# FEMA (concentration) camps



## lettermom (Apr 4, 2008)

What do you think about them?

If you haven't read about them yourself please google it before posting so you have some info. 

Thanks!


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

I just read an article. It's scary to know what can happen if any president goes amuck. It's even scarier to know how much they can do LEGALLY. So who voted to pass such lunatic laws?


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

Where to startâ¦

Before I start posting about âFEMA (concentration) campsâ, let me give you a bit of my background. I have been in Army military police, and am still in civilian police, and emergency management. As a result of the emergency management aspect I have been trained by FEMA, and have been to many of their facilities.

With that being said, let me say that there are no concentration camps. Let me repeat that, there are no concentration camps! Most of what the internet sites you get when you Google âFEMA concentration campsâ are showing are military barracks & camps, prison facilities, and a few facilities left over from the Cuban boat people exodus. 

The Government / Presidential orders that all these sites quote are from the cold war era, and reflect what would be needed to rebuild society after a nuclear war. Great fodder for people that stand to gain from scaremongering the public, but of little concern to folks that deal in reality.

I was raised by a father who was a survivalist, and saw a government that slowly increased its control. Creeping into every aspect of our daily lives with stealth and deceit. It was a result of that upbringing that I joined the military, and later civilian police, and emergency management. To see the beast from within, and to be able to beat it at its own game.

What I have found is a laughable incompetent bureaucracy that could not keep a secret of such a magnitude if it needed to. It would take too many people to operate such a conspiracy, and people would talk (and it would not be the tripe youâre finding on the internet).

Now I do see and find a government that is slowly controlling and regulating every aspect of our lives, the best defense from this is to live as rural as possible and be as self sufficient as possible. Be dependent on the system a little as possible. âTheyâ have their hands full enough controlling the folks in the cities, to bother with country folks.

Sam


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Sam_Luna said:


> Where to startâ¦
> 
> 
> With that being said, let me say that there are no concentration camps. Let me repeat that, there are no concentration camps! Most of what the internet sites you get when you Google âFEMA concentration campsâ are showing are military barracks & camps, prison facilities, and a few facilities left over from the Cuban boat people exodus.
> ...



This Bill looks pretty recent to me, January 22.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...cts-kbr-to-build-detention-centers-in-the-us/

--sgl


----------



## giddy (Nov 14, 2006)

As i posted on the other thread about the govtrack.us site (4) says and "to meet other appropriate needs as determined by the Sec. of Homeland Security". That leaves a lot of room for just about "any" need they see.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> This Bill looks pretty recent to me, January 22.
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645


One mans "FEMA concentration Camp" is just another mans "national emergency center"


Yes, and here's probably the biggest take away:



> SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
> 
> (a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
> 
> ...


and



> Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--
> 
> (1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
> 
> ...


Like Sam_Luna, Im also familiar with FEMA having worked with them in the past and now as part of my job as an inter-agency coordinator for an Army command.

These are simply preparations in the event of a major disaster. The tin foil hat crowd will continue to get worked up about it, but there really is no sinister plot. Just the government doing what it's supposed to in the event of a catastrophe.

Yes, Brown and Root have contracts to be prepared set these up, because they have the ability and experience to do it. 

Or would you rather have a major earthquake and a repeat of Katrina?

Chuck


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Most of what the internet sites you get when you Google âFEMA concentration campsâ are showing are military barracks & camps, prison facilities, and a few facilities left over from the Cuban boat people exodus.


A gilded cage is still a cage. Doesn't matter what the facility looks like, what matters is what it is being used for.


.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Seems we can't win. If we don't have preparations in place, the government is wrong. If we do have preparations in place, it's a conspiracy to do away with citizens or inter them. I read one lady's account, and on the surface it seemed Oh So Sinister, but there were stringent regulations in place to keep the population under "control," as in to deter rioting and so forth, which you must do in any situation where thousands of people are forced to live together in a limited amount of space.

I also read several references to FEMA coffins, and once again, was struck by the "darned if we do, darned if we don't" thought process. FEMA apparently manufactured coffins for use in a mass casualty situation; this is simple common sense. People will die in a natural disaster. But the "tin foil hat" population has taken this and twisted it to yet another conspiracy theory.

It strikes me as hypocritical that the US was screaming "foul" when Katrina did it's terrible destruction. Somehow it was everyone else's fault that people refused to leave after repeated warnings. FEMA dropped the ball. And so on. So someone steps up, tries to make a legitimate plan, and whoopsy, wrong again. :shrug:


----------



## Welshmom (Sep 7, 2008)

I agree with Sam and Chuck. These re not "concentrations camps". And I see nothing alarming in the directions in how they are to be used. 

