Archive for July, 2012

North Carolina ACLU Questions Police Use of License Plate Readers

July 31, 2012
 From The Charlotte Observer, July 30, 2012

The American Civil Liberties Union in North Carolina has joined 37 other states in requesting information from law enforcement agencies on how they use automatic license plate readers to track and record people’s movements.

The ACLU in North Carolina said it made the request of 61 agencies, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Huntersville police departments, and 10 other law enforcement agencies in the Charlotte region.

In addition, the national ACLU and its Massachusetts affiliate filed Freedom of Information Act requests to learn how the federal government funds the license plate reader expansion nationwide. The ACLU also asked the government how it uses the technology.

The automatic license plate readers are cameras, mounted on telephone poles and bridge supports, that snap a photo of every license plate that enters their field of view. In most cases, the photo includes a time and date, and the photos are added to a data base.

That information then provides a match for police officers who might be looking for specific license plate numbers.

In addition to CMPD and Huntersville police, the ACLU is also asking for the information from the Gastonia and Hickory police departments, and from sheriff’s offices in Anson, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Gaston, Stanly and Union counties.

Catherine Crump, an attorney with the national ACLU organization, says the question is how government agencies are using that information.

“The American people have a right to know whether our police departments are using these tools in a limited and responsible manner, or whether they are keeping records of our movements for months or years, for no good reason,” Crump said.

“The ability to track and record people’s movements presents a clear risk to privacy rights,” added Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU North Carolina Legal Foundation. “Without proper safeguards, this technology could all too easily lead to profiling, or the routine tracking of innocent people who have done nothing wrong.”

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officials told city council in May that they are installing about three dozen of the cameras at intersections, using a $1 million federal grant.

CMPD officials say the cameras are being used for public safety purposes, not to compile information about people’s habits. CMPD says the data is useful, for example, in finding stolen vehicles.

According to CMPD’s standard operating procedures for the license plate readers, the information gathered by the cameras is kept for 18 months and then purged automatically.

 

Obama Backs Down on the UN Gun Control Treaty. It’s Dead Until After the Election

July 31, 2012
From The Beaufort Observer, July 30, 2012

The Associated Press is reporting that the proposed United Nations Gun Control Treaty has been shot down…for now. The U. S. and Russia objected to the proposed text and the “compromise” is to bring it up for further discussion after the November elections. Barack Obama had come under intense pressure not to agree to the draft, with a majority of U. S. Senators writing a letter opposing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signing the accord. Several of those senators were Democrats and some are under pressure as they run for re-election.

By Edith M. Lederer, The Associated Press, July 28, 2012

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade will have to wait after member states failed to an reach agreement, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.

Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday’s deadline for action. But the U.S. announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

“This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line,” said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. “It’s a staggering abdication of leadership by the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough.”

A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, also blamed the U.S., saying “they derailed the process,” adding that nothing will happen to revive negotiations until after the U.S. presidential election in November.

Chief U.S. negotiator Thomas Countryman refused to talk to several dozen reporters when the meeting broke up.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement Friday evening that the U.S. supports a second round of negotiations next year.

“While we sought to conclude the month’s negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue,” the satement said.

The draft treaty would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists, organized crime or for corrupt practices.

Many countries, including the U.S., control arms exports but there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was “disappointed” with the failure to reach agreement on a treaty text , which he described as “a setback.” He said he remained committed to working with member states to puruse a “robust” treaty on controlling the conventional arms trade.

“A strong treaty would rid the world of the appalling human cost of the poorly regulated international arms trade,” Ban said in a statement released late Friday in London where he was attending the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.

The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, with the U.S. casting a “no” vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration’s position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

The United States insisted that a treaty had to be approved by the consensus of all 193 U.N. member states.

Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, the conference chairman, said treaty supporters knew “this was going to be difficult to achieve.”

He said negotiations failed because some delegations didn’t like the draft though “the overwhelming majority in the room did.” He added that some countries from the beginning of negotiations had “different views” on a treaty, including Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Amnesty’s Nossel accused the U.S. of raising eleventh-hour issues “and wanting more time to consult with itself,” which stopped the momentum toward agreement.

Despite the failure to reach agreement, Moritan predicted that “we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012.”

