Subj: y2k Date: 99-01-05 18:42:50 EST From: JDPoeland To: J1mS1 Y2K and martial law http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19981208_xcbtl_y2k_and_ma.sht ml For those suspecting the federal government is making Y2K millennium bug contingency plans that include the suspension of civil liberties, fears were not allayed by the nation's Y2K czar at his first summit last week. In answer to a question about electrical-power failures caused by embedded chip problems and other millennium bug breakdowns, John Koskinen, the chairman of President Clinton's Y2K council, said: "In a crisis and emergency situation, the free market may not be the best way to distribute resources. ... If there's a point in time where we have to take resources and make a judgment on an emergency basis, we will be prepared to do that." Now what does that mean? These guys don't think the free market is the best way to distribute resources in the best of times. But this statement requires some explanation. This is a statement that should prompt congressional hearings -- out in public, not in executive session. This is a statement that brings to mind a history of executive orders mandating emergency presidential powers that would make our Founding Fathers spin in their graves. Yet, I saw the chilling statement reported only by Wired News, which covered the Y2K council's first summit in San Francisco last Thursday. Nothing in the Associated Press. Nothing in the San Francisco papers. Nothing on the major networks. Worse yet, even Wired News, which, thank heavens, saw fit to publish the quote, did not choose to lead its story coverage with it. Now, I can understand government seizing an opportunity for more power in a crisis. It's the nature of government to do just that. What I don't understand is how we could receive so many warnings by government officials of their ominous plans for martial law beginning Jan. 1, 2000 without scrutiny by the press, civil libertarians and other so-called government watchdogs. Why am I like a voice crying out in the wilderness over this issue? This is, by my count, at least the second major pronouncement by high-ranking members of the Clinton administration that preparations are being made to scrap the Constitution in the event of problems we know are coming on a date just over a year away. The first, to refresh your memories, came in June, when Sen. Robert Bennett, chairman of the Senate's Year 2000 committee, was interviewing a top Pentagon official, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre. Here's how that exchange went: Bennett: "In the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law," will the military be ready? Hamre: "We've got fundamental issues to deal with that go beyond just the Year 2000 contingency planning. And I think you're right to bring that up." Understand that Bennett, a Republican from Utah, wasn't suspiciously asking Hamre if the military was secretly planning a hideous martial law scenario. He was knowingly asking him, apparently hopeful that the military would be prepared to carry out it out. [[ This plan/response has been in place for a LONG time. Anyone who wants a copy of the Exec. Order, let me know. It SHOULD be read by everyone -- *VERY* CAREFULLY!!!!!!! ]] I know it's too much to ask, but shouldn't the members of the House Judiciary Committee at least have all this in the back of their minds today as they consider articles of impeachment against President Clinton? Is this a leader the nation can trust on the brink of a potential national crisis? Is this a man America can trust with emergency powers? Americans have come to believe their freedom is a permanent state. When people take their freedom for granted, it is most in peril. Is it not possible, with all we now know about the character of Bill Clinton, that he would attempt to turn such a crisis into a semi-permanent presidency -- one with imperial powers? And, with all we know about the character of the spineless Congress, is it unthinkable to imagine its members abdicating their authority and collaborating in such an insidious scheme? Am I being paranoid? I don't think so. After all, it's not me who is raising the ugly specter of martial law in the context of the Y2K crisis. It is the United States government -- first in a public meeting between representatives of the legislative and executive branches and now in a public summit convened by the president's Y2K czar. This is not a hallucination, folks. It's reality. Hearings are being conducted. Plans are being made. Further evidence of this plot comes in the form of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by Bill Clinton last May. It calls for the development of a plan to ensure "essential national security missions" as well as general public health and safety by, you guessed it, the year 2000. The carefully worded directive emphasizes the preservation of order, the delivery of minimum essential services and the maintenance of a "national infrastructure protection system" involving the military, intelligence agencies, law enforcement and the mandatory participation of the "private sector." Under the directive, the "National