After Katrina, the govt. learned a few very hard lessons. Remember the Astrodome? We as taxpayers should _insist_ that the govt. be better prepared since we know disasters of equal or worse devastation will occur in the future. If they happen in or near urban areas, there will be thousands or millions of people with no way to feed themselves, etc. 

I personally would avoid going to one of those places at all costs, as I'm sure most people on this site would. But there have to be accomodations for the people who live in urban and/or suburban areas (mainly) that have suddenly been made homeless. 

And Sam is right - if you'd ever worked in any part of govt., you would know it is simply isn't feasible.


I say do yourself a favor, focus on things that are real, and sleep better. Maybe.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

I think most of you have your tin foil caps on a little too tight.


----------



## Marie04 (Mar 3, 2008)

After reading and watching some of the videos about camps, etc.. I came to the same conclusion.. The government took a lot of heat for not being prepared for Katrina, so now they are prepared, or better prepared.. Especially in the major metropolitan areas -- if there is a disaster, natural or otherwise, where are most of the people going to go? For those who are prepared, that will be just be that many fewer people who may need to be taken care of..


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

There ought not be any discussion or patronizing comments referring to "tin foil" when it comes to ANYTHING the government might or might not be capable of. Those of you who are lambasting others for having a more extreme view of what these camps might be for should reconsider your comments. Each one of us has a responsibility to watch the government with a wary eye and not draw arbitrary lines upon what we think they might or might not do. 

I imagine at one point some citizen said, "British marching to seize the arsenal at Concord? I think your tin foil hat is on too tight!"


----------



## lettermom (Apr 4, 2008)

I still wonder though if they are for something good, why is there the barbed/razor wire fencing that is angled to keep people/things in and why is it not angled the other way to keep things/people out? 
The government has done ALOT of not nice things in history. Like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment ect. lots of things that don't make good sense.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

My thoughts on these facilites:

IMO, they are being prepared because the govt. knows that millions will be homeless/jobless/hungry and mob like...and they also know that when the final blow to the economy comes.. people will demand the govt. do something.. these facilities will be the govt.'s answer...think Superdome and Katrina...never ever go to one of these "shelters" or any others...for any natural *or *national emergency.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm with Sam and Chuck on this one. "FEMA concentration camps" is one of the most persistent conspiracy theories of the twenty first century.

If the Federal government didn't make plans and preparations for large scale disasters then folks would quite rightly be all over them for not having done so. If they do make plans and preparations then they're accused of setting up concentration camps.

I look at every new document about this stuff that comes along and to date I've seen nothing that gives me reason for concern. Yes, the government should be scrutinized closely over everything, but let us not forget they do have actual responsibilities they're supposed to plan and prepare for.

.....Alan.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

While I do not trust the .gov, I really don't think they have the ability to shove large numbers of people into camps against their will. At this point in time there are too many of us who will resist going and will protest loudly if any group is forced into a camp.

OTOH, there are going to be numbers of people in any disaster that will willingly walk into "refugee centers" for assistance. I do not intend to be one of them. That is one of the main reasons for prepping to the best of my ability. If you have prepared ahead of time for your family's needs, you will not be looking for assistance from those who will be ready to take your freedom in exchange for food, shelter or warmth. Also be aware that their side of the exchange may be empty promises. You could be lured into a bad situation thinking you are doing the right thing to take care of your family and find NO food, shelter or warmth, but loss of freedom.


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm not worried about the camps, but I am bothered by the amount of power FEMA has.

10990
Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.

10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

11002
Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.

11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. 

11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

11921
Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

I remember back in the mid-1980's that there was a tinfoil conspiracy about the military using mock-up towns to practice going door-to-door. Military/gov denied it until someone released photos. In the early 1990's the tinfoil conspiracy was black helicopters. The gov denied the existence of black helicopters until photos were released showing that they did indeed exist. 

IMO, denial is first. Name calling second (conspiracy whackos). Then admission. At the admission stage, so much time will have ellapsed between the first and last steps that no one even cares even more.


.


----------



## Zipporah (Jul 30, 2006)

I believe they exist. Now the question is who they are for and when.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2008/210208Camps.htm

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0}&dist=SignInArchive&param=archive&siteid=mktw&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656


----------



## Marie04 (Mar 3, 2008)

Zipporah said:


> I believe they exist. Now the question is who they are for and when.
> 
> http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2008/210208Camps.htm
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0}&dist=SignInArchive&param=archive&siteid=mktw&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656


I watched the video and read the article. My problem with it is that Naomi Wolf does not have any credibility, in my opinion.. and the video mentions that the clergy served Katrina victims around the clock, and somehow made that seem sinister....

there are problems with this scenario.. there was a political reason that people editorialized against the government. Will be interesting to see how that changes now, with change in gov.


