PDA

View Full Version : Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens




tangent4ronpaul
06-02-2014, 10:43 AM
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.

The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.

President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”

A Pentagon official who defended the directive said it was signed in December 2010 after four years of thorough consultations within the Pentagon and with other federal agencies The 2010 directive replaced several previously published directives in 1980, 1991, and 1993. The last time military forces were used to quell civil unrest was 1906 following the San Francisco earthquake to protect the federal mint and restore order in the city.

The official said: “I suppose that in a very extreme case, one can imagine a combination of natural and man-made disasters that result in the cascading failure of communication infrastructure, or some electro-magnetic pulse that shuts down all electronic communication.”

“In the event that it should happen in today’s day and age, we would want our senior military leaders in the field to do all they can to assist their fellow Americans to prevent significant loss of life or malicious destruction of property and to protect federal property or federal governmental functions,” the official said.

-t

Zippyjuan
06-02-2014, 12:14 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

Deborah K
06-02-2014, 12:48 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:

And what constitutes an "emergency"? Is it defined in detail? Or it is generalized so that it is up to anyone's interpretation?

tangent4ronpaul
06-02-2014, 12:53 PM
it's the same as a crisis. The current administration is very good at coming up with a new crisis every 1-2 weeks...

-t

Henry Rogue
06-02-2014, 01:02 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:
Oh, well I guess that makes it all right then.

TonySutton
06-02-2014, 01:13 PM
And people believed the Enabling Act of 1933 would not be abused...

kahless
06-02-2014, 01:24 PM
When it is used the media will hail them as heroes in the back drop of the flag lending a helping hand to our brave men and women in uniform.

Anyone that speaks out will be considered unpatriotic, against the troops or conspiracy theorists. Of course add in whomever the force is going to be used against will be maligned as being racist or considered domestic terrorists for their beliefs.

Philhelm
06-02-2014, 01:44 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:

Oh, well that makes it okay then.

ClydeCoulter
06-02-2014, 02:30 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:

Zippy, zippy, zippy...you left out a piece:


“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

Isn't that how the powers of the president started out? May use force but then come to congress....and where are we now?

Occam's Banana
06-02-2014, 03:04 PM
In an emergency and only under authorization of the President:

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

"Only under authorization of the President" is not what it says. Note the conjunctive "or" (emphasis and double-parentheses added):

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless ((specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law)) or ((permitted under emergency authority)),” [Directive No. 3025.18] states.

Furthermore, Directive No. 3025.18 also states (emphais added):

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

Zippyjuan
06-02-2014, 04:30 PM
The government has always had plans to deal with all kinds of potential crisies and uprisings. All presidents have. Even a Ron or Rand Paul presidency would have such a plan. How often have they actually been used? (headline sounds like they are planning on causing one). I just don't see where having a plan to try to deal with a potential situation is such a crisis itself.


to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”


in extraordinary emergency circumstances

But that is just me. Or get in you reservations early for Camp Fema.


including unarmed drones,

Gotta watch out for those.

GunnyFreedom
06-02-2014, 04:50 PM
Oh, well I guess that makes all right then.

Well. Technically the language is closer to the Constitution than what we have now. Posse Comitatus is (was?) fully Constitutional and should remain in place. I would never support this language even legislatively because it errs on the wrong side creating actual license, and the bastard in charge would take even a restriction as though it were license. But if while debating a progressive we fail to recognize that the Constitution does give the power to use the military in cases of insurrection or rebellion, (even if we really don't actually want the President to have that power) then we will have lost some of the high ground with liberals that we may have been cultivating for years. Just a tactical advisory here. Just because the Constitution allows the use of the military for insurrections and rebellions doesn't make doing so a good idea, and Congress was right to pass the Posse Comitatus Act, and the President was right to sign it into law.

phill4paul
06-02-2014, 05:47 PM
Within the confines of the United States, if it does not have the merit to pass Congress, then it should be a no go. Plain and simple. No use of Federal force against the people unless authorized by Congress. No leeway. Period.

kcchiefs6465
06-02-2014, 05:58 PM
Within the confines of the United States, if it does not have the merit to pass Congress, then it should be a no go. Plain and simple. No use of Federal force against the people unless authorized by Congress. No leeway. Period.
Congress would authorize it.

Same as they authorized most every atrocity against the American people.

Occam's Banana
06-02-2014, 06:09 PM
The government has always had plans to deal with all kinds of potential crisies and uprisings. All presidents have. Even a Ron or Rand Paul presidency would have such a plan. How often have they actually occured? (headline sounds like they are planning on causing one). I just don't see where having a plan to try to deal with a potential situation is such a crisis itself.


to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”

in extraordinary emergency circumstances
But that is just me.

