

http://www.rusnet.nl/encyclo/p/primakov.shtml

http://www.pwhce.org/rus/primakov.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/svr/history.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,980276,00.html

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

The old clichê is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” and you cite an article which claims that this is an internet rumor. FYI Wolf (as his name is correctly spelled) died November 9. 2006. None of his obituaries indicate the Wolf who would have been pushing 82 at the time of his supposed hiring left the Germany in his later years.

No. He went to Russia then back to Germany. The CIA came to him in Germany and offered him residency in the US plus millions of dollars if he would work for them. He turned down their offer.

The articles on the notoriously unreliable Prison Planet

As opposed to, what? The always informative and totally reliable Murdoch media? Have you ever watched Fox news? And what did that Time reporter say in 1963? Something about the 'head being thrown violently forward' after watching the Zapruder film? A real professional he was.

Where did this come from? Why are you talking about Prison Planet? Richard was quoting www.dissident voice.org and they aren't quoting Prison Planet. You are. Is this a strawman?

and similar sites offer no verifiable evidence. The only citation provided is a claim by someone named “Al Martin” that Primakov made “the admission that Wolf would be hired was made in a BBC radio interview”. Funny that this interview on a station normally listened to by millions of people seems only to have been heard by one person.

The anonymous author claimed that “Martin…has in the past proven accurate in getting ahead of the news curve”, the only evidence for that is that the “political analyst”

http://www.almartinraw.com/book.html

Well, looks like "Al Martin" might know a little bit at least.

“had previously reported that Primakov had been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security” of course that story seems to be unconfirmed as well. So is credibility for one unconfirmed story is based on a previous one.

Since over three years later no one outside of a few conspiracy mongering sites and forums is reporting the hire of Primakov and Wolf if true they are presumably secret, odd than that a KGB veteran would spill the beans. Martin also claims that Primakov talks about working for Bush openly but I’ve seen no evidence of that other than the same circle of sites repeating each others claims like a gaggle of Chicken Littles playing telephone. Sheeple are the people who believe this crap. I've long wondered if Alex Jones is a operative of his fellow rightwing Texans Bush and Rove he serves their purposes wonderfully making a good chunk of their opponent look like lunatics. I wonder how many people on this forum alone acepted this story uncriticlly

Martin has proven himself to be a bit unreliable because he ‘forgot’ to mention Primakov only very briefly headed the KGB under Gorbachev literally during the last few day (OK months)

Just like GHW Bush only headed the CIA under President Ford for less than a year.

of the USSR before heading the SVR it’s successor under Yeltsin. Less ominously he was also Yeltsin’s Foreign then Prime Minister.

He was also Prime Minister. So much in common.

He doesn’t seem to have been involved in the repression/black ops/domestic spying end

Just like GHW Bush?

but was rather was Middle East expert.

And GHW Bush is just a business man

Oh wait the author of the Prison Planet article also claimed that “sources close to Martin have told Alex Jones confidentially that the appointment of Wolf was also confirmed by a US Congressman.” Heck now I’m convinced.

Well, so am I Len after your thoughtfully presented post! Though I have no idea what I am convinced of.

It would only be true to form for the people who set up Home Land Security to try to recruit persons like Wolfe and Primakov or similar to set up their repressive machinery. Wolfe refused to have anything to do with the CIA. Maybe Primakov has said yes and maybe he said no but I think it is a given that the US is out there trying to recruit such talent. They did it with the Nazi elite - cherry picking the most useful to their plans. That's not internet rumor just par for the course.

PrisonPlanet article:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...04wolfhired.htm

Wolf obits:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15634347/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1944161,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6132684.stm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/09/news/obits.php?page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110901967.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituari...olf-423686.html

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?...y_ID=E1_RTGGJTD

Primakov bios/articles:

http://www.rusnet.nl/encyclo/p/primakov.shtml

http://www.pwhce.org/rus/primakov.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/svr/history.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,980276,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drago's comments in May Day red --

Richard,

Thank you for a well-reasoned and provocative post. My thoughts follow.

I do not disagree when some point out that the catalyst (traditionally) for martial law is some version of active rebellious, aggressive behavior by some group or other, or a more generally chaotic disruptive situation (the events generally surrounding the events at KSU).

What we have been experiencing is, and it's been stated elsewhere by better than me, is a creeping fascism and progressively greater social control following the pattern of 30's Germany and other rises of dictatorship.... Naomi Wolfe speaks about this pattern very eloquently - watch her on YouTube.

I read and greatly respect Ms. Wolfe, and I agree with her assessments as you report them above.

The concern many have about the implementation of martial law resolves from events believed to reflect a coherent evolution and pattern that both reflects increased statism and that provide the framework for effective implementation of martial law legally and logistically.

As noted by others, the actual event of martial law (however one might define that moment) could happen as a result of the events Peter discussed. I'm one of those wackos who believes there are folks in existence who plan to remove active dissent from the American scene. And they encompass both republicans and democrats.

And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled.

