U.S. Government Plans to Use Military Force Against Its Citizens and is Arming Some of Its Employees in Case of Civil Unrest and Martial Law
On January 21, 2013, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow wrote on his Facebook page: “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on U.S. citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed.” Garrow later followed up the post by adding the man who told him this is “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”
The U.S. military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens. In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked U.S. Army military police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 "Internment and Resettlement Operations." The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law. On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a “warning shot will not be fired.” [Source]
Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens
The Washington Times - 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.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.
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.
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:
- Department of Agriculture
- Railroad Retirement Board
- Tennessee Valley Authority
- Office of Personnel Management,
- Consumer Product Safety Commission,
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Education Department
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.HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
“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 House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned that Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.In addition to adding funds, the bill language requires the ONA to study alternative U.S. defense and deterrence strategies related to the space warfare programs of both countries.
China is developing advanced missiles capable of shooting down satellites in low and high earth orbits. It also is building lasers and electronic jammers to disrupt satellites, a key U.S. strategic military advantage. Russia is said to be working on anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons.
“The committee believes the office must remain an independent organization within the department, reporting directly to the secretary,” the report said.Mr. Marshall, sometimes referred to as the Pentagon’s “Yoda,” after the Star Wars character, has come under fire from opponents in the administration, who say he is too independent and not aligned with the administration’s soft-line defense policies.
The ONA is known for its extensive use of contractors and lack of producing specific overall net assessments of future warfare challenges, as required by the office’s charter.
One example of the ONA’s unconventional thinking was the recent contractor report “China: The Three Warfares,” which revealed Beijing’s extensive use of political warfare against the United States, including psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare.
“‘The Three Warfares’ is a dynamic, three-dimensional, war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” the report says.A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.
NO DENNIS RODMAN DEFENSE
Navy Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon is deploying more and higher-quality missile defenses to counter potential nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran.
Adm. Winnefeld said in a speech to the Atlantic Council:
“This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime. The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.”He added that missile defenses are needed “because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat.” He was referring to the heavily tattooed and pierced former NBA star, who has traveled to North Korea as a guest of leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Rodman calls the dictator his “friend.”
“A robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack and is, in my view, our No. 1 missile defense priority,” Adm. Winnefeld said.North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. It recently threatened to conduct a fourth nuclear test, and analysts say signs from the closed communist state suggest the North Koreans may test a missile warhead.
DOD Directive Provides for Federal Authority in Quelling Civil Unrest [Excerpt]
May 29, 2014The New American - In an October 13, 2013 article, “Border Patrol Loaning Predator Drones to Military, State, and Local Police,” Joe Wolverton wrote:
CBP Predators have been used to conduct
missions for the following federal and state government agencies: U.S.
Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Bureau of Land Management; Federal Bureau
of Investigation; Department of Defense; Texas Rangers; U.S. Forest Service; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Which brings up an interesting question: Since DOD Directive No. 3025.18 states that “No DoD unmanned aircraft systems” (drones) can be used for DOD operations “unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense,” and CBP has loaned Predator drones to the DOD, has the Secretary of Defense approved their use?
Apparently, members of Congress wanted to know the answer to this question in March 2013 when they included language in the 2013 House appropriations bill requiring the Defense Secretary to submit a report to Congress explaining what policies and procedures are in place for the military to ensure that the constitutional rights of Americans are not violated by any Pentagon drones flown within the United States.
When we tracked the progress of that appropriations bill (H.R. 933) as a version of it was passed by the Senate and signed into law (it became Public Law No: 113-6) we found that the language pertaining to drones had been watered down considerably:
Sec. 8083. (a) None of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be used to transfer research and
development, acquisition, or other program authority relating to current
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army.
(b) The Army shall retain responsibility
for and operational control of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in matters
relating to the employment of unmanned aerial vehicles.
From that language, it appears that it is alright for the Department of Defense to employ drones, so long as the Army is given control of them.
However, the Defense Department is not the only federal department troubling Americans who are concerned that we are evolving into a federal police state.
A report from Fox News last September about a raid on the Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska — by what Fox described as “over armed EPA agents” — raised concerns about the 40 federal agencies that have armed divisions. The report noted that nearly a dozen of these agencies are not usually associated with law enforcement.
Fox News reported:
The Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management and Park Service are among 24 federal agencies employing
more than 250 full-time armed officers with arrest authority, according
the federal report, which is based on the 2008 Census of Federal Law
Enforcement Officers.
The other 16 agencies have less than 250
officers and include NOAA as well as the Library of Congress, the
Federal Reserve Board and the National Institutes of Health.
The number of federal departments with
armed personnel climbs to 73 when adding in the 33 offices of inspector
general, the government watchdogs for agencies as large as the Postal
Service to the Government Printing Office, whose IG has only five
full-time officers.