As for "just me," I was merely disputing your assertion that the directive you cited applied "in an emergency and only under authorization of the President." The "only under authorization of the President" part is simply not correct. No "subtext" or other subtleties of any kind were intended on my part. (What is suggested by the thread title - or by posters other than myself - is another matter altogether.)

To address your new comments:

The prior existence of "government plans" is a different (albeit related) matter. These directives do not lay out any kind of "plan" in the event of this, that or the other particular kind of "emergency." They just authorize "federal military commanders" (under certain circumstances) to do whatever they think best if there is some (vaguely and broadly defined) "emergency" going on. That is not the same thing as "having a plan." (Actually, it's somewhat the opposite of "having a plan.")

As for your question, "How often have [crises and uprisings] actually occurred?" ... Quite often, actually. Or "often enough," anyway. The aftermath of hurricane Katrina (and other "natural disasters"). The 1968 Democrat National Convention "police riot." Various local popular insurrections (from the Whiskey Rebellion to numerous violent - or potentially violent - protests by farmers, miners, veterans, etc.). Large anti-war protests (especially during the Vietnam War). "September 11." Numerous "race riots" from the '60s to O.J. Simpson. The Bundy Ranch. Etc. Etc. Etc. Any of these could be identified as an instance of a "large-scale, unexpected civil disturbance" or an "extraordinary emergency circumstance."

I have no idea whether "they are planning on causing one" - but things like the Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) proposal, COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO), and the use of agents provocateur demonstate conclusively and undeniably that they are willing to consider doing so ...

phill4paul
06-02-2014, 06:14 PM
Congress would authorize it.

Same as they authorized most every atrocity against the American people.

I'm sure they might well do. However, it provides for debate. It provides for a time to take a side. States are well capable of handling local insurrection and rebellion these days. They do not need the Fed to do this. Put it before Congress and at least there will be a time for the people to see what is coming down the pike.

GunnyFreedom
06-02-2014, 06:25 PM
I'm sure they might well do. However, it provides for debate. It provides for a time to take a side. States are well capable of handling local insurrection and rebellion these days. They do not need the Fed to do this. Put it before Congress and at least there will be a time for the people to see what is coming down the pike.

Well, Constitutionally it HAS to go through Congress, The whole area of thought is undefined right now since Bush's end-run around Posse Comitatus in 2006 (encoded in the John Werner Defence AA) and oh-bomb-ya is probably drawing from THAT legislation; but his EO is demanding more power than Bush's law did in 2006, so in a Constitutional Republic he has to go to Congress to request that power. That would take a re-write of the section of US Code that got gutted when Bush gutted Posse Comitatus in 2006.

phill4paul
06-02-2014, 06:36 PM
Well, Constitutionally it HAS to go through Congress, The whole area of thought is undefined right now since Bush's end-run around Posse Comitatus in 2006 (encoded in the John Werner Defence AA) and oh-bomb-ya is probably drawing from THAT legislation; but his EO is demanding more power than Bush's law did in 2006, so in a Constitutional Republic he has to go to Congress to request that power. That would take a re-write of the section of US Code that got gutted when Bush gutted Posse Comitatus in 2006.

And that is the way of it. "Take an inch, take a mile." "Foot in the door." So many sayings have the right of it.

I am thoroughly convinced he will get his way. The next will do worse. SMDH. I've lived long enough to have had a good life. Next year, half a century. I hope it doesn't go on so long that if there is need for physical push back I am physically incapable. How long before the deterioration of sovereign rights leads to the point of conflict? This is what they are asking themselves and we are asking ourselves.

GunnyFreedom
06-02-2014, 06:48 PM
And that is the way of it. "Take an inch, take a mile." "Foot in the door." So many sayings have the right of it.

"Camel's nose under the tent" is the favorite of the NCGA. They usually only brought up 'slippery slope' to dismiss it.


I am thoroughly convinced he will get his way. The next will do worse. SMDH. I've lived long enough to have had a good life. Next year, half a decade. I hope it doesn't go on so long that if there is need for physical push back I am physically incapable. How long before the deterioration of sovereign rights leads to the point of conflict? This is what they are asking themselves and we are asking ourselves.

Of course he will get his way. They keep electing spineless Republicans who will piss themselves out into a puddle on the House Floor when the dollar collapses and the people go apeshyt. When you elect people for their ability to woo money out of bomb makers gun sellers and drug companies, then you ought to expect the country one day to go sideways. Karl Rove has managed to press is vision of America during the 2014 Primaries, and America is facing total destruction because of it.

The more I think about it, the more it is good that the headlines read "Tea Party Fails to get Elected" because let THAT be the backdrop to the impending collapse of the dollar. Pound the message "This is what happens when you start ignoring us again."

MaiNiaK
06-02-2014, 11:06 PM
They have been using are armed forces against civilians for years...
under the disguise of DEA, and in the name of ridding the world of a Plant.... That's right a freakin plant.....OH MY..!!

who do you think flies and owns the helicopters?