Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama "considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent
Sipsey Street Irregulars ^ | 5/29/14 | Dutchman 6

Posted on 05/29/2014 9:13:05 AM PDT by Nachum

Directive outlines Obama’s 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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government
KEYWORDS: armed; blm; bundy; military; obama
Obama "considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters."
1 posted on 05/29/2014 9:13:05 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would have been had the man called 0bama used drone attacks against Bundy and his supporters.

Oklahoma City and Fort Sumpter come to mind.

2 posted on 05/29/2014 9:15:59 AM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Kinda like he “considered” military service but by the time he was old enough, VN was already over. Yeah, righhhttttt!


3 posted on 05/29/2014 9:21:32 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.

Period.

And they think that the dork is....a dork.

Now, what does this say about Harvard’s “standards”?


4 posted on 05/29/2014 9:22:42 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


5 posted on 05/29/2014 9:24:19 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Not defending the zero, but he would have been 11 when VN ended. I know..I was 12.


6 posted on 05/29/2014 9:25:26 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Posse Comitatus Needs to be elevated to an amenment.. oh wait the many Admins do not believe those mean much either... never mind

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-posse-comitatus


7 posted on 05/29/2014 9:26:37 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

8 posted on 05/29/2014 9:27:23 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

LOL! I know. It’s just his typical tuff guy persona he was showin’. Tuff guy. Rigghhhttt. Bad ass? Just ass maybe.


9 posted on 05/29/2014 9:39:48 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens!

10 posted on 05/29/2014 10:15:01 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


11 posted on 05/29/2014 10:19:33 AM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

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 ...


12 posted on 05/29/2014 10:27:17 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Another site with same statement. Possibly from same original source.

http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2014/05/memo-outlines-obamas-plan-to-use.html

“...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.”


13 posted on 05/29/2014 10:31:21 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Probably the original source:

The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/?page=all#pagebreak

“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.”


14 posted on 05/29/2014 10:33:38 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Use of military troops shouldn’t even have been under consideration.
Posse Comitatus forbids it.
But then when has that stopped Zer0 .


15 posted on 05/29/2014 10:49:01 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
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.

16 posted on 05/29/2014 11:01:34 AM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I wish he had...


17 posted on 05/29/2014 11:36:25 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Rip it out by the roots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Smart tactical move! To do so would have lost the democrats not only 2014 but also 2016. Nobody can say he is not tactical!


18 posted on 05/29/2014 3:23:19 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

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.
Flexibility


19 posted on 05/30/2014 5:11:50 AM PDT by Texas resident (The democrat party is now the CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson