Patty

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...

As The Washington Times reports,


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.”

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.

And the full Directive is below...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-29/meet-directive-302518-granting-obama-authority-use-military-force-against-civilians

straightUp Loc: California

I would have to look through the document more thoroughly, but from what I can tell after reading the article and from a precursory glance at the document itself, I once again find myself amused at how people get so dramatic over anything that crosses Obama's desk.

Let's start with the title of the article "...Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens." Oooh... The title of this post is even more dramatic... "...Use Military FORCE Against Cvilians." Ooohhh... Meanwhile what the directive seems to be talking about is military assistance, which the article says can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. Of course the military doesn't loan weapons to itself, so obviously the directive is talking about... civilians - probably wh**ever law-enforcement agencies are available.

Actually, the Washington Times made a poor choice of words (maybe intentional) saying that the directive is very clear that this is about "engaging civilians". Poor choice of words because for many people, especially those with military backgrounds, engaging is about fighting. But in the context of the directive engaging is used more in the business sense, as in arming and activating civilians. What credits my perspective on this even more is where the article says "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." Perhaps the point of bringing this up is to encourage the notion that Obama is "playing" with unreasonable options, but I think it's far more likely that they rejected the proposal simply because the directive doesn't allow it.

See, here's the thing... Lots of citizens are whining about taxes. They don't want to pay them - apparently they want everything for free. Well, you don't get a military for free. In fact, you don't a police for free either. Meanwhile, our government spent eight years (2001-2008) running up the credit cards and another eight years trying to borrow our way out of the debt. Now we got Moody's scratching their heads and saying "weeeell....." So, bottom line, the government has to cut back. So, as our federal government cuts back on it's ability to protect citizens and property from domestic unrest, doesn't it make sense to start figuring out ways to sort of "deputize" civilian groups?

Don't get me wrong... as far as I am concerned ANY armed authority warrants suspicion and wariness. Especially if the authority spreads to more obscure organizations. I've been dead set against the privatization of the military since Cheney turned it into an obsession. Blackwater to me is just the N**i SS waiting to happen. So there is a LOT to be concerned about, but this is why I get disappointed when I see people reacting to the facets of a huge and complex problem, like the police-state that's been growing since 2001 as a chance to fling partisan poo.

My first rule of thumb is don't freak out as soon as you hear something. Read the document - objectively - not subjectively as if the purpose is to find trash on Obama, but objectively so you know what you're really up against. It's also helpful to know things like the fact that the use of U.S. military force against civilians is not new. It used to happen all the time prior to the progressive movement in the early 20th century. It's also helpful to know that there are already lots of directives going back to Eisenhower that allow the use of military force to control civilians during times of crisis, which is why I knew right off the bat that directive 3025.18 had to be about something else more specific than just authorizing something that's already authorized.

If anyone is interested in talking about this directive objectively - I'm in. I'd like to know more about it - especially the directives that it cancels...

danvail Loc: Oklahoma

It amazes me that people call for the violent o*******w of Government and then get upset when the Government responds to that eventuality.

It's getting more and more like the years before the civil war with the same players involved. S******n is rampant in the south.

I say close and move all the bases out of Texas would be a first start - when Texas loses all the income from the dozens of bases that are within - maybe people will wake up and see that Government supports local communities far more than they would like to admit.

Then publicly thank Ted Cruz for leading the s*******s activity that prompted this response.

Patty

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to use the military against the people. Civil unrest is granted to the states only.
The Posse Comitatus Act abolished the use of the U.S. military against our own citizens and eliminated the ability of the U.S. government to eliminate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights by declaring Martial Law.


"We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution.
These enumerated powers concern:
• Military defense, international commerce & relations;
• Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
• Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
• With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and v****g rights .

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah115.htm

straightUp Loc: California

Ha, ha... I know, right?


Actually, most of those red states, including Texas, get way more money from the federal government than they give, while most of the blue states, including California, give more to the federal government than they take ...and that's without the added economic benefits of military bases, that's just straight up funding. I say if the red states are going to bite the hand that feeds then fine, let's just stop giving them money and see how they do on their own.


Yes, the Ted Cruz effect... or shall we say, morons leading morons.

straightUp Loc: California

No it doesn't. Posse Comitatus is a part of the common law that we inherited from England that allows authorities to organize civilian posses for law enforcement and in the U.S. the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879 applied restrictions on the federal government's use of posses, saying that no part of the federal military can be used for


The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, formalized the notion of Posse Comitatus, which is actually part of the Common Law we inherited from England, where civilians can be organized into posses for forceful action.

making it illegal to use federal forces but it states very clearly that exceptions can be established by the Constitution or an act of Congress.



"We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution.
These enumerated powers concern:
• Military defense, international commerce & relations;
• Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
• Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
• With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and v****g rights .

