WAS GEORGE ORWELL RIGHT ABOUT 1984?

None of this is really new. Plans to change America from a constitutional republic to an imperial state ironically date back to 1984 when the Reagan National Security Council (NSC) drafted a plan to impose martial law in the United States through FEMA. Helping author this plan was Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, who later admitted that he lied to Congress about a number of matters but was later rewarded by being hired as a highly-paid talk show host. But in 1987, when the plan leaked to the media, his work inspired a sharp protest from then-Attorney General William French Smith.

Arthur Liman, then chief counsel of the Senate Iran-Contra committee, declared in a memo that North was at the center of what amounted to a “secret government-within-a-government,” a term similar to Bush's “shadow government.” Officials at the time said North's involvement in the proposed plan to radically alter the American government by executive order was proof that he was involved in a wide range of secret activities, foreign and domestic, that went far beyond the Iran-Contra scandal.

North's shadow-government plan called for suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the then-largely unknown Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and the declaration of martial law in the event of a crisis such as “nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a US military invasion abroad.” At the time he drafted these plans, North was the NSC’s liaison to FEMA.

It is the last two scenarios that bother many people when they view the national events of today, especially since so many members of the Reagan administration were back in power during the administration of President George W. Bush. Some, such as Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, were retained by the Obama administration.

North's contingency plan was to be part of an executive order or legislative package that Reagan would sign but hold secretly within the NSC until such a time as a crisis arose. It was never revealed whether Reagan had signed the plan.

Could the consolidation of power within Homeland Security be a continuation of this plan? No one knows for certain as President Bush, immediately upon taking office, ordered all records of former presidents, including Reagan, sealed from the public. President Obama apparently maintained this control of presidential documents by signing Exectuive Order 13489 within hours of taking office in January 2009. This order stipulates that upon any question concerning the release of such documents, the “[National] Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order.”

Ironically, one of those voicing concern over this loss of access was former Nixon counselor John Dean, who warned that America was sliding into a “constitutional dictatorship” and martial law.

Further concerns were voiced by Timothy H. Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. In testimony to various congressional committees, Edgar noted that the Homeland Security Department would have substantial powers as well as more armed federal agents with arrest authority than any other government agency. He questioned whether the new department would have structural and legal safeguards to keep it open and accountable to the public.

“Unfortunately, [this] legislation not only fails to provide such safeguards, it eviscerates many of the safeguards that are available throughout the government and have worked well to safeguard the public interest,” stated Edgar. He went on to enumerate some problems areas within the proposed Homeland Security Department saying it:

• Hobbles the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by creating broad new exemptions to the act such as “any information voluntarily submitted to the department about threats to the nation's infrastructure.” Edgar pointed out that exceptions to FOIA already include information concerning national security and sensitive law enforcement and confidential business information. “This is a deeply misguided proposal, and it should be rejected,” he added.

• Limits citizen input by exempting advisory committees to Homeland Security from the Federal Advisory Act (FACA) passed in 1972 to ensure openness, accountability and the balance of viewpoints in government advisory groups. “By exempting from FACA requirements any [emphasis in the original] advisory committees established by the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, [this act] severely undermines the openness and public-access goals of FACA,” argued Edgar.

• Muzzles whistleblowers protected under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) by allowing the Homeland Security secretary to make his own personnel rules. “Title 5 [under the new department] does not guarantee employees of the Department of Homeland Security the protections of the WPA,” stated Edgar. “Without such protection, employees who are in the best position to spot problems, violations of the law or dangers to the public are effectively silenced.”

• Lacks strong oversight by allowing the Homeland Security secretary to override Inspector General investigations in many areas including intelligence, criminal investigations, undercover operations, identity of confidential sources, protective matters of the Secret Service and any matter considered a threat to national security. “Given the mission of the Homeland Security Agency, it is conceivable that many of the functions performed by this new agency could be said to fall under one of these exempted categories,” noted Edgar. “We are concerned that transferring these agencies [FEMA, INS, Animal and Plant Inspection Service of the Agriculture Department, Coast Guard] into a department whose primary function is to protect the United States against terrorism could erroneously be perceived as elevating their regular duties to those of national security, thereby making such currently non-exempt activities exempt from Inspector General oversight.”

• Threatens personal privacy and constitutional freedoms because the vagueness of the wording in the Homeland Security Act does not provide sufficient guarantees.

One huge concern voiced by the ACLU counsel concerned plans to combine the CIA and the FBI under Homeland Security, a plan still under consideration in 2010.

“The CIA and other agencies that gather foreign intelligence abroad operate in the largely lawless environment,” noted Edgar. “To bring these agencies into the same organization as the FBI risks further damage to Americans’ civil liberties.” Edgar urged Congress to resist this move, instead placing clear limits on Homeland Security's ability to retain files on Americans that have no connection to criminal activity but relate to First Amendment freedoms. Congress did not. He said combining domestic and foreign intelligence gathering under Homeland Security could have “a severe impact on civil liberties potentially leading to widespread spying on Americans constitutionally-protected political and religious activity.”

“There is already a danger under the relaxed FBI guidelines for domestic investigations recently announced by Attorney General Ashcroft,” Edgar added. “No one wants a repeat of the J. Edgar Hoover era, when the FBI [under the infamous Cointelpro program] was used to collect information about and disrupt the activities of civil rights leaders and others whose ideas Hoover disdained. Moreover, during the Clinton administration, the ‘Filegate’ matter involving the improper transfer of sensitive information from FBI background checks of prominent Republicans to the White House generated enormous public concern that private security-related information was being used for political purposes. Congress should not provide a future administration with the temptation to use information available in Homeland Security Department files to the detriment of its political enemies.”