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

Among many other heinous examples, the notorious 'thought crimes bill' in the senate is surely a harbinger. Also, why else build the camps?........ Rather an ominous development. Roosevelt once stated, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." IF you expand the definition of 'politics' a bit, it is not so hard to recognize that the events that have been transpiring since before 9/11, including it and all that has subsequently followed, have hardly been 'accidental'.

I submit that the goal here is to reinforce false senses of functioning democracy and, for lack of a more ready term, people power by setting up "straw men" -- hate laws, detention centers, etc. and those pawns who promote them -- that will fall before the onslaught of "free men" who in fact are anything but.

It is true that the 'elites' would prefer a continuation of the imperceptible (by the mass of folks) accomplishment of de facto martial law over time. Problem is that events also move of their own accord, the 'unexpected consequences' thing, and acts may be performed that catalyze the populace (or portions of) to more actively resist. (the attack on Iran - still progressing in planning and geopolitical movement - possibly imminent confrontation with Russia over Kosovo.... also the nuclear weapons to be installed and aimed at Russia from Poland and CZ .... I know, I know.... they are 'defensive' missil systems against rockets from Iran... yep. Anyway, I'm sure that with imagination more scenarios could be imagined such as the utter collapse of the economy with resultant extreme turmoil and dissent. And this would as likely be ushered in by a dem or a republican president. Actually this last, is the vehicle I currently deem more likely. But who knows?

Agreed that the law of unintended consequences must be taken into account. So too must we acknowledge that novel threats to the controllers posed by global communications technologies (Internet, etc.) must be dealt with in novel fashions.

But in the final analysis this is all about maintining power and profits, and I have yet to read your explanation of how martial law possibly could enhance the current, long-standing, only marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo.

The camps exists, the laws drastically reducing ... no, eliminating Constitutional rights exists, the psychological operation of 9/11 exists, hegemonic war exists, torture, tragically exists, control of the vast bulk of media exists (very important from Bernays-ian and CIA Mockingbird-ish perspectives) and the list goes on and on.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

So, regarding the issue of whether or not an actual definable implementation of martial law occurs, with, I suppose, Blackwater goons in the streets, the immediate control on freedoms etc. .... well, that's already happening insidiously. Blackwater trains members of police departments all over the country (e.g., my personal weapons course was taught by a county detective who received some of his training at Blackwater in NC) and Blackwater troops are increasingly being utilized at airports and elsewhere. The police departments have become more like military establishments - at least in the sense of the power/force they can now project as well as their 'misbehaviors' being recorded across the country. Even the august Homeland Security (I think Hitler used that term along with 'Fatherland') has employed fairly high level experts (and authoritarians, I presume) from the Stasi and from the KGB .... 'advise and consult' I always say.... ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

In any case, the argument has many many pieces. These are but a few.

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree that martial law would not benefit the controllers at this stage. They still have complete control of the political system (although some may fear Barack Obama). If they start losing control of the political system then it might be a different story.

I agree with your point about patriotism, Charles. Patriotism and Nationalism are favorite tools of the controllers. They allow logic and reason to be swept aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

The old clichê is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” and you cite an article which claims that this is an internet rumor. FYI Wolf (as his name is correctly spelled) died November 9. 2006. None of his obituaries indicate the Wolf who would have been pushing 82 at the time of his supposed hiring left the Germany in his later years.

No. He went to Russia then back to Germany.

I guess that depends on how you define “his later years” he went to Russia in 1989 (and then Austria in some accounts) before returning to Germany in 1991, he died in 2006. Do you have any evidence he left again in the last 15 years of his life, more specifically during the period he supposedly worked for Homeland Security? Any evidence he came to the US?

The CIA came to him in Germany and offered him residency in the US plus millions of dollars if he would work for them. He turned down their offer.

So he claimed, AFAIK there is no substantiation for this. Even so he claims that was in 1989. Not that shocking if true apperently he was very good at what he did.

The articles on the notoriously unreliable Prison Planet

As opposed to, what? The always informative and totally reliable Murdoch media? Have you ever watched Fox news?

I rarely (if ever) cite Fox as source, or AFAIK the “Murdoch media” except for an occasional citation of the normally reliable Times (London) but can’t be sure since I don’t keep careful track of what he does and doesn’t own. Even though I hardly ever cite it Fox is far less unreliable than Alex Jones and his various websites. Even as CT sites go they are about the bottom of the barrel.

And what did that Time reporter say in 1963?. Something about the 'head being thrown violently forward' after watching the Zapruder film? A real professional he was.

I thought that was Dan Rather, but if you have to go back over 40 years to find an error that Time, CBS or Rather made I’d say that would make them highly reliable sources

Where did this come from? Why are you talking about Prison Planet? Richard was quoting www.dissident voice.org and they aren't quoting Prison Planet. You are. Is this a strawman?