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah115.htm[/quote]

Patty

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.” Attributed to Henry Ford.
We have asked nicely that they abide by their oath to uphold the constitution. They have refused. For example Obama Care is completely unconstitutional and even the majority have said that they don't want it.
Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the paink**ler”.

Patty

The circumstances where it can be over ridden is "situational" and only occurred once and that was during Hurricane Katrina.
It is not an on going right of the US government and can be disallowed by the states. The feds are outside their authority based on the fact that what they are doing is unconstitutional and can not use military against the people in the scope of breaking the constitution
"The text of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is still in effect (as 18 U.S.C. Section 1385), reads:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Today, the Posse Comitatus Act has taken on a very different meaning from the one that it had in 1878. No longer associated with Reconstruction, it is a useful way to prevent the U.S. armed forces from directing their efforts against U.S. dissident groups. Public sentiment in favor of the Posse Comitatus Act is so strong that a 2006 law permitting an exception to the Act in cases of public disasters (in response to Hurricane Katrina) was repealed a year later."

straightUp Loc: California

No it doesn't. Posse Comitatus is a part of the common law that we inherited from England that allows authorities to organize civilian posses for law enforcement and in the U.S. the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879 applied restrictions by making it illegal for the federal government's military to be used by any such posse - EXCEPT in cases as determined by the Constitution or an act of congress.


This is usually the first thing armchair politicians come up with whenever the federal government does something they don't like, but any expert in law can tell you how easy it is to get around that. It's just a matter of interpretation, which is actually, the genius of the Constitution itself. The enumerations are vague enough to carry with it what many politicians have called "The Spirit of the Letter" while leaving the details of implementation to future discussions. This is what gives the Constitution the ability to make sense in a changing world.

So, all one has to do is qualify civil unrest as a matter of national security and bada-bing... Now, it's the Constitutional concern of Common Defense. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says Common Defense can't mean defense against unruly citizens.

Patty

Actually the president doesn't have power as commander and chief in anyway till congress gives it to him through declaring war. Do you think congress will grant Obama the right to declare war on the American people?
Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:
•makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. 3

straightUp Loc: California

Not sure I understand the reference... From what I remember of history, the American Indian didn't exactly LET the government take care of them. The United States basically k**led them all and then left what was left of them with no choice.


Oh, so now we're talking about Obamacare? There is only one tiny little piece of Obamacare that is questionable in this regard and many supporters are thinking of pulling that out, because the flak it's getting is disproportionate to the benefits the other aspects of Obamacare offers.

As far as what most the people want, that number fluctuates and depends greatly on how the polls are controlled and analyzed. My personal conclusion is that most people who oppose it don't understand it.


Jesus Patty - are you that misinformed or are you just lying? This is what opponents are saying Obamacare is "leading" to not what is... It's the "gateway" argument, like how pot always leads to heroine and crime.

According the actual law itself... the only mandate is that people carry insurance... ANY insurance - it doesn't have to be controlled by the government. In fact, Obama has been pushing hard to get employers to offer insurance to their employees so that the government doesn't HAVE to get involved.

If anything drives us toward government controlled health care it will be the i***ts on the right who can't seem to come up with their own solution and refuse to participate in the market-based solution that Obamacare is trying to provide.

Patty

Please post from the constitution where the government has the right to force us to purchase any product.
While you are at it please show where the DoD has the authority to proclaim a "Directive" of any sort especially one that allows force be used against the American public.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf
and don't call me a "liar" sheep.

Patty

I think where your confusion lies is in the basics.
The constitution does not give the federal government a list of what they aren't allowed to do and everything else is ok. It gives them a list of what they are allowed to do and everything else is outside of their authority. If you are able to understand that in its basic form than you will be less confused about what the federal governments power is.

straightUp Loc: California

Think about this one Patty... Give me an example of an armed force that Obama is commanding that isn't actually in service. And if you think the declaration of war is a prerequisite, then keep in mind that every president since the Korean War as technically been a wartime president. The state of war between us and North Korea has NEVER been terminated. There is also this "War on Terror" that Bush thought was such a terrific idea despite the fact that the term "terror" was never actually defined anywhere. It became a blanket declaration of war against Iraq, Afghanistan and ANYONE considered by the president himself to be a terrorist.

As someone said on the radio the other day... A president's actions is influenced much more by the legacy he inherits than by his own ideals.

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not pleased by any of this Patty... I'm just trying to cut through all the BS so as to reveal the reality of the situation. Since unlike you, who seems primarily concerned with trashing Obama, MY primary concern is to try and understand the reality of the situation so I can understand how we may fix it.

As for your challenges - no problem... you'll have to wait though, right now I have to got to work.