How about that Pentagon plan for martial law? [View All]

[dweller]

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer

August 19, 2005—Of course, few are putting it that way. But in an August 8,
2005, Washington Post article, its author Bradley Graham headlined it this
way: "War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.—Domestic Effort
is Big Shift for Military." What a flair for understatement.

Datelined from Colorado Springs, the Evangelical Christian, Northern
Command headquarters, Graham writes, "The U.S. Military has devised its
first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in
the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating
several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who
drafted the plans." Well thanks, fellas, for the effort, but it's been nearly four
years since 9/11.

Nevertheless, "the classified plans . . . outline a variety of possible roles for
quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per
attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the
damage and the abilities of civilian response teams." Huh? When, where,
who?

And "the possible scenarios range from 'low end,' relatively modest
crowd-control missions to 'high-end,' full-scale disaster
management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly
biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers
said."

Translated into everyday English, if there's a real or, dare I say, "false flag"
op/disaster in the A (atomic), B (biological) or C (chemical) areas, a la 9/11,
or like the Maryland-based, government "anthrax" attack, we could be in a
national state of martial law, up to our ears. C'est la vie, n'est pas, or non?

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/081905Mazza/081905mazza.html

dp