Fellow green neighbor Phyllis Cole-Dai follows up on the fascist propaganda injected into a Black Hills emergency drill last week and gets the names of the people responsible for putting her, me, and other opponents of Keystone XL and Powertech Uranium on a local terrorist watch list:
The script presenting a threat ("inject") posed by a terrorist in opposition to the KXL or uranium mining was co-authored by two men at the county level of planning. The first is Ken Hawki, chair of the Lawrence County Local Emergency Planning Committee and Assistant Emergency Manager for Lawrence County. The second is Fred Wells, a 25-year veteran of the military (specializing in anti-terrorism planning) who now volunteers his expertise to "two different fire departments and his county" (Butte, I think). (A sidenote: While I don't mean to cast aspersions on Mr. Wells's military service, his involvement in this seems noteworthy when there are increasing reports of Big Oil utilizing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency tactics against groups that oppose its projects.) [Phyllis Cole-Dai, "Follow-Up on Keystone XL 'Terrorist' Drill," Fast for the Earth, 2013.05.23]
Cole-Dai reports that the script then received approval from other local officials involved in the drill:
After these two men wrote the script, it was presented for consideration to a 15-20 member group that was planning a crisis management drill in three schools (not five, as the journalist reported). Members of the group were representatives of local emergency responders, local emergency management, and the three school districts involved (Deadwood, Custer and Hot Springs). The group gave its consent for the script to be used and it was then prepped to meet federal guidelines for such drills and submitted [Cole-Dai, 2013.05.23].
Cole-Dai's report fits with a statement I received from Brad Maskovich, state exercise coordinator for the South Dakota Office of Emergency Management. He said he had one state-level person involved the day of the exercise, and that state staffer had no involvement in creating the anti-Keystone XL/uranium terrorist fantasy.
However, Cole-Dai's report runs a bit contrary to the response I received from the Hot Springs school district, where Superintendent Donald Marchant forwarded my inquiry to district lawyer Patrick Ginsbach. Counsel Ginsback responds:
The mock scenario was distributed by Fall River County Emergency Management Director Frank Maynard. The school agreed to participate in the exercise and was not aware of the scenario until it was distributed by Director Maynard [Patrick M. Ginsbach, e-mail, 2013.05.23].
Hmm... the school district says it was not aware of the scenario until it was distributed by the county EMD, but Cole-Dai says district officials were aware of and consented to the scenario.
Whoever gave the okey-dokeys, the participants are mostly running from this offensive portrayal of sensible South Dakotans as terrorists. Cole-Dai says the men who wrote the scenario are offering the classic non-apology: they are sorry if anyone took offense, but they consider the scenario justified.
I still see no justification. If, as Cole-Dai says, the main objective of the May 14 exercise was "simply to run a drill to help evaluate the crisis plans meant to protect schoolchildren against terrorist threats," what practical purpose was served by creating a little fairy tale about opponents to two big West River business projects going nuts and threatening violence?
I still see no justification either, as I made clear to those with whom I spoke.
A little more info: I also talked to Frank Maynard, mentioned in your post. He was the person who gave me the names of Hawki and Wells. He did distribute the scenario, but he says that he didn't write it. And depending on WHICH personnel the school district sent to the Emergency Planning meetings, it's possible that CERTAIN other school personnel didn't know the scenario until the drill began. The comments from the district's lawyer COULD be interpreted that way. But once again, the point is apparently being missed by this lawyer, as by so many others to whom we've been speaking.
Your final question is THE question, isn't it, and to that we have not received a satisfactory answer, because no such thing exists. In my view, there's no way that whoever made these decisions would have written or agreed to an "inject" from, say, a "terrorist" NRA member opposed to gun control, or a "terrorist" Tea Party member opposed to paying taxes, or a "terrorist" Christian opposed to gay marriage, or .... An agenda was obviously being served.
I would be just as opposed to an "inject" from a "terrorist" on that list I just brainstormed. For representatives of government (among others) to brand any ethical or moral or political position as "terrorist", even for the sake of a safety drill serving the public good, does nobody ANY good.
After emailing my concerns to those with addresses that I could find I have had a limited response. I do thank those who have responded although they were mostly in the text of absolving themselves of all sins.
Since I was approached by the first TransCanada agent 6 years ago every day of my life begins with a " what next " moment. I do thank you Cory Heidelberger and Phyllis Cole-Dai for shining a light on this recent bucket of barn fodder......
A scenario with a couple cops and several national guard members going berserk after eating moldy bread would be more likely to be actual but nearly certainly not approved.