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

â_Military using mock-up towns to practice going door-to-door_â, have been there Ft Bragg North Carolina, and Ft Chaffee Arkansas. Warfare has moved from the open fields, woods, and jungles to a more urban environment. Thus MOUNT (Military Operations in an Urban Terrain) was born, and the military uses the training for such places as Somalia, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq. Could it be used here, of course! Any military training could be used in the CONUS on our own people.

â _Black helicopters_â, I never understood this one. I have never seen said black helicopters, but I would think that if they wanted them to not be noticed they would paint them in color schemes that would be hard to see from the ground (like fighter jets) not black so they stand out.

Iâll not call anyone a â_conspiracy whacko_â, peoples fears are not something that should be made fun of. I am just saying that there are things that one should fear, and government concentration camps are not one of them. Really, there are too many people to be rounded up! They could never round everybody then would need to be rounded up, and then house them. Then when you look at the logistics of taking care of that many people, it boggles the mind. I have had a hand in running an emergency shelter that housed 1400, and it was a logistic nightmare. And thatâs 1400 people that wanted to be there, and where used to being taken care of by the government. 

Not to offend, but I canât take Alex Jones as a credible source, and as far as Daniel Hamburgâ¦

Hamburg became executive director of Voice of the Environment, and on December 8, 2004, was arrested along with his wife Carrie for trying to deliver a letter to Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell concerning alleged voter fraud in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. 
Hamburg was arrested outside of a Wal-Mart store in Ukiah, California in 2000 while protesting for the legalization of marijuana.
Hamburg has endorsed the religious teachings of Adi Da. 
On February 22, 2008, during an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Daniel Hamburg said that he believes that the 9/11 terrorists had help from inside the US Government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hamburg

In the end your going to believe what you want to believe, I just hate it when folks live in fear of something that is not real. In the end, the government can and will do what it wishes and feels like it needs to do. None of the worrying and fear mongering is going to stop it. 

Fear is paying interest on a debt not yet incurred, *stop paying that interest*.

Sam


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Really, there are too many people to be rounded up!


Actually not so many. Older people, people needing medical care, pregnate women, families with young children, etc... will, for the most part, will go without any difficulty. Many healthy people will go just because the local PTB tells them to. When it comes down to it, only a few people would actually rebel against being rounded up; many of them will be turned in by family members, neighbors, friends, etc...



> In the end your going to believe what you want to believe, I just hate it when folks live in fear of something that is not real.


What isn't real about these camps? HR 465 concerns these camps. KBR has a contract to build them when/where they are needed. While some people may "live in fear", most just want to know the truth and keep an open mind. While these camps may be used for the best intentions, they can also be used for wrong reasons. Each of us must look at the information and keep an open mind. If you think that these camps are good and they tell you to go, then go. I myself will not go on my own.


.


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> Actually not so many. Older people, people needing medical care, pregnate women, families with young children, etc... will, for the most part, will go without any difficulty. Many healthy people will go just because the local PTB tells them to. When it comes down to it, only a few people would actually rebel against being rounded up; many of them will be turned in by family members, neighbors, friends, etc...
> 
> 
> What isn't real about these camps? HR 465 concerns these camps. KBR has a contract to build them when/where they are needed. While some people may "live in fear", most just want to know the truth and keep an open mind. While these camps may be used for the best intentions, they can also be used for wrong reasons. Each of us must look at the information and keep an open mind. If you think that these camps are good and they tell you to go, then go. I myself will not go on my own.
> ...


Just off the top of your head, how many people (considering the people you have listed) are you talking about number wise?

I never said I would go into a "camp", and would not advise anyone to do so.

If these facilities are camps in anyway shape or form, they would be for the sheeple that have always depended on the government.

This would be the âsuperdomeâ type people that did not get out of NO, but rather sat on their backsides and waited to be taken care of.

Sam


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Just off the top of your head, how many people (considering the people you have listed) are you talking about number wise?


