Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

[sailingaway]

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

"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."

Continued: http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/...s-into-effect/

h/t dp http://www.dailypaul.com/285470/pent...l-disturbances

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

just in time for the armed march in d.c

[devil21]

Posse Comitatus, we hardly knew ye.

[phill4paul]

just in time for the armed march in d.c

It's time. At this time, barring future changes, I believe I will be there. Done with it. Done with them.

[rambone]

Just wanted to add some sources. I was trying to find the actual directive that the author quoted here:

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

"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."

New Directive:
Feb. 27, 2013: DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

Old directive:
Jan. 15, 1986: DoD Instruction 5525.5 DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials


Another article discussing it:
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement

[sailingaway]

Just wanted to add some sources. I was trying to find the actual directive that the author quoted here:



New Directive:
Feb. 27, 2013: DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

Old directive:
Jan. 15, 1986: DoD Instruction 5525.5 DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials


Another article discussing it:
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement

thanks. I'll add those to the front page.

[pcosmar]

"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."

]

Unexpected?

Oh, I doubt that.

[CaptUSA]

It just seems like we're crossing new lines every day.

[rambone]

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013

Comment #1.
Comment on Proposed Rule: 32 CFR Part 182 DOD–2009–OS– 0038. The definition given in § 182.3 of ‘‘civil disturbance’’ is overly broad and encompasses any number of situations that the Legislature and DOD entities might not have in mind at the time of drafting this rule. It is my recommendation that specific reference be made to DOD Directive 3025.12 within § 182.3 to allay any possible misreading of 32 CFR part 182.

If Posse Comitatus is going to be suspended in times other than those specifically authorized by the Constitution, Congress must act to make the language clear and unambiguous. In addition, the definition of ‘‘Emergency Authority’’ in § 182.3 and DOD 3025.12 is unclear. In what sort of a civil emergency can prior Presidential authorization be ‘‘impossible’’ to obtain. These two definitions read together give an extraordinary degree of latitude to DOD entities within the borders of the United States. Finally, I question whether a rule is the appropriate venue for an expansion of this nature. Perhaps this is a task best left to congress for full public scrutiny and debate. Should this really be a task left to the DOD to make a rule essentially gutting 10 U.S.C.A. 331–4?

Despite the fact that this rule has received certification by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), I seriously question whether there are not significant implications for its enactment under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). If it is left to the DOD to determine when force is necessary, absent a Presidential order and absent the cooperation of local authorities, Posse Comitatus is for all intents and purposes at an end.

DoD Response:
No action required. This instruction cancels DoD Directive 3025.12. ‘‘Civil disturbance’’ is an approved definition in the DoD Dictionary and makes no reference to the Posse Comitatus Act being ‘‘suspended.’’ Also this rule does not make reference to the suspension of Posse Comitatus Act. It lists those actions that are permissible and restricted under the Act. The author also recommends that Congress, rather than DoD, make the language ‘‘clear and unambiguous.’’

[rambone]

[ZENemy]

No worries, its cool, when the police states really ramps up and check points are everywhere; we can just VOTE them away right?


yaay!!

some guy 2016!!

[Anti Federalist]

It just seems like we're crossing new lines every day.

In another thread, the question was posed:

Is it boiling yet, or still just lukewarm?

I answered:

Not even close yet, they have just turned the heat up.

Now things will start cooking.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL @ Free Country.

[tod evans]

La-te-da....

Tweedledee...

Ain't life grand?