He said there are several options for moving forward in the General Assembly which will be considered over the summer, before the world body’s new session begins in September.

Ambassador Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel, who led the French delegation, called Friday’s result “the worst-case scenario.”

“I’m disappointed but not discouraged,” he said. “The ball is now in the court of the General Assembly but the risk is that countries may want to start negotiations from scratch.”

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the General Assembly needs to decide whether to move forward with the treaty text that was close to adoption or reopen old issues.

“What we have now is an uncertain outcome that leaves in doubt the support of the major arms exporters and importers, including the U.S. and Russia, and that needs to be overcome,” he said. “This is a delicate moment and it’s going to require real leadership on the part of key states including the European countries, Washington and others.”

The powerful National Rifle Association in the U.S. has portrayed the treaty as a surrender of gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The politically controversial issue has re-emerged since last week’s shooting at a Colorado cinema that killed 12 people.

But the draft treaty reaffirms “the sovereign right and responsibility of any state to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems.” And it states clearly that the treaty’s aim is to establish the highest standards “for regulating, or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms” — not domestic trade.

On Thursday, a bipartisan group of 51 senators threatened to oppose the treaty if it falls short in protecting Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.

During negotiations, the United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition, and that remains out of the latest draft. It does call for every country to regulate the export of ammunition.

Britain has taken the lead in pushing for a treaty.

Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg discussed treaty prospects with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in London and both urged the treaty’s adoption.

“Global rules govern the sale of everything from bananas to endangered species to weapons of mass destruction, but not guns or grenades,” Clegg said. “This anomaly causes untold suffering in conflicts around the world. 1,000 people are killed daily by small arms wielded by terrorists, insurgents and criminal gangs.”

The secretary-general said he was disappointed at the failure to agree on a treaty, calling it “a setback.” But Ban said he was encouraged that states have agreed to continue pursuing a treaty and pledged his “robust” support.

At the end of the negotiating session, Mexico read a joint statement from more than 90 countries saying they “are determined to secure an Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible.”

Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty

July 29, 2012

Aaron Dykes, Infowars.com, July 27, 2012

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting

For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.

Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.

Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.

Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:

 Article 15

International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.

In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops.

American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.

Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.

Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.

Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.

Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from yesterday: Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns

 

Money Insider: US Will See Violent Civil Unrest

July 29, 2012

Armed, irritated and vocal majority will react to worsening economic decline

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com, Thursday, January 19, 2012

Money insider Charles Ortel has warned that a worsening economic picture across the globe will see civil unrest hit the streets of America, not on behalf of leftist OWS types, but by an armed, “irascible and vocal Majority”.

Ortel, a managing partner with Newport Value Partners, LLC in New York City, predicts that a failure of the so-called financial recovery will precipitate “A painful re-calibration of economic strength and geo-political standing during 2012 in the midst of widespread civil insurrection and cross-border war.”

Noting that Americans’ access to firearms will cause such riots to be bloodier than anything seen in Europe, Ortel predicts that a contented and silent Majority will be turned into “an irascible and vocal Majority,” as a result of numerous macro-economic and geo-political threats facing the country, including the collapse of the euro, the bursting of the financial bubble in China, and the looming debt crisis, all of which will contribute to weak economic growth.

“Some will manage to contain their activities to peaceful protests. However, we believe the far more likely scenario is that violence will result, especially in the United States where the wider population has more ready access to weaponry and where mobs have proven impossible to restrain,” Ortel writes.

The crisis will also be exacerbated by a shift in “the governing pole of political discourse,” which will see the usual right-left paradigm replaced by a clash between young and old, with the youth of developed nations increasingly irate at seeing the elderly enjoy the security of retirement benefits while their own economic futures look increasingly bleak.

Despite widespread protests and civil unrest sweeping almost all corners of the globe aside from America over the past two years, the prospect of disorder unfolding in the United States in a broader context than the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations is widely expected.

Indeed, with trust in both the executive and legislative branches of government at an all time low, pollster Pat Caddell warns that Americans’ lack of confidence in their leadership is so fervent that they are now “pre-revolutionary.”

Fully aware that Americans’ disenfranchisement with the political system, allied with falling living standards, is provoking people to become more radical in their outlook, U.S. authorities have been preparing for civil dislocation.

Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States follows preparations over the last three years to deal with riots inside the United States that have already spread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Major police departments like the NYPD staging “mobilization exercises” to train police to prepare for civil disorder in the United States.

A report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.

Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest

July 29, 2012

Steve Watson & Paul Watson, Infowars.net, Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”

The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.

“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.

“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”

“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.

See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.

Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.

Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.

“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”

We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.

In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.

After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.

The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,” following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.

Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.

This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.

“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.

The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.

The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?

[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”

The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.

The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is – another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.

Detention Camp Order Follows Preparations For Civil Unrest

July 29, 2012

KBR seeks sub-contractors to outfit “emergency environment” centers

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com, Wednesday, December 7, 2011

The revelation that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States follows preparations over the last three years to deal with riots inside the United States that have already spread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

As Infowars reported last night, a document sent to us by a state government employee confirms that Kellogg Brown & Root Services are looking to activate camps built for FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers across the United States.

This follows the Senate’s passage of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows American citizens to be snatched off the street and held in detention camps without trial.

In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Since 2006, the world has been beset by riots and civil unrest as a result of the fallout from the economic collapse. From the United Kingdom, to continental Europe, to the Middle East and North Africa, almost every corner of the globe has experienced social dislocation.

Now U.S. authorities are preparing for such eventualities on home soil, with major police departments like the NYPD staging “mobilization exercises” to train police to prepare for civil disorder in the United States.

Warnings and preparation for civil unrest coming to the United States have been voiced on a regular basis.

Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for “homeland patrols” with one of their roles including helping with “civil unrest and crowd control”.

In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

A report produced that same year by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The United States has continuity of government plans in place should martial law be declared by the President. However, the details of those plans have been so tightly guarded that even Congressman and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D – OR), who has the necessary security clearance, was denied access to view the material when he requested to do so back in July 2007.

Under the terms of the the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645, first introduced in January 2009 and still awaiting passage, emergency camps are to be made available to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

With many Americans now becoming “pre-revolutionary” as a result of their fury at the Obama administration and equally unpopular lawmakers in Washington, potential civil unrest could spring not just from a poverty-stricken underclass, but also the shrinking middle class.

Indeed, top elitist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned earlier this year that middle class unrest caused by economic disenfranchisement would soon hit America.

Perhaps that’s why the Department of Homeland Security is increasingly focusing its anti-terror apparatus on white middle class Americans, portraying them as domestic terrorists in a series of PSA videos. In addition, ‘Occupy’ protesters are also now being characterized as terrorists.

The fact that detention camps have been constructed inside America and are now being staffed and readied for “emergency” situations can no longer be ignored or ridiculed as a conspiracy theory.

Kellogg Brown & Root need to be completely transparent and explain where the camps are located, what they contain, and during what type of “emergencies” are they planned to be used for.

DHS Prepares for Civil Unrest as Obama Poised to Destroy 2nd Amendment

July 29, 2012

Susanne Posel, Infowars.com, July 28, 2012

Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for “public safety”. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

Napolitano stated : “With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it’s in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information.”

Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install “aerial remote sensing” which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.

“DHS believes these airborne images are essential for homeland defense missions, such as planning for National Special Security Events (Super Bowls or a national political conventions come to mind); enhancing border, port and airport security; as well as performing critical infrastructure inventories and assessments” and has spent over $50 million to employ contractors, as well as processors for images and dissemination throughout the DHS.

Coincidentally, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future.

Part of the preparatory measures was an order of 150 sets of riot gear that was requested to be filled exponentially – within 15 days.

The items requested were:

–   147 “Upper Body and Shoulder Protection” which are brand name or equal to “Centurion Soft Shell Riot Control System (CPX2500)”
–   152 “Thigh-Groin Protector” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion TPX200”
–   156 “Forearm Protectors” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (FP100)”
–   147 units of “Hard Shell Shin Guards” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (TS70)”
–   147 carry bags brand name or equivalent to Exotech (E4), 147 tactical gloves brand name or equivalent to “Damascus (DMZ333)”
–   147 riot helmets brand name or equivalent to “MaxPro (TR1000)”

The FPS is anticipating that police or military wearing the gear would encounter “blunt force trauma” to the upper torso, as well as potential beatings with “blunt objects”. To compliment these outfits, are required riot helmets with “tactical face shield” equipped with “liquid seals”.

