Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 05/28/2014 2:20:10 PM PDT by jazusamo
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There is no way this should not get a 100-0 vote for removal from a Senate that still represents the people.
HF
The problem is that Congress for all intents and purposes is meaningless, since courts and the executive branch are making laws all the time now.
Ping.
Article, then # 3 # 5 , (and other comments.)
.
Exactly, but sadly we don’t have a Senate that even a bare majority represent the people
So it's OK that the local Gauleiter moves in the 101st Airborne to prevent me from peeing behind a tree at the Yellowstone ranger station?
This has always been a possibility, thus the 2nd amendment.
Right there is your Fort Sumpter
That’s a very broad brush, isn’t it.
The SWAT team(s) for the TVA is because of the hydro-electric and nuclear power plants that are under their control.
But I guess you’d rather have muzzies or some ALF/ELF econut waltz right into one or two of their plants and destroy them as well as half of the southeast instead?
The rest of the agencies IMO do not need anything but a doorman to greet people and hold the door open. Then again, if I were president half those agencies would be gone or privatized.
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.”
Why is this a current issue? Wasn't it addressed in 2010?
I’d rather have? I listed what was in the article, did you read it?
The ranks are full of fellow travelers, Holder’s people, angry rad-fems, homosexual sympathizers, Obama’s sons and those who believe that any order given by the CinC is a legal order. Don’t kid yourself. They’ll shoot.
“This has always been a possibility, thus the 2nd amendment.”
Bingo... And to the extent that the military turns on American citizens, these same citizens will turn on the military. And there’s a bunch more armed citizens than there are military.
Not to hijack this into a Civil War thread, but this is exactly what A. Lincoln did in 1861. And quite rightly too.
There was an emergency, and Congress could not be reassembled in time to address the situation.
When in an emergency, it is entirely right and proper for the executive authority to take emergency action.
And how did it change policy from that existing before, it if did?
“It’s clear that BLM, Homeland, EPA, and IRS have no problem in their gestapo role, but I’m not sure how many GIs would participate in an Obama assault on civilians.”
Don’t forget we now have gays and transgenders in the military, openly. This isn’t our father’s military. Plus, Obama has been weeding out the high ranking military leaders that won’t be loyal.
The implication of the article, and certainly of most of the comments, is that this is a new policy implemented by Obama to justify military assaults on Americans.
If so, demonstrate that by showing how this is a change from previous policy.
BOOKMARK
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.