The least that should happen is that none of the expenses of this exercise should be paid for by federal, state or local taxpayers. The state has guidelines for these funds and I'm sure there are other guidelines in conducting these drills.
http://dps.sd.gov/homeland_security/documents/HomelandSecurityGrantAdministrativeMANUALUpdatedMay2012.pdf
People who feel particularly incensed about this should contact the state and federal authorities. The people who did this must have far more oversight in the future. It seems that citizens may be able to contest the use of state and federal funds for this drill, and ask for an investigation as to whether federal laws were broken. The state publication talks about lists of potential terrorists. Are you on the list because of your political views on uranium mining and the Keystone Pipeline? Did the drill include any attempt to list or find "suspects?"
We need to have far greater transparency regarding this matter.
If you read through the federal Homeland Security guide for doing exercises and drills you'll find that these sorts of things are months in developing, having a number of meetings attended by numerous people, including elected officials. The fact that everyone seems to be denying participation in the planning, including planning the scenario (which is one of the first things that is supposed to be addressed) would indicate that the participating authorities did not follow the federal Homeland Security guidelines and should not receive any federal funds for this drill/exercise.
https://hseep.dhs.gov/support/HSEEP_Revision_Apr13_Final.pdf
Wow, you "liberals" find the strangest things to get your nickers in an uproar about. What I've read here it indicates to me that you all want an exercise that has no bad guys or better yet a terrorist organization composed of old, white, pro-life, Christian guys. Would that make you feel better?
No, Joe. I would like an explanation of how publicly identifying any group as the potential source of a terrorist threat to children in any way improves the emergency exercise. Does anything about the drill change depending on the identity of the terrorists? Explain the operational advantage gained for emergency management officials by this scenario.
Do you know for a fact that the students were told of the terrorists agenda? Probably not, because that part of the exercise is important to only the command and control element. Regardless, based on some of the organizations opposed to the pipeline, it is a rational exercise scenario. I oppose the pipeline, but understanding the need to exercise command and control functions and emergency response actions I don't feel threatened. Maybe if they got up and said "Joe is a terrorist" I might be a little upset but maybe not because I was called a "baby killer" for many years by "liberals" and it didn't upset me, I just considered who was calling me that and dismissed them and their thinking.
Hey Joe, you mean like this guy?
88, armed white supremacist...James Wenneker von Brunn
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-11/news/36900665_1_von-brunn-stephen-t-johns-officer-johns
I believe that it was Frank Maynard, Falls County Emergency Operations Manager, who told me that in future they should just use a scenario in which the inject involves "little green men from Mars who are upset about red" something-or-others (forgive me for not remembering his exact words). So obviously, at least in his judgment, the source of the threat is not important. This, in my view, only makes the choice of inject in this drill the more insidious. If the potential source makes no difference to the exercise, why identify one at all? If just to be "realistic," then let's really be realistic--the threat should come from a troubled teen or adult (usually male) with access to guns. After all, how many school shootings have EVER been motivated by opposition to a particular issue--environmental, political or otherwise?
The idea that there is any plausible "terrorist" threat in western or any of South Dakota is beyond laughable. An occasional crime, okay, but terrorism - only in the eye of folks trying to justify their time and wasting of taxpayer resources. Unless, of course, hanging a banner on a grey rock is now twisted to be "terrorism."
I agree with you John, however the federal government requires these excercises. Sadly, hanging a banner on a grey rock can now be twisted into a terrorist act, if the government decides that what it is.
In reply to Joseph: I was told by several sources that the students were NOT told the specifics of the script. (Thankfully.) However, the 15-20 people who reviewed this script (over the course of 4-5 meetings, I believe) DID know the specifics, as did those who eventually carried out the drill. So how were all these people--with their own opinions and such--affected by this? How apt are they now (if not before) to suddenly think of terrorism in relation to certain forms of LEGITIMATE dissent concerning KXL and more? How might their future actions, and interactions, be influenced, etc? What are the ripple effects of this poor decision on the part of authorities who are responsibility for protecting our children?
I have a 10-year-old son. As I told Mr. Maynard, Mr. Wells, Mr. Hawki and others, it's a shame we live in a world where we have to worry about children like him (and staff and teachers) getting killed in school. But we do live in that sort of world. So I understand the need for plans and drills. I want them to plan and drill and drill and plan some more to keep my son and everybody else safe in our schools. But not by painting certain people as potential terrorists simply because of their lawful--and heretofore nonviolent--opposition to corporate interests, or their desire to protect the environment, or....
Ms Cole-Dai, The writers created a fictitious organization, gave it a political agenda and exercised response options. Highly doubt that any of the developers or participates had their attitudes affected by this exercise.
Can you assure me that all organizations opposed to the pipeline are non violent? Doubt you can because I am aware of several that do not espouse violence.
should read" that do espouse violience"
Why not just choose a threat from any of the 62 mass shootings in the last 30 years as an example.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Click on the dots and get the details. Seems that signs of mental illness are fairly prevalent.
Now what was it our legislature did this last session to make sure that the mentally ill wouldn't have to give up their firearms. So who's crazy here?
Jana, you have no problem stigmatizing the mentally ill?
Good catch highlighting this Cory.
In substance I see very little difference between this and the IRS targeting Tea Party groups. In this case the "targeting" was a little less direct, however it can be just as harmful.
If enough drills like this are run with anti-Keystone/Powertech "terrorists" cast as the "villain" it won't take long before portions of the public see activists as terrorists. Actually this may be even more harmful if allowed to happen in the future. If people are told enough times that certain activists are terrorists they will believe it. That's true even if it is done indirectly as it is done here.
Whether this was done as part of bad judgement or as part of a political plot the situation should be dealt with. At the very least I believe taxpayer funding should be pulled as was mentioned above.
Not at all Joe. Mental illness is far too common, treatable and controllable.
You know the details of what the legislature did. They voted to allow people who were professionally evaluated and institutionalized as mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others the right to keep their firearms.
Mental illness is a disease that affects 1 in 5 people...based on that, I'm guessing we all have someone we know and love that has a mental illness.
Not everyone that has a mental illness is deemed a threat to others or themselves so much that they are institutionalized.
Oh, and Joe. My point was that we have 60 real examples of the profiles of people who committed a mass shooting. Why do we have to make one up?
Unless of course we had an ideological axe to grind.
This is not the first time emergency management training in the Hills has been used to further a political agenda. Remember Walid Shoebat who was brought in twice to teach emergency managers that all Muslims are terrorists and that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer?
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/al-qaida-not-a-fringe-opinion-among-muslims-speaker-claims/article_b50afa8c-7c41-11e0-9287-001cc4c002e0.html
You people would totally freak if you knew what kind of command and control excercises are run by the federal government at least monthly.
Mr Santema. you really can't see the difference between this bs excercise and the problems at the IRS?
Jana. I assume you know the full scope of the exercise. It may well have tested situations that had nothing to do with a school shooting.
I never said it was a school shooting. I provided a link to the last 62 mass shootings. Think movie theater, mall, military base, business, cafe, churches, grocery store, rail station, neighborhood...well you get the idea. Oh yeah...and schools ranging from k-12 to universities.
This whole thing needs to be investigated by the US Attorney, and maybe the US Senate, too. Were federal laws broken and people's constitutional rights trampled upon, or are these just a bunch of incompetent Barney Fife-types thinking they were "terrorist" fighters? Funny how "the terrorists" usually are people the local power structure doesn't like. For example, in one liberal community it was "home schoolers" who were the "terrorists." This is a sick, sick country George Bush gave us where fighting the locally unapproved minority (racial, political or otherwise) gets you label as a terrorist. Obama's speech the other day was right on target. It's time to end this phony war on terrorism. It's just an excuse to give local bigots the chance to kick people around.
Mr Thompson,
Yes, both situations involve the misuse of the governments coercive powers in a way that can hinder citizens 1st Amendment rights.
The IRS scandal happened with dozens or hundreds of groups of Tea Party groups over a long period of time. Some f the results relevant to 1 St Amendment include:
1. Tea Party groups were left in a legal limbo. Many were unsure of how/if they could exercise their free speech rights as a 501(c)(4) without breaking the law.
2. Tea Party Groups were directly being intimidated by the IRS. To hardcore TP members this acted as fuel. However not every member of TP is 'hardcore'. These people may have withdrew support when it looked like direct conflict with the IRS was likely.
If the IRS scenario had happened with just 1 agent and 1 TP group it would have been just as bad of using governments power, but it would not have reached scandal level.
Now we have this drill. It is just one drill involving one area. Nothing that could be seen as a scandal.
However if these drills continue over a long period of time involving many regions with anti-KS/PT activists as the 'terrorists' it would have the following ramifications:
1. Local law enforcement, officials, and communities would begin to see anti-KS/PT activists as 'terrorists'. Any statements from these activists would be branded 'un-American'.
2. People would be afraid to speak out against KS/PT in fear of being seen/treated as a terrorist. This fear would stifle free speech in fear of government retaliation (which would be reinforced by many of these drills).
Both the #IRS and KS/PT scenarios have a potentially chilling impact upon 1st Amend rights. The only real difference is that the IRS scenario was fully realized, while the KS/PT scenario is in its infancy and can still be prevented. Using the governments coercive power for political means can always have a negative impact on individual rights.