Interestingly enough, President Bush himself had some conflict with Congress over Homeland Security legislation, but it had nothing to do with constitutional issues. Congress wanted the department's employees covered by civil service protections and Bush did not. Many observers believed this objection by Bush was a cover to exempt Homeland Security workers from the whistleblower and Freedom of Information protections. If an employee did not go along with the Bush-Ridge program, they could be summarily fired and replaced with someone who would.

Some Democrats welcomed the new department, such as Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an early advocate of the administration change, who said, “In fact, I think it will help us immediately.” Others of his party objected to many provisions of the Homeland Security bill, charging that many had nothing to do with security, such as liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.

Despite misgivings, the Homeland Security Act passed speedily through Congress with little or no revision. In the US Senate, the proposal passed on a 90–9 vote. Apparently Senators were so confident that they were about to do a genuine service for America that on November 13 they voted themselves a pay raise for the fourth consecutive year. This vote was tighter, with 36 senators voting to reject a measure that would have denied them the raise. President Bush signed the Homeland Security bill into law on November 25, 2002. Noting that the agencies responsible for border, coastline and transportation security were now under the same command structure, Bush remarked, “The continuing threat of terrorism, the threat of mass murder on our own soil, will be met with a unified, effective response.” But this “unity” quickly was questioned as troubles arose within this new labyrinthine system.

One notorious item that came into existence with the creation of Homeland Security was the listing of names of persons known or just suspected of international terrorist connections. By early 2010, this list had grown to 420,000 names, compiled by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center from more than 26 terrorism-related databases from the intelligence and law enforcement communities. By 2010, the TSA’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), the intelligence community's central repository of information on known and suspected international terrorists, had grown to more than a half million persons.

“We have lists that are having baby lists at this point,” commented Timothy Sparapani, legislative counsel for privacy rights at the American Civil Liberties Union. “If we have over 300,000 known terrorists who want to do this country harm, we've got a bigger problem than deciding which names go on which list. But I highly doubt this is the case.”

Sparapani and many others voiced concern over such an ever-growing list. Georgetown University Law Professor David D. Cole said, “If being placed on a list means in practice that you will be denied a visa, barred entry, put on the no-fly list, targeted for pretextual prosecutions, etc., then the sweep of the list and the apparent absence of any way to clear oneself certainly raises problems.

Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales tried to assure members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that “information is collected, information is retained and information is disseminated in a way to protect the privacy interests of all Americans.”

But Attorney General Gonzales likely had a hard time convincing one former committee member, the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who was prevented from flying five times in March 2004 because a “T. Kennedy” appeared on the secret no-fly list.

In terminals in Washington, Boston and other locations, airline employees refused to issue a boarding pass because his name was on the no-fly list. Kennedy was delayed until supervisors were called and approved his travel. Even after supposedly clearing up the mistake in names, Kennedy was stopped yet again from flying, prompting a personal telephone apology from Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list—it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” commented senior ACLU counsel Reginald T. Shuford. “Someone of Senator Kennedy's stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”

Another ACLU attorney, David C. Fathi, said he was stopped more than seven times at airports, but not on every flight. Once he was led from the counter by armed police and questioned extensively.

Fathi, who is of Iranian ancestry, said it is possible to contact the Transportation Security Administration and obtain a letter of clearance. But his letter didn't help. “By the time I show the letter, it's already too late,” he lamented, adding, “There is no rhyme or reason… It illustrates the ridiculousness of the system. If it stops [suspects] because they're on the list they should stop them every time. Not every third time.”

And lest anyone think that abuse of such power as wielded by Homeland Security would be tempered by time and experience, consider what happened in Bethesda, MD, in February 2006.

Two uniformed men wearing baseball caps with the words “Homeland Security” emblazoned on them walked into the Little Falls Library and loudly announced that the viewing of pornography was forbidden. They then proceeded to ask that one library Internet viewer step outside.

After complaints were lodged against the two “security” officers, Montgomery County chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident “unfortunate” and “regrettable.” Romer said the two officers were members of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed unit charged with patrolling about 300 county buildings. He added this group was not tasked with seeking out pornography and that the two officers had “overstepped their authority” and had been reassigned.

At least in one incidence, the no-fly listing of an American may have had political overtones. Dr. Robert Johnson, a heart surgeon in upstate New York, was a retired Lt. Colonel in the US Army Reserve who had served during the time of the first Gulf War. But when he arrived at a Syracuse airport for a flight, he was barred and told he was on the federal no-fly list as a possible terror suspect.

“Why would a former lieutenant colonel who swore an oath to defend and protect our country pose a threat of terrorism?” Johnson rhetorically asked a local newspaper. Johnson answered himself by speculating that he was placed on the list because in 2004 he, as a Democrat, had challenged Republican Representative John McHugh. Johnson said he planned to run against McHugh again for his 23rd District congressional seat. The colonel also had been an outspoken critic of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Like the growing number of citizens who are finding themselves on the no-fly list, Johnson is demanding answers as to who decides which name goes on the list and what is the mechanism for getting off.

By 2010, even many small suburban and rural counties had their own Homeland Security departments, all answerable to the national department. Some civil libertarians began to view Homeland Security as a renewed version of the Nazi Gestapo, Germany's Geheime Staatspolizei or Secret State Police, which encompassed all of that nation's police agencies.

To concentrate so much power in one new government department head requires a thorough examination of the man who initially wielded such power. And in the case of Tom Ridge, there were worrisome aspects.