Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians
While the "use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized," The Washington Times uncovering of 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. As one defense official proclaimed, "this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens."Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its "quelling civil disturbances" totalitarianism...
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 shallnot 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.”
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.
“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.
There is one silver lining (for now)...
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Info Wars......
OBAMA CONSIDERED USING MILITARY AGAINST BUNDY AND SUPPORTERS
Pentagon directive authorizes use of federal troops and drones in violation of Posse Comitatus
2010 Pentagon directive authorizes use of military drones against U.S. citizens “in extraordinary emergency circumstances.” Photo: U.S. Army
Bill Gertz, writing for The Washington Times, reports the Obama administration had considered using the military during a standoff between Cliven Bundy and the BLM in Nevada in April.
A 2010 Pentagon authorization, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” issued on December 29, 2010, states U.S. military commanders “are provided emergency authority” to use military arms and forces, including drones, in domestic unrest situations.
The directive is in direct conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act. The federal law, enacted following Reconstruction in 1878, prohibits the federal government from using federal military troops to enforce the state laws.
Posse Comitatus was modified under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 5122). Section 1076 of the act allows the federal government to use “the Armed Forces in major public emergencies… as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.”
The 2010 Pentagon directive states “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 Pentagon directive, however, appears to allow the military to act without consulting the president as stipulated under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act.
“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, namely “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order” and when it is determined that federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
The Bundy standoff concluded after a number of supporters responded to heavily armed BLM agents. The FBI and U.S. Capitol Police launched investigations into allegations armed Bundy supporters threatened federal agents.
DOD DIRECTIVE GRANTS MILITARY AUTHORITY TO ‘QUELL LARGE-SCALE, UNEXPECTED CIVIL DISTURBANCES’
Militarization of federal agencies across the board puts everyday Americans square in the crosshairs
Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people’s concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.
Yesterday, The Washington Times disclosed a disturbing Department of Defense directive detailing which instances may be appropriate for the government to use lethal military force on dissenting civilians.
In a December 2010 directive entitled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (DSCA), the DoD discusses plans “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement,” which would go into effect if authorized by the President, Secretary of Defense, civil authorities or other qualifying entities.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” Directive #3025.18 states.
Under the directive, additional authority is also granted to military commanders. From the directive:
“Federal military 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.. 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…”
Not surprisingly, the DoD order does little to quell the fears of Americans worried over various governmental agencies arming to the teeth, as well as those concerned with increasingly hostile rhetoric geared to demonize Tea Party supporters, liberty lovers, returning military veterans and law abiding gun owners.
“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,” contends Bill Gertz. Indeed, Second Amendment supporters are known for holding gatherings and protests, activities some may deem “large-scale” and “unexpected,” and which opponents may label “civil disturbances.”
Past military literature also outlines several groups the DoD expects to confront in said “unexpected civil disturbances.”
A DoD training manual disseminated last year, for instance, listed people who embrace “individual liberties,” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” likely to be members of “hate groups.”
“Nowadays,” the manual explained, “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
The manual’s contents dovetails with previous government studies targeting similar groups, such as a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security which characterized Americans “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Another government document disclosed by Infowars in 2009 listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists, and warned Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters “displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.”
Then there are the more tangible threats, such as local police departments acquiring armored vehicles designed for warfare, and outrageous bullet solicitations by federal agencies tasked with providing public services, like the US Postal Service, the Dept. of Education, the Social Security Administrationand others.
The threat was such that last year one Ret. Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow bravely called out the Obama administration, concluding the DHS’ solicitations and acquisitions represented a “bold threat of war” against the American people.
Labeling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Capt. Hestilow declared the DHS’s acquisitions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”
The fact the military has constructed a $96 million training facility in Virginia designed to resemble an American city could also constitute a tangible menace.
While the DoD directive provides some solace for citizens, in the form of prohibiting “armed” drones from being used for domestic DSCA purposes, the concession is overshadowed by the fact that mere years ago the government completely denied the existence of a drone program.
Of course, now it’s just common knowledge that surveillance drones are being used to monitor the border and are in use by the EPA to monitor farmers and ranchers, in addition to the fact that they wereconsidered for use in the Bundy Ranch standoff last month.
At best, the language contained within the latest DoD directive provides an end run around posse comitatus; at worst, it can be construed as an admission by the feds that they anticipate a future quarrel with at least some portion of the American people, wherein military commanders may be required to make the call to aid local authorities in “controlling the situation.”
Submitted by George Washington on 05/29/2014 14:22 -0400
Bush’s Anti-Terror Chief: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Can Be Tried at the Hague for the War Crimes They Committed In Iraq
Bush’s top counter-terrorism official for his first year as president – Richard Clarke – tells Democracy Now that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed war crimes in Iraq … and that they can be tried at the Hague:
(Clarke retired in protest at the start of the Iraq war.) Clarke is right:
- The Iraq war was launched under false pretenses
- Top Bush administration officials clearly committed war crimes in Iraq
- War crimes generally have no statute of limitations under international law
- Indeed, it is not too late to charge Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld for war crimes even under American law
And – as odd as it may sound – it’s not too late to impeach Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld … even though they have are no longer in office.
Of course, Obama is also committing war crimes. For example, the Obama administration has ordered numerous indiscriminate drone strikes … which are war crimes (more here and here). And torture is also apparently continuing under Obama. See this and this.
And Obama should also be impeached.
No comments:
Post a Comment