In addition, the US military are ready to assist with local law enforcement “if called upon”.

Five hundred military police and dogs will be allocated on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building. These same soliders were just stationed in combat areas like Afghantistan.

Meanwhile, the TSA have been patrolling train stations and bus terminals in California.

According to one whistleblower : “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”

The preparations that DHS and FPS are making for civil unrest may be tied to Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This part allows foreign troops (preferably NATO forces) to offer assistance in implementing the ATT. As the ATT does not specify an adherence to the 2nd Amendment, but rather make vague definitions of who can own a gun, what type of gun and for what purpose, the Constitutional rights we take for granted now will be stripped from us once the ATT is signed.

To downplay the severity of our American right to bear arms against tyrannical dictators foreign and domestic, President Obama stated at a National Urban League meeting that: “We recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

Richard Schrade, attorney and member of the Libertarian National Committee commented on the 2nd Amendment: “The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government. Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the NRA, has called out Obama as being part of “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep. All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.”

LaPierre states that upon re-election, Obama will be “busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the US Constitution.”

 

Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns

July 29, 2012

Treacherous wording upholds “States” gun rights but not individuals

Aaron Dykes, Infowars.com, July 26, 2012

The text of the anticipated and hotly-contested United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been leaked, with the treaty itself set to be adopted and signed by member States as early as tomorrow, July 27. President Obama, today joining the chorus for gun control inside the United States in the wake of the Batman massacre, has previously indicated that he would sign the treaty, which would then have to be ratified by the Senate.

Masked behind the language of promoting peace in an international world by preventing genocide, the UN has unleashed a great Trojan Horse that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in this treaty– including gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional weapons. “Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty,” the treaty text states in part.

It makes specific note that the treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations, and additionally places no expiration on the agreement. The scope of this language proves the analysis by Infowars (1, 2, 3, 4), writers at Forbes and many other publications that have been warning about this deceptive encroachment to be correct– there is an effort to disarm America underway.

The devil, as usual, is in the details.

Repeatedly, the treaty obligates States to establish “national control systems” to meet the particulars of the treaty. While the phrase “within national laws and regulations” appears to suggest that the 2nd Amendment would limit the implementation, properly read in the context of the wording and history itself, it really only invites new “regulations” where no “law” can be established.

These international goals will undoubtedly pressure changes in the executive branches’ many policies, as we have already seen with the ATF, who are trying to outlaw most types of shotguns, and who separately placed greater reporting burdens on gun shops in the Southwest border states as a response to the Fast & Furious set-up by Eric Holder & co. to demonize and destroy gun ownership.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The first “principle” outlined in the preamble reads: “1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense.” While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the “inherent right of States” to “individual and collective” self-defense.

This is NOT the same as individual persons’ inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States’ Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as “unilateral war,” while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States’ right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.

It specifically recognizes [only] the “lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” There’s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish.

NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.

While the UN advises States to keep within the scope of their own laws, the end-run assault against American’s 2nd Amendment is unmistakeable.

The text was released two days ago, but has received almost no attention in the press. The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights and The Examiner have analyzed the treaty, while pointing out that member states like France have “let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned ‘weapons.’”

The United Nations has a sordid history of pursuing “general and complete disarmament,” and individual arms including legally owned arms have always been part of that focus. The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”

As we have previously noted, U.S. troops have been trained to confiscate American guns, while the confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has already set the precedent. The deception over aiming for legal guns while pretending to target “illicit” weapons is continued here in this 2012 monster treaty.

Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:

————————

UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TEXT

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Treaty.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;

Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;

Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.

Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;

Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;

Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;

Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;

Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;

Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;

Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1
Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

– For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

– To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

– Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

– Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

– Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

– A. Covered Items

– 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

– a. Battle Tanks

– b. Armored combat vehicles

– c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

– d. Combat aircraft

– e. Attack helicopters

– f. Warships

– g. Missiles and missile launchers

– h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

– 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

– 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

– 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

– B. Covered Activities

– 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

– 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3
Prohibited Transfers

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Article 4
National Assessment

Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:

Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:

Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
Contribute to peace and security;
Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;

In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

Article 5
Additional Obligations

Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
being diverted to the illicit market;
be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
become subject to corrupt practices; or
adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6
General Implementation

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;

The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;

Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.