While the wording of DOD Directive No. 3025.18 attempts to reassure the public by stating that “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,” when a government wants to consolidate power, it can define almost anything as an “emergency.”
Would US Troops Fire on Americans?
There were more than one hundred dead and wounded, including children and babies,in 1932 when US troops dispersed a camp of WW1 veterans demanding only what had been promised them.March 15, 2010
M. Ernest Smith (for henrymakow.com) - The question often has been asked, especially during these last few years, if American military troops would indeed fire upon American citizens if so ordered by Washington. The answer? Have no doubt America, because it's already happened.
WWI was a terrible war that introduced new weapons and tactics resulting 100,000 US deaths as well as US 200,000 wounded and gassed in the first eighteen months alone.
The soldiers fighting that war for America earned between $1.00 and $1.50 per day while those serving under Selective Service in factories supporting the war earned as much as ten times that amount. After the war, the veteran soldiers demanded to be paid what they had lost during the war years as "adjusted compensation" as promised by the United States government. Later, their detractors would call it a "bonus".
FAST FORWARD TO 1928
Herbert Hoover, a self-made millionaire, said during his inaugural address that "the future of the country was bright with hope"... Seven months later the Great Depression hit. In 1932, there was 25% unemployment, and many of the unemployed were WWI veterans and their families. It was decided that the veterans lead by Walter W. Waters would march on Washington, D.C.
By May of 1932, there were approximately 10,000 veterans and a few families totaling 30,000, who occupied what was called the Anacostia Flats neighborhood of Washington, D.C. where the vets slept in tents, barrels and some makeshift huts in almost a foot of mud.
Later, the veterans and their families proceeded to march and demonstrate to remind the Congressional representatives to keep their promise of compensation to the WWI vet, so badly needed and necessary during this nationwide financial disaster.
At first, the Congress approved the measure but the Senate soundly defeated it days later. It was during this time President Hoover resolved to drive the veterans out of Washington D.C. back to their homes. However, the larger problem was that most of the veterans didn't have any homes. Many were squatting in abandoned buildings.
Solution? President Hoover ordered the Washington, D.C. police to drive the vets out of the abandoned buildings. As with any forcible action, it was met with resistance...people fought the police...bricks were thrown, and the police opened fire: two vets were killed.
It seems that anytime there is a police action around a government capital, troops are called...reader, take notice.
GENERAL MACARTHUR
President Hoover ordered General Douglas MacArthur: he led 200 Cavalry, 400 armed troops, tanks and other armored vehicles against AMERICAN citizens and veterans of a war [the same people sent by the government to fight and die!].
General MacArthur was not the only "Who's Who" participating in this "tyrannyfest." General MacArthur's aide, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and then Major George Patton also had a hand in the action. It should be noted that a witness, then seven-year-old Naamen Seigle, witnessed Major Patton draw his saber and lead the charge against the mass of veterans.
With Patton and the Calvary charging, the 400 ground troops dawned their gas masks and proceeded to hurl gas grenades into the crowd of veterans, a bitter reminder of battles such as in the Meuse-Argonne Forest in France.
No, this gassing was compliments of their own government. As the veterans ran choking from the effects of the gas, the troops with bayonets fixed, charged and jabbed their way into the crowd. Hundreds of veterans were injured and several killed.
After General MacArthur gained control of the situation, President Hoover ordered the General to proceed no further. But General MacArthur had other ideas. General MacArthur is quoted as saying: "I cannot bother with pieces of paper during a military operation" and advanced on the Anacostia Flats encampment. It was during this unauthorized attack that MacArthur ordered the burning of the encampment to the ground.
What justification did General MacArthur use? He felt a Communist plot for revolution was at hand. Reader, beware.
What do we learn from this piece of history? The government will use our own military to suppress its citizenry if it feels threatened, and it will use any excuse to do so.
Note: Posse Comitatus does not apply to Washington D.C. because it is a federal district governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 8. Clause 17). As usual, they have their bases covered.
Mike Smith is a 49 year old Senior at Liberty University majoring in Psychology and preparing for his Masters work in Professional Counseling. " I find myself apolitical with only the best interest of humanity in mind and a firm believer in God and Truth."
Cop Shoots Unarmed Citizen in the Back Like He's Hunting a Wild Animal
Police initially said driver Walter Scott was shot on April 4, 2014, during a tussle over police officer Michael Slager's department-issued Taser. But a video taken by a bystander surfaced later, showing Scott being shot eight times as he ran away. Slager was fired and charged with murder.
Related:
The Feds' Plan for the 'Round Up' of Americans During a 'National Emergency'
No comments:
Post a Comment