Infrastructure Protection Center," which includes the FBI, the Secret Service, other federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies, calls the shots. To me, the cynic, all this sounds like code for martial law. Not interested in the federal plans? You may have to be. The document states that "it is preferred that participation by owners and operators in a national infrastructure protection system be voluntary." Note that word "preferred." You may be drafted. The first set of plans from federal agencies were due on Clinton's desk last month. You can bet he won't be holding any press conferences on those details any time soon. I can tell you this news agency will be filing Freedom of Information Act requests for those documents. But, don't hold your breath, this White House claims a broad exemption from the FOIA that none of its predecessors has claimed -- just one more reason for impeachment, if you ask me. Of course, maybe Y2K will come and go with no major calamities. Would you like to bet your freedom on that possibility? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at: http://www.ktkz.com/ =============================== Last Updated 2:49 PM ET January 4 Track Your Favorite News Topics with Excite's NewsTracker New! Excite's NewsPhoto Gallery U.S. Firms Prepare For The Worst Of Y2K Current quotes (delayed 20 mins.) CHV 80 7/8 -1 3/16 (-1.45%) T 79 1/2 1 5/8 (2.09%) MCD 76 5/8 -5/16 (-0.41%) By Andrew Hay NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The new millennium and its much-anticipated computer bug is still a year away but many U.S. companies are already throwing in the towel. They admit they won't be ready. Companies are beginning to make such frank statements on Y2K risks to cover themselves against possible securities litigation, analysts said. The statements also provide ammunition for their own suits. Companies such as Chevron Corp. and AT&T Corp. say their systems may be vulnerable to significant failures as they grapple with the Year 2000 date change. McDonald's Corp. and DuPont Co. are more confident their machines can handle the date change. They are less sure about those of suppliers and local governments. The Year 2000 problem arises in computers systems that record only the last two digits of a year, raising the possibility they could mistake the year 2000 for 1900, for example. The glitch could confuse computers and microchips embedded in machines, causing them to spit out bad data or not work at all. With Year 2000 errors putting profits at risk, industry consultants report companies doubling or tripling spending to ensure key systems are Y2K compliant and insulated from outside failures. "The fundamental cost of Y2K is the risk of business interruption," said Jeff Ray, a vice president at Compuware Corp., a leading software testing company. Companies have still not done most of the tedious and costly work to fix Year 2000 computer bugs. "It appears that over half the work will be crammed into 1999," said Steven Hock, chief executive of research company Triaxsys Research LLC. Of the 500 largest U.S. companies, 70 percent have been reporting in Securities and Exchange Commission filings on their progress with the Y2K bug. As of the end of September, those companies had spent 42 percent of their year 2000 budgets, according to a report by Triaxsys. At that rate, the Missoula, Mont. company estimates many companies will fall short of fixing all their computers and machines by the Year 2000. As companies realize they and their partners may not achieve full compliance, they are planning back-up systems and looking for alternate vendors. Coca-Cola Co. has contingency plans for the failure of power, water and phone systems. They include stockpiling raw and packaged materials, increasing inventory levels and securing alternate supply sources. McDonald's and DuPont are developing plans to handle problems that may arise if a number of vendors do not fix their computer bugs. While some companies devise contingency plans, others are still wrestling with modifications to their own systems. The technologically complex telecommunications sector ranks dead last among all other industries in progress toward completion of Y2K projects, according to Triaxsys. Also behind are the utilities industry and the energy sector. Industries leading the race are banking, securities and insurance, all of which began looking at Y2K up to 10 years ago largely because of regulatory requirements. Most telecom companies only began looking at the issue two to three years ago. Chevron has said it will not fix all its systems by Dec. 31, 1999, and Year 2000 business interruptions could prevent it from making and delivering refined products and producing oil and gas. AT&T has acknowledged the potential for failure across its systems and has cranked up Year 2000 spending by more than 50 percent. While disclosing such problems in SEC filings may protect them from lawsuits, it won't keep the business running if the computers operated by the companies and their vendors don't work. "You can't announce to your shareholders that you went out of business because of a vendor...but you're going to sue," Ray said.
