Talk:Rex 84

Moved from Main Article Page

This sounds like an urban legend, especially with the use of the orwellian '1984' figure. The link below doesn't seem authoritative. Anyone have links to actual government documents verifying the existence and details of this plan? --Domanite 15:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• U.S. Concentration Camps FEMA and the REX 84 program (And you'll find references to a camp at 34534 116th Street East, Palmdale, CA which Google satellite images shows to be nothing.)
  • Can someone hit up a library and find a published source for this? There seems to be plenty of internet sources, but they tend to smack of "conspiracy theory." Kerowyn 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

NB: I have added the disputed tag to the article to reflect the above comment when I transplanted it, not because I have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. Abb3w 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

more here:

http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-14.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland6.html

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/american-concentation-camps/

Mikewarren 20:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of '1984', as referenced, has no Orwellian connotations, it is simply the year in which Jack Anderson broke the story on FEMA creating new legislation that would allow them to suspend the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. in times of 'national emergency' (drafted by Oliver North). It was brought up (briefly) during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings by Jack Brooks (then a Democratic Senator from Texas) who was then promptly stifled by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), purportedly saying "We need to not talk about this, some things are secret and should be talked in chambers"... Anyone have transcripts of those hearings so we can put this 'dispute' to bed? --Decepty 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Daniel Inouye was EVER a Republican. 98.101.165.88 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a video of portions of the Iran-Contra Hearings in which the above noted exchange between Oliver North, Jack Brooks, and Daniel Inouye took place. When Jack Brooks asked Oliver North about the REX84 planning that took place in North's office, Inouye first told Brooks that it was not relevent to the discussion, and when Brooks said he thought it was, Inouye then said that if so, the discussion of that issue (REX84) should be held in closed executive (i.e. secret) session.

Mike Ruff 08:27, 10 September 2005

Domanite's comment seems purely speculative; after all 1984 was the actual year of the "readiness exercise (REX)" and not just a disturbingly appropos book title. There are a number of more recent articles mentioning Rex 84 quoted at the right-wing site Free Republic (this was in 1999; the freepers' concern seems to have been that Prez Clinton would imprison THEM as part of a liberal milennium plot to usher in a world government, lol): www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37eb164263a4.htm --Elizdelphi 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of the claims and most of the links for this page are dubious claims from well-known conspiracy theory websites with little credibility. There are serious articles on Rex 84 (the Miami Herald article is a good example), but the rest is nonsense. I will try to find some credible articles. The facts are bad enough. It was a planning exercise for suppressing civil unrest.--Cberlet 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258 heres a video of the camp, shouldnt fema camps be a different article?

Looking for more info

I've googled for stuff, but it looks like the "conspiracy sites" are the only places that have anything, and I know most here will want something from a "reputable" (read: corporate) source. Abovetopsecret.com has a link to some detailed info, and I found rotten.com's article about it as well. I read a lot about this particular conspiracy a number of years ago, and it seems like a *lot* of information about it has disappeared since 9/11...which of course, is probably entirely a coincidence. ;-)

Petrus4 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I heard they had capacity to 30 million detained

Nonsense. Conspiracist twaddle. There are several reliable published sources about the Readiness Exercise, Rex 84, and thousands of whacko conspiracy websites making these types of absurd claims. The facts are bad enough. The feds regularly stage exercises to test their capacity to fulfill assigned tasks. The potential of a round up of targeted persons during a declared "national emergency" is a civil liberties nightmare, and we all should be aware of the potential. But these types of readiness exercises take place all the time. The fetish of Rex 84 is misplaced. What we can prove is happening now is bad enough. Conspiracism takes real problems and disempowers people trying to organize to confront them.--Cberlet 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"The potential of a round up of targeted persons....." and "these types of readiness exercises take place all the time...". For what? To protect/preserve whom? They only exist to protect the then reigning administration and the bureaucracy from whatever ails it. To juxtapose two such thoughts like there's nothing to worry about it amazing. Funny how during 9/11 the Washington brass was the first to run? If these excercises are ever needed, and whatever hardware exists to pen people up to such a large extent isn't for the benefit of anyone but the government. I'm not a conspiracy buff by any means, but it stands that if one believes that such "plans" are for the good of anyone but the power elite and their continuation, should a catastrophe strike, is naive.

