Skip to comments.Obama "considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent
Posted on 05/29/2014 9:13:05 AM PDT by Nachum
Directive outlines Obamas policy to use the military against citizens.
Well, it seems that my sources who reported at the time that the Bundy standoff was the subject of a meeting of under-secretaries of various cabinet departments (which I did not report, but awaited confirmation) were correct. It also makes more understandable the business of Oath Keepers and the rumor of military intervention, even if they were fed disinformation about a drone strike.
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.
It is further interesting that the link provided to the original document no longer works.
Oklahoma City and Fort Sumpter come to mind.
Kinda like he “considered” military service but by the time he was old enough, VN was already over. Yeah, righhhttttt!
Really, does anyone even bother reading what comes out of the Department of Truth?
I’m so very proud of the fact that the vast majority of the West Point Cadets evidently demonstrated their opinion of the Obamadork by not standing during certain times that they were perhaps expected to.
Remember, Obama couldn’t 1) even consider getting to West Point, 2) couldn’t have ever passed even their most simple academic course, 3) his military and athletic performance would have gotten him expelled one week after reporting for basic training.
In summary, each and every West Point grad is superior to the Obamadork in every possible measure. They are superior.
And they think that the dork is....a dork.
Now, what does this say about Harvard’s “standards”?
Usually, it would read, “some idiot on the staff suggested, and everyone in the room wadded up paper balls that three it at him. Because that is illegal.”
Not so much any more.
Not defending the zero, but he would have been 11 when VN ended. I know..I was 12.
Posse Comitatus Needs to be elevated to an amenment.. oh wait the many Admins do not believe those mean much either... never mind
LOL! I know. It’s just his typical tuff guy persona he was showin’. Tuff guy. Rigghhhttt. Bad ass? Just ass maybe.
Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens!
Why would he use the military when every two-bit department has a swat team? Throw in a few drones and they’re good to go.
There’s a distinct possibility that the Federal law enforcement officers would have politely declined to follow orders.
But the same is true of the military. I have a lot of friends who are retired or recently separated military, both enlisted and officers (up to O6) and they say that there’s no doubt in their minds that orders to take armed action against citizens who are exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights will be refused based on being unlawful. One said that there are still very strong institutional memories of Waco ...
Another site with same statement. Possibly from same original source.
“...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.”
Probably the original source:
The Washington Times
“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.”
Use of military troops shouldn’t even have been under consideration.
Posse Comitatus forbids it.
But then when has that stopped Zer0 .
Actually...no..it does not forbid it. The only written prohibition is that you can't use armed drones. There are also guidelines saying essentially that federal interests must be in danger which leaves open a plethora of excuses.
It was not all that long ago..(for me) that Eisenhower called in federal troops to protect students in Arkansas..due to a black/white racial issue.
Bush, after Katrina, had the law modified in such a way as to make the consideration to use federal troops possible in the Bundy situation...they can also say a nuclear power plant is in danger or any number of reasons to validate the use of federal troops, and the National Guard has always been exempted from Posse restrictions.
So no, they can pretty much do what they want, and if it's a Grey area they will just do it and litigate it later so I don't see "Posse" as a deterrent.
I wish he had...
Smart tactical move! To do so would have lost the democrats not only 2014 but also 2016. Nobody can say he is not tactical!
That is probably the main reason they stood down on that.
Had this happened after the mid terms, who knows what they would have done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.