I'm not sure what you are looking for here. IMO, the majority of people will go willingly because they will be hungry. It is easier for the PTB to distribute food in centralized locations (population centers) than in thousands of smaller towns/cities. Once this stage is done, the people still on the "outside" will be branded as hoarders/unpatriotic/unAmerican/etc... (marginalized). After that the PTB can stage incidents and blame them on the outsiders and use that as an excuse to round them up. (BTW, I am just thinking out loud here, coming up with potential scenarios).

I have already heard the phrase "useless eaters" (net consumers) used in reference to the sick/elderly. Give it some more time and they will be cutting the medical care to a lot more people in order to "save money".

.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> What isn't real about these camps? HR 465 concerns these camps. KBR has a contract to build them when/where they are needed. While some people may "live in fear", most just want to know the truth and keep an open mind. While these camps may be used for the best intentions, they can also be used for wrong reasons. Each of us must look at the information and keep an open mind. If you think that these camps are good and they tell you to go, then go. I myself will not go on my own.
> 
> 
> .


As I said earlier, KBR has contracts because after the Balkans and IRAQ/Kuwait they have the experience and the ability to build them.

Anything can be used for wrong intentions, anything. If you're worried about camps, just take a look at some of the facilities around you. Some barrier materials, a few guard towers and your average High School can become a camp, or better yet a "re-education" center for TPTB. It really doesn't take all that much to make a temporary containment facility. The Army now has handbooks on how to do it and the materials required. 

As Sam pointed out MOUT has been going on for sometime. I remember about 2 years ago when the same conspiracy cropped up because the National Guard was receiving MOUT training. Again the same theories about camps and how the NG was being trained to do door to door. 

Well, of course they were being trained for MOUT since they made up about 40% of the troops being deployed. The other choice would have been "critical training withheld from NG troops prior to deployment. 

The coolest part about some of these conspiracy theories is that they require no proof. As a matter of fact, the absence of proof just means it's a much larger and even more sinister conspiracy. 

One thing you probably ought to think about: 

If you know about our camps, and post on the Internet, we know that you know. We have your IP address and know who you are, and where you are. You may know that we know that you know, but you've now made the "list" and will be rounded up first.

Chuck


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> As Sam pointed out MOUT has been going on for sometime. I remember about 2 years ago when the same conspiracy cropped up because the National Guard was receiving MOUT training. Again the same theories about camps and how the NG was being trained to do door to door.


All I know is that back in the 1980's the PTB DENIED that mock towns were being used for training. After a few years of "whackos" talking about it the PTB finally admitted they existed and gave reasons for using them. Why didn't they admit they existed from the beginning? IMO, they wanted to make people look like R-W whackos so the press/country would ignore anything they had to say in the future: oh, don't listen to him/them, he/they is/are always saying crazy things, can't believe anything he/they say.



> If you know about our camps, and post on the Internet, we know that you know. We have your IP address and know who you are, and where you are. You may know that we know that you know, but you've now made the "list" and will be rounded up first.


I made the "LIST" back in the 1980's. My file is probably a few feet thick by now.


.


----------



## cougargnw (Aug 6, 2007)

Im not agianst the idea of fema shelters or the ability to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves during an emergency. What does concern me about these is the goverments steady actions of misusing the tools under there control and lack of communication to field members.
When the .gov defenders say they get the ole ----ed if they do, ----ed if they dont speech is becouse of steady observance of misuse of power and overuse of control tactics.
The gun confiscations during katrina and more recently last year in Texas was more than enough for me. The stream of lies about how they were not going to confiscate a persons means of defence then going out and doing it is just too much .gov help for me.
I dont trust the gov to know whats best for my family and am not going to put their safety in femas hands.
YMMV as well as your tinfoil thickness.


----------



## moontime (Feb 24, 2008)

What do y'all make of this 3-part slideshow run in the London Telegraph "culture" section?
Part 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html
Part 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...40/Blackjack---Part-2.-A-slideshow-story.html
Part 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4515126/Blackjack---Part-3.html


----------



## Sam_Luna (Nov 16, 2008)

moontime said:


> What do y'all make of this 3-part slideshow run in the London Telegraph "culture" section?
> Part 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html
> Part 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...40/Blackjack---Part-2.-A-slideshow-story.html
> Part 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4515126/Blackjack---Part-3.html


I think its a plot by giant space brains! :hobbyhors

Sam


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

moontime said:


> What do y'all make of this 3-part slideshow run in the London Telegraph "culture" section?
> Part 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html
> Part 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...40/Blackjack---Part-2.-A-slideshow-story.html
> Part 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4515126/Blackjack---Part-3.html



And I think this sums it up nicely:



> Blackjack - The events and characters depicted in this slide show are entirely fictional


Chuck


----------