Lot of references in US gov't documents and official sources with pertaining excerpts from google book search here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Uye&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22rex+84+alpha%22&sa=N&tab=np

-Scanlyze 23:45, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptome Link

I have added a link to information about Operation Garden Plot, which was actually the parent operation affiliated with Rex 84. If anyone feels that the link is not a sufficiently orthodox source and wishes to remove it, I would respectfully request that the information linked to be thoroughly examined first. I believe that the article cites its' sources, and offers valuable background information concerning its' subject.--Petrus4 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid conspiracist nonsense. Garden Plot was the name of a master contingency plan. Lantern Spike, for example, was a readiness exercise years before Rex84. The Frank Morales article reprinted by Cryptome is basically sound, but makes a few assertions that muddy the issue. Garden Plot was the military contingency plan, Rex 84 was a FEMA exercise. They are related, but it is not accurate to say that Rex 84 was a readiness exercise for the parent "operation" Garden Plot. --Cberlet 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning labels

I would also like to have this page flagged with a warning regarding neutrality. This article sounds like it came straight out of the tin-foil hat wearing crowd.

This afternoon I heard a talk show host quote directly from this article. He didn't bother to mention that it is merely a stub or that its scholarship is nominal at best. Can it be flagged more prominently regarding the lack of citations and the lack of neutrality in its language?

I'm new to Wiki editing and don't know how to go about it. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Lanternshine 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana Reynolds is a scholar who just happened to publish her article in a small alternative publication. The Miami Herald is hardly a nominal source. I cut out a rumor post and tweaked the language, but the basic assertions on this page are easily documented. We can't help it if conspiracy theorists take the facts and hyperbolize them, but this page on Wikipedia has been a reliable source of information on this topic for quite some time, and has resisted attempts by conspiracy theorists to add material that could not be verified. I suggest you read the underlying articel by Reynolds more carefully.--Cberlet 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'Diana Reynolds is a scholar who just happened to publish her article in a small alternative publication.'—Is there any substantive support for that statement? Has she been published elsewhere? What is her educational background? Anything at all to attest to her alleged scholar status?

• 'The Miami Herald is hardly a nominal source.'—Indeed. But it is very lonely here, and it is only a copy found in another less than biased source.

• 'I suggest you read the underlying articel by Reynolds more carefully.'—I read enough of her discourse to realize that it was extremely biased and unsuitable for citation.

Had I dared present either this Wiki article or any of Ms. Reynolds's work to my old freshman English professor, my only expectation would have been an "F." This article is poorly cited and far from scholarly. Just about anyone can write just about anything and plop it on the Internet—that doesn't make it true or scholarly, and it most assuredly does not make the writer a scholar.

Be it known, I'm not necessarily disputing the WIki article, only its scholarship and bias.

I'm still hoping to receive some helpful and useful advice from other Wikipedians, but if that doesn't occur, perhaps I should simply follow the recommendation from the Wiki help pages to "be bold" and jump right in and make the changes myself.

I'd prefer some gentle instruction, but will go the sink or swim route if need be.

Lanternshine 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reynolds' article: Covert Action Information Bulletin, #33 (Winter 1990)

SOURCE: http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/fema/Fema_6.html (and, of course, the original publication)

"Just about anyone can write just about anything and plop it on the Internet". Yes, unless the Internet (as you know it) doesn't exist yet, and won't for about four years.

Re: "This article is poorly cited and far from scholarly."

"The original article contained 33 footnotes." Did you read them? Do they check out?

Re: the Miami Herald article being "only a copy found in another less than biased source"

Do you mean "less-than-reliable"? The citation is sufficient to find the original in paper and microfilm. If the blogger's copy is an erroneous transcription, then you should indeed pull the link to it. (Maybe there is a link to the Miami Herald website with a free copy.) But verify first.

Overall, what is the bias that you detect with the Wikipedia article?

--RealityBase 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

If you are too lazy to go to a library and check out the printed sources for this entry, then you have no business claiming this article is not properly cited, or that the underlying articles are not solid, or demanding a POV check. I have read the hard copy for both articles, I have checked the footnotes for the Reynold's article. This specific entry version is generally accurate and NPOV. Get over it.

If you are a conspiracy theorist trying to slyly insert cites to whacko marginal websites to extend this entry beyond what the verifiable facts can support...please go away.

If you actually have read the Miami Herald article, the Reynolds article, or other serious articles in reliable publications about Rex 84...welcome and please edit carefully.--Cberlet 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Postsecret

I don't know how reliable a source people consider this, but (for the next week at least) there's someone who (anonymously) claims to have been involved in the building of a Rex 84 internment camp on [1]. Also see [2] for the direct link to the picture. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 18:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider PostSecret a reliable source at all. BTW, I read it every week because it is interesting, but it is not scholarly and certainly not something to cite in a WP article.

The incidence of Rex 84 in Postsecret, with the text of the postcard, could be mentioned as a pop culture reference, and possible extension of conspiracy theorists. Mooyah 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Postsecret postcard that mentioned Rex84 is what made me come here in the first place. I'd never heard of it before and wanted to use this article as a jumping-off point. Others may come here for the same reason. I believe it's relevant. Steneub 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, all Wikipedia pages should contain all their pop culture references, regardless whether it's applicable to understanding the topic. MWShort 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

Peter Dale Scott has extensive references on Rex 84 and Garden Plot in THE ROAD TO 9/11, 2007.

