Rumsfeld Updated Army's Continuity of Operations Plan before 9/11

Ten months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved an updated version of the U.S. Army's secret operational Continuity of Government (COG) plans.

A draft document published by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks entitled, "Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program," dated 19 January 2001, spells out changes in Army doctrine.

Issued by Headquarters, Department of the Army and signed off by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Secretary of the Army, the document is affixed with a warning: "Destruction Notice: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document." The restricted document as published by Wikileaks states:

History. This regulation is a revision of the original regulation that was effective on 10 July 1989. Since that time, no changes have been published to amend the original.

Summary. This regulation on the Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program has been revised to update Army COOP policy and extend the requirement for all-hazards COOP planning to all Army organizations. Classified information contained in the 1989 version of this AR has been removed and placed in a classified HQDA Operations Plan (OPLAN).

Applicability. This regulation applies to the Active Army, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and when federalized to the Army National Guard (ARNG). In the event of conflict between this regulation and approved OSD or JCS publications, the provisions of the latter will apply. ("Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program," 19 January 2001, p. 3) [emphasis added]

"All-hazards COOP planning" is described as the means by which "the Army remains capable of continuing mission-essential operations during any situation, including military attack, terrorist activities, and natural or man-made disasters." While the Army stresses the updates described in AR 500-3 relate to chemical, biological, nuclear attacks, "natural disasters" and "technical or man-made disasters or accidents," current Army doctrine is also heavily weighted towards contingency planning for "civil disturbances."

Read the rest at the link above.

Be wary of Wikileaks...

I do not want to stimulate paranoia here and I have yet to go down this particular rabbit hole, but there have been some credible allegations that Wikileaks is a CIA front. Google for "cryptome + wikileaks + cia". To the extent that Wikileaks admits it has a relationship with Wikipedia, I would bet on it.

Of course, if Wikileaks is the kind of "honey-pot" that some people seem to be suggesting it is, some documents like "Army Regulation 500-3, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources. Army Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program" could in fact be legitimate (bone fide "honey").

It wouldn't make sense

for the CIA to implicate Rumsfeld in 9/11, by releasing a bogus document suggesting he tweaked the CoG plans in anticipation of 9/11. That's not honey, to my understanding of the term.

Just to make myself more clear...

(1) I am using "honey pot" here a little differently than others have. Much like the powers that be control most of the media, I think it is possible that Wikileaks exists as a CIA front so they can exercise power and control over leaks, occasionally plant bogus ones and track down unauthorized leakers.

In short, the CIA would not be doing its job if it did not attempt control the flow of these leaks by controlling the websites that deal with this special type of information. The same is certainly true of Wikipedia itself, I think infiltration and control of sensitive topics on Wikipedia would part of the CIA's core mission. If they don't, the intelligence agencies of countries certainly will.

Perhaps this is an example of what I am trying to get at. Before 9/11, MI6 apparently had a problem with some books being published by former agents that contained massive leaks. The CIA apparently responded by preemptively and covertly publishing an ostensibly similar but bogus book (the "Book of Honor") to dry up market for such content. The CIA pretended that the "Book of Honor" was a legitimate leak when in reality is was not even a limited hang-out, just re-hash and patriotic-spy glorifying propaganda.

(2) I am not suggesting that the document in question is bogus, as first glance it looks authentic to me. Rather I am suggesting it could be "honey" to attract people and leaks to Wikileaks as opposed to other sites like Cryptome with the same or similar purpose. This sort of "honey" would be a typical part of double-agent operations (i.e. something to establish credibility of the plant and the interest of the target).

Why do Traitors

work so hard?

When there are Trillions to embezzle the Continuity of the Crooks must go on doesn't it.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Still one of the best YouTube videos

about the current nightmare.