I will also say both scenarios probably started innocently. In the case of the IRS it probably snowballed into the avalanche of a scandal we have today. So I guess I'm saying we stop this from snowballing into another avalanche scandal involving the 1st amendment.
All ya gotta do is call the US Dept of Homeland Security's Inspector General's office or call Senator Johnson's office in DC. No sense calling a Republican cause they are all part of President Bush's conspericy to destroy America. Tired of trying to talk some sense. Flood bite.
According to Phyllis's conversations, the emergency drillers didn't tell the kids at school, but they put the scenario in the press. The drill incorporated a political agenda that had nothing to do with improving the operational quality of the drill.
And Ken, let's draw some daylight between this emergency drill's targeting of opponents of the corporatist agenda and the IRS's targeting of Tea Party groups for scrutiny. Our Black Hills emergency managers promulgated the message that we opponents of KXL and Powertech might kill kids to achieve our political goals. The IRS officials investigated the possibility that Tea Party groups might conduct political activities that would make them ineligible for 501(c)4 status. The former is an unrealized and unlikely threat. The latter is reality. The former is an instance of local emergency management officials operating beyond the scope of their duties. The latter is an instance of IRS officials investigating tax-related matters.
The IRS was doing its job, but poorly. The emergency planners were doing something other than their job.
Yall wonder why Democrats are sadly irrelevant in South Dakota.
Joe, this isn't irrelevancy. This is oversight of government operations and attempting to ensure that no public officials misuse their office to promote anyone's political agenda. As Donald notes, this politicization of an emergency drill could put in danger our Homeland Security funding.
This isn't about Democrats or their relevancy; this is about public officials doing their jobs effectively. I still haven't heard any rationale for how hanging a terrorist label on KXL/Powertech opponents does anything to improve emergency response teams' effectiveness.
Joseph,
Is your question directed toward MC who on Cory's first post about this issue said, "I can see some of these protesters chaining them selfs to trees, or track hoes, but, blowing up schools?
You want a real threat? How about a parent who has just lost everything, or that guy on the corner who seems to be talking to dead people?"
I'm pretty sure he's not a Democrat.
Ken who worries about a chilling effect expressions of political speech protected by the 1st Amendment is a proud libertarian.
If you want a reason Democrats are irrelevant in South Dakota, look to the fact that this is a rural state.
Two quotations to back up the point, first, "The rural/urban divide in American presidential politics is pronounced, and it extends to the U.S. House. Generally speaking, Republicans win the districts that are geographically large, and Democrats win the districts that are geographically small."
The second one is long: ". . . the states of Alaska, Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota are technically the four biggest “districts” in the United States — the average size of a House district is about 8,100 square miles. That roughly corresponds to the size of Rep. Jim Clyburn’s (D, SC-6) district, which is the 87th largest district in the country. A better way to analyze these districts is to look at the median, which is Rep. Frank LoBiondo’s (R, NJ-2) district in southern New Jersey. At about 2,100 square miles, NJ-2 is both the 218th biggest and 218th smallest of the 435 House districts.
"In the 217 districts larger than the median, Republicans hold three-fourths of the districts; in the 217 districts smaller, Democrats hold two-thirds of the seats."
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/size-matters/
Of course with this requirement:
"501(c)(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."
It's silly to even think that they would need oversight. That would never happen...right?
Hey, weren't the only 2 organizations denied liberal?
The IRS should get back to investigating the NAACP!
ACORN!...Squirrel!...Squirrel!
Cory, I do understand you point about those opposed to KXL being labeled as killers. That is wrong, plain and simple.
But I think both are cases of officials doing what they think was right (at least initially). The drills have a potential to be a bigger and more extreme scandal than the IRS scenario. However, if enough pressure is given this will be prevented in the future and scandal averted.
Actually this whole thought reminds me of something I seen on a blog earlier this year (can't remember which one). The subject was Republican vs Democrat scandals. A line in the blog was "My scandal is bigger than yours!". I think that has been happening a lot lately.
I listened to a GOP Congress Critter and a Democrat too on ABC this morning both talking about the IRS abusing "taxpayers". That BS is irrelevant. What we are actually talking about are those asking for a special dispensation to be non-taxpayers. If any taxpayers are abused, it is the rest of us who have no escape from taxes and end up paying a larger share because the same congress critters now wringing their hands are the ones who made sure the confusing, contradictory loopholes for the very rich exist or have not been changed.
The hypocrisy of both Republicans and Democrats on the IRS great non-issue is disgusting. The fact that few if any of the media talking heads have bothered to notice this great big glaring red thumb is even more disturbing. Of course most of them are also very rich and most of them work for incredibly rich media conglomerates.