And please remember that there is no such thing as "suspending the constitution" in the USA. The constitution is in effect if and only if the United States of America exists.

John in NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.90 (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the once sensible Peter Dale Scott has joined the ranks of 9-11 conspiracy theorists. There are far better sources for material on Rex 84 and Garden Plot. Let's avoid 9-11 conspiracy theories on this page, please.--Cberlet (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cberlet. The inherent, unchangeable nature of government is colossal conspiracy. Recall that conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something improper to others (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). The mere fact that governments set for themselves double-standards is alone quite enough to logically demonstrate that governments themselves consider their own actions improper (i.e., if their same actions which they do to others were to be done to them). Thus, the conclusion that government itself is the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist or that could ever exist is logically unavoidable.

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's University of Hawaii website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz., the Civil War; etc.)

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that--but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite piddling by comparison.

Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a logical subset of terrorism, since it uses initiatory violence and the threat of initiatory violence in order to maintain its existence and achieve its political agendas; and the word terrorism originally referred exclusively to government actions: i.e., the Reign of Terror in France against critics of the state, which was done according to the law--and later on the word terrorism was used to refer to other governments), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, 74.4.222.208.. The word conspiracy is most often used to quickly discredit and more easily dismiss topics that don't align with our conditioned, narrow view of reality. Please refrain from injecting your logical prose into such discussions. Our fleeting attention spans would prefer to label 'the existence of Rex84' and a 'september day where the planet's top air defense went quiet'- conspiracies and get back to work and/or sleep. --ResearchALLwars (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New Exec Orders supplanted this one

See if this article accurate: Saturday, May 10, 2008, Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law EO Ted Twietmeyer www.thepeoplesvoice.org - In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. The older order REX84 was an older directive to establish martial law in the event of a national emergency. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/04/17/p24815 Carol Moore 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You need to find a WP:RS to support that statement, and you'll probably need to make sure that you attribute it, because that is an opinion not a fact (he didn't technically replace REX-84 with them, although they do serve a very similar purpose). I'll get around to searching for one once I've wrapped a few things up elsewhere. Note that I'm not saying that your statement shouldn't be included -- I think it should, if you can find a reliable source making such a claim. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Conspiracy theorists should not use this page to spread rumors and speculation. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course- "thepeoplesvoice.org" cannot possibly tell us anything worth knowing. Clearly! I mean, c'mon the name screams tin-foil hat freakism. The peoples voice INDEED. *snort* --ResearchALLwars (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

please show me the actual paper that was written in 1970 at the army war college, or at least provide me more than one source that mentions it's existence. please provide some kind of reliable source for a number of the allegations in this article. the basic facts have apparently been intermingled with things that have no verifiable source, and a lot of it is linked to sources that are not reliable. Decora (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples

1. failure to mention that Rex 84 was a 'scenario and drill', which one of the cited sources directly emphasizes. (fixed)

2. Reynolds article does not even have a date on it

3. publiceye.org has a page called 'mission, history, values', that does not discuss its history, who funds it, or who runs it. publiceye.org makes up a good portion of the citations here.

3.5 in fact, publiceye.org does not appear to feel it necessary to put a date on any of the articles it publishes. this makes it hard to create a citation.

4. failure to mention that there is controversy around the veracity of the accusation of the 1970 army war college paper. failre to mention there is only one known source who claims to know about this paper.

5. using a book page as a reference; the book itself takes its information from ordinary, cited articles. those articles should be used as references, not the book. not that the book is wrong, but this would really help to determine the reliability of the sources.

6. if you do simple google search for +ADEX +FBI, the first hit is a neo nazi website, the second hit is publiceye.org, a bunch of other hits are blogs, another hit is God Like Productions, which describes itself as 'UFO, Conspiracy Theory, Lunatic Fringe'. I am sure there are interesting documents about ADEX out there. The current source is a book from 1980. Can we not get a better source?

I could come up with more, but i will stop for now. Some of my concern is just with getting better sources, not necessarily what it said. but other concerns i do have what is being said. The 'source' for saying North was testifying about Rex 84 was a title on a youtube video; that is not reliable and not verifiable. North never says 'rex 84' nor do any of the senators or house people mention rex 84. "of course, its secret!" that doesnt mean we have proof thats what he was talking about. maybe he was talking about rex 83 or rex 85 or something else we dont know the name of? what if they declassify a bunch of stuff and it turns out you are wrong?