As I noted the article on dissidentvoice.org Richard quoted didn’t cite any sources other than “numerous stories on the internet”. I never said he or it cited Prison Planet but it and Martin were AFAICT the primary mongers of that rumor. Thus it seems to have been referenced indirectly. I cited the article because (as I noted) it was the only one to cite any evidence. Read with more care.

and similar sites offer no verifiable evidence. The only citation provided is a claim by someone named “Al Martin” that Primakov made “the admission that Wolf would be hired was made in a BBC radio interview”. Funny that this interview on a station normally listened to by millions of people seems only to have been heard by one person.

The anonymous author claimed that “Martin…has in the past proven accurate in getting ahead of the news curve”, the only evidence for that is that the “political analyst”

http://www.almartinraw.com/book.html

Well, looks like "Al Martin" might know a little bit at least.

Have you verified the reliability of anything he claims on his site? Anything that isn’t already public knowledge? Or do you believe it just because it says what you already believe to be true? Do you believe his claim the Iran-Contra conspirators netted $ 350 Billion or about 10% of the total annual US GDP at the time?* If you believe that and think he is trustworthy perhaps you might want to invest in that Bahaman land deal he’s pushing.

* http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

If he is really “retired as a Lt. Commander from the US Naval Reserves” before into intel work, and thus presumably has a comfortable pension and really is versed in “the ropes of profitable covert operations” why is he pandering for money on his site? If he has so much dirt on Bush why hasn’t he been cited by the likes of Webster Tarpley and Kevin Phillips?

How do explain Primakov supposedly spilling the beans on his and Wolf’s supposed hiring? How do explain that apparently no one but Martin reports hearing this supposed interview on the BBC which has millions of listeners?

“had previously reported that Primakov had been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security” of course that story seems to be unconfirmed as well. So is credibility for one unconfirmed story is based on a previous one.

Since over three years later no one outside of a few conspiracy mongering sites and forums is reporting the hire of Primakov and Wolf if true they are presumably secret, odd than that a KGB veteran would spill the beans. Martin also claims that Primakov talks about working for Bush openly but I’ve seen no evidence of that other than the same circle of sites repeating each others claims like a gaggle of Chicken Littles playing telephone. Sheeple are the people who believe this crap. I've long wondered if Alex Jones is a operative of his fellow rightwing Texans Bush and Rove he serves their purposes wonderfully making a good chunk of their opponent look like lunatics. I wonder how many people on this forum alone acepted this story uncriticlly

Martin has proven himself to be a bit unreliable because he ‘forgot’ to mention Primakov only very briefly headed the KGB under Gorbachev literally during the last few day (OK months)

Just like GHW Bush only headed the CIA under President Ford for less than a year.

In any case he should have made it clear that he was the head for only a few months under Gorbachev when the repressive nature of the USSR had been greatly reduced.

of the USSR before heading the SVR it’s successor under Yeltsin. Less ominously he was also Yeltsin’s Foreign then Prime Minister.

He was also Prime Minister. So much in common.

He doesn’t seem to have been involved in the repression/black ops/domestic spying end

Just like GHW Bush?

but was rather was Middle East expert.

And GHW Bush is just a business man

The superficiality of their similarities aside how alarmed should Russians have been if their government hired Papa Doc Bush as a consultant? Could it have been taken as a sign they were returning to the repression of the pre-Gorbachev years?

Oh wait the author of the Prison Planet article also claimed that “sources close to Martin have told Alex Jones confidentially that the appointment of Wolf was also confirmed by a US Congressman.” Heck now I’m convinced.

Well, so am I Len after your thoughtfully presented post! Though I have no idea what I am convinced of.

You should have been convinced that Martin if full of the samething as a septic tank

It would only be true to form for the people who set up Home Land Security to try to recruit persons like Wolfe and Primakov or similar to set up their repressive machinery..

It might well be “true to form” for them but there is no evidence they have. I’ve also seen no evidence that Wolf and Primakov were involved in the repression end or were any worse than their Western counterparts. Wolf wasn’t the head of the Stasi itself just the foreign service that’s another thing the articles got wrong. Martin said that Wolf “effectively built the East German state intelligence operation’s internal directorate. He turned half the population into informants.” I’ve seen no evidence that this was the case. I've yet to see any evidence either of them were particularly involved in "repressive machinery." Nor has Home Land Security gone down that path yet if you are comparing to the Nazi and Soviet bloc regimes

Wolfe refused to have anything to do with the CIA.

AFAIK All we have is his word to go that.

Maybe Primakov has said yes and maybe he said no

There is no evidence I’ve seen he was even asked, I wouldn’t be particularly bothered if they had.

but I think it is a given that the US is out there trying to recruit such talent.

It wouldn’t surprise me but that doesn’t excuse reporting they did without any evidence and misrepresenting the roles of Wolf and Primakov.

They did it with the Nazi elite - cherry picking the most useful to their plans. That's not internet rumor just par for the course

Deplorable as that was it was 60 years ago and it’s unfair to Wolf and Primakov to compare them to most Nazis. However I don't know of major war criminals inolved in "Operation Paperclip" or related projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...