State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.

If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

Article 7
Export

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8
Import

Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.

State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.

Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9
Brokering

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10
Transit and Transshipment

Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;

Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.

Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.

Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

ARTICLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

ARTICLE 14
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17
Entry into Force

This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.

For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration

This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.

A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19
Reservations

Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Article 20
Amendments

At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.

Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.

A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

DHS Puts Out Urgent Order For Riot Gear

July 29, 2012

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com, Friday, July 27, 2012

The Department of Homeland Security has put out an urgent solicitation for hundreds of items of “riot gear,” in preparation for expected unrest at the upcoming Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.

The DHS solicitation issued on Wednesday gave potential suppliers just one day to submit their proposals, with the equipment to be delivered to Alexandria, VA within a 15-day period after the award is made.

The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

Authorities in Tampa are expecting massive numbers of demonstrators to travel to the RNC next month, with “free speech zones” readied to prevent protesters from leaving designated areas.

Government Security News features a list of riot gear the DHS is looking to obtain.

– 147 riot helmets – which must have an “adjustable tactical face shield with liquid seal” and be able to fit the “3M Full Face Respirator FR-M40B masks.”

– 147 sets of upper body and shoulder protection – which will “effectively protect the torso and shoulders from blunt force trauma” and “safely absorb blows delivered from blunt objects…”

– 152 sets of thigh and groin protection – which “protects the thigh area and has an adjustable and removable groin protector.”

– 147 hard shell shin guards – which can provide “substantial protection from flying debris, non-ballistic weapons, and blows to the leg” and should have an “optimized protective design for severe riot control or tactical situations.”

– 156 forearm protectors – which should shield the “entire forearm from the wrist to the elbow” and weigh approximately six ounces.

– 147 pairs of tactical gloves – which should ensure that the “Kevlar on back of hands is flame/flash retardant as well as cut protective” and that they utilize a “rolled finger tip design for excellent trigger sensitivity and fit.”

This is by no means the only indication that the Department of Homeland Security is gearing up for civil unrest inside the United States.

Back in March, the DHS awarded defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million rounds of bullets over a five year period.

The DHS has also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

Earlier this year, the federal agency also hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings

In January, residents were stunned to see FPS agents armed with semiautomatic guns stationed outside a Social Security office in Florida checking ID’s as part of an exercise.

The Federal Protective Service has also been used by the DHS to track the political activities of peaceful advocacy groups.

Big Sis Hires Hundreds Of Security Guards To Protect Government Buildings

July 29, 2012

Move follows controversy over armed guards placed outside Florida Social Security office

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com, Monday, February 20, 2012

The Department of Homeland Security has hired hundreds of security guards to protect scores of government buildings across the country as the federal agency prepares for terror threats and potential civil disorder in the United States.

“One company, Vendtech-SGI, LLC, of McLean, VA, landed a contract worth more than $311.5 million to provide about 600 guards to protect approximately 200 different posts at more than 130 separate buildings in the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska, according to a DHS notice posted online on Feb. 14,” reports GSN.

Master Security Company, LLC, of Hunt Valley, MD, was also awarded a $43.1 million contract to guard two facilities in Suitland, MD, and one each in Seabrook and Camp Springs, MD.

The contracts were awarded by the DHS’ Federal Protective Service, which is tasked with securing over 9,000 federally owned and leased buildings. The FPS also stoked controversy last month when it posted agents armed with semiautomatic guns at a Social Security office in Florida.

The armed agents checked identifications of locals as part of Operation Shield, an unannounced drill centered around “detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”

The Federal Protective Service has also been used by the DHS to track the political activities of peaceful advocacy groups.

The newly hired security guards will provide “a mix of fixed and roving posts assignments, providing interior and exterior coverage, with some posts requiring 24/7 coverage,” according to the DHS.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The rush to hire hundreds of new security guards could also be related to Homeland Security’s repeated warnings about the threat of civil unrest sweeping the country.

In December, DHS chief Janet Napolitano directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

The federal agency also announced last year that it was monitoring social media websites like Twitter and Facebook for domestic unrest, including “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department.”

This included monitoring remarks by residents of Standish, Michigan in “newspaper comment talkbacks, local blogs, Twitter posts, and publicly available Facebook posts,” to gage the response to a plan to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to a local prison.