Thank you for reading. Decora (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

More examples:

The Church Committee documented actual programs like rex 84, the Emergency Detention program, the Custodial Detention program, etc. Those actual, real programs do not have even pages. And yet we have some half-truths here, like a youtube video entitled 'rex84' where none of the people in it say the words 'rex 84' and no extra citation is provided. we dont even know where the video came from Decora (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is utter and complete trash and needs to be deleted. Not "Cleaned up" not "check a couple sources" It either needs to have the Urban legend aspect of it said out right vis-a-vis bigfoot or outright deleted.97.97.32.95 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I took all your alleged and allegedlies out. The proper way to deal with unsourced or unreliable info is to ASK FOR SOURCES. Stop crapping all over the article, and use the tools that are provided. Do NOT put the allegedlies back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.111.138 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some changes and suggestions

I got rid of a few sources. I believe that one from Global Research shouldn't be used because well, in a sense its a conspiracy site. From its about page: "Barely a few days later [after 9/11] Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism"." The Phrase "new world order" is often used by conspiracy theorists. A little bit later it says "In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the "unspoken truth," something that reminds me of the "truthers" that try to point out that 9/11 was an inside job. Later they write that "...Global Research operates on a shoe string budget compared to the well-endowed establishment think tanks...[like the] powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)" which makes me think its a little more conspiracy-like as some conspiracy theorists have negative views of the CFR (they think its part of a larger conspiracy to solve a world government or something like that.

Also, I deleted some text about how exercises are occurring now. I think sourcing Peter Dale Scott is a bit questionable as well. I have some words to put it into question

• "This brings us to the position of Peter Dale Scott, whom Fenster identifies specifically as a conspiracy theorist. Scott argues empirically that the events of 9/11 and after demonstrate the “deep politics” that have been expanding in U.S. government operations since the end of World War II...What differentiates the conspiracy analysis of Peter Dale Scott, in comparison to the features of conspiracy theory delineated and rejected by analysts like Barkun and Fenster, is that Scott does not presume a totalizing narrative." 1

Here's another source of this:

• "Peter Dale Scott...is a long time conspiracy theorist and this is one of the best books on the subject - So read 'em and weep."2

and another:

• "His affiliation with so-called "conspiracy theorists" such as David Ray Griffin may mislead readers into associating Scott with the stigma of the "9/11 Truth" movement, but this is hardly the kind of hysterical and paranoid alarmism you might expect to find from some of that movement's high priests."3

You can look for yourself here 4 I just think these things sort of put his ideas into question.

I searched Publiceye.org 5 and found that it seems anti-conspiracy theorist with these words:

• "Shortly after the Barruel book was published, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati Freemasons were mixed with antisemitism in Europe. This confluence took place much later in the US."6
• "Griffin’s book [A New Pearl Harbor] reflects a relentless disregard of substantial evidence from multiple sources that contradict the claims he is making. Griffin repeatedly uses classic Fallacies of Logic in his presentation rendering whole sections of the book refutable on this basis alone." 7

Also there are titles like:

• "Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating"
• "What's Wrong with Conspiracism?"

What so Conspiracy sites are bad but Government offical sites are reliable even tho the Government has lied time and time before and uses Propaganda? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They even have a conspiracy theory generator. That tells you something.

The article seems to based heavily on these sources:

• http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/fema/Fema_3.html

and

• http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/fema/Fema_0.html

Does anything know about Diana Reynolds background? I am saying this because its good to check to see if all of the sources are solid or not. I also think the evidence of Rex 84 still in practice is almost none unless one goes to conspiracy theory sites. I think someone should try to find some evidence of this happening now (if its exists) and put that in there. Maybe even adding a section about conspiracy theories related to this could work. Just an idea. --74.107.92.227 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

=I checked a number of the cited sources in printed or archived forms. The current lede misrepresents the work of retired Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan and Professor Diana Reynolds. I will make the needed corrections. Also, some cites to unreliable sites and the information will be deleted until reputable sources are found.Chip.berlet (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

NSDP51 - this presidential order ( for the benefit of the anti-tin hat folks) can be found on the White House website. Personally I don't trust much out of the WH but there it is. Sure sounds like the tin hatters got this one right. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:A55C:7F0D:83C8:D35D (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

problems

Found this through the article on the FEMA conspiracy theory. Scanning the page, it looks like this has some pretty serious problems. I see multiple sources that don't actually mention "rex 84" (the CSPAN link, for example, which looks related only because a user titled a clip "North being questioned on REX 84" while the clip doesn't actually mention it), lousy sources like Grand Theft World (which sure looks like a far-right podcast to counter the "globalist agenda"), a course syllabus, etc. There's a line of apparent original research wrapping up the legacy section...

It's surprising how little there is about this subject (named as such, at least) visible through a google search. On one hand, since it's older than the web, that's sort of unsurprising, but on the other hand given how it's been taken up by conspiracy theorists you'd think there would be something more out there... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like most of the problematic material was added in a string of edits by an anonymous user. Still, the older version still includes original research (connecting the ADEX list to this subject, and relying on subtext (or the user-generated label) for the cspan clip, which is produced in its entirety. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)