Obama's Plan To Use The Military Against American Citizens

[mudwhistle]

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

By Bill Gertz

-

The Washington Times

Wednesday, May 28, 2014



Pentagon's directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities"



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.



Read more: Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama's plan to use the military against citizens - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
​

 

[Peach]

Eisenhower used Federal troops in 1952, in Mississippi. Still, this is troubling, not a pleasant topic on a Saturday morning. The Times iis slanted, but this requires looking into. These are the so called Homeland Security powers, though it dates back to long before Bush II OR Obama:
_________________________________________________________________________

Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985)

 

[percysunshine]

Why would Obama need to do that? He already has the IRS.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why would Obama need to do that? He already has the IRS.

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

 

[Peach]

Why would Obama need to do that? He already has the IRS.

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

 

[percysunshine]

Why would Obama need to do that? He already has the IRS.

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

He is going after the money first. It is always about the money. Why else would he appoint a tax cheat as head of the Treasury Department?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why would Obama need to do that? He already has the IRS.

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

 

[Asclepias]

You guys are retards. There has always been provisions made to address domestic uprisings.

 

[Peach]

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

Arguable at best. Ever look beyond party affiliation, EVER? I admire Bob AND Liddy Dole, McCain, and many other Republicans; wish Christie had more support in his party. Huntsman is also a moderate I think would be a fine President.

 

[mudwhistle]

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

Arguable at best. Ever look beyond party affiliation, EVER? I admire Bob AND Liddy Dole, McCain, and many other Republicans; wish Christie had more support in his party. Huntsman is also a moderate I think would be a fine President.

I do. I admired JFK. It's rare to find a Democrat these days that hasn't resorted to class-warfare. When they stop doing it, maybe I'll reconsider.

McCain is a funny guy, but he won't make a good president. Christie is too much of a liberal. Romney would have been a pretty good one. He would have made some unpopular decisions that need to be made. Bob Dole was a great guy. Don't know what kind of president he would have made.

 

[Peach]

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

Arguable at best. Ever look beyond party affiliation, EVER? I admire Bob AND Liddy Dole, McCain, and many other Republicans; wish Christie had more support in his party. Huntsman is also a moderate I think would be a fine President.

I do. I admired JFK. It's rare to find a Democrat these days that hasn't resorted to class-warfare. When they stop doing it, maybe I'll reconsider.

McCain is a funny guy, but he won't make a good president. Christie is too much of a liberal. Romney would have been a pretty good one. He would have made some unpopular decisions that need to be made. Bob Dole was a great guy. Don't know what kind of president he would have made.

Thank you for noting the "class warfare" bit, I am tired of hearing "Republicans do not care about ________", it depends on the individual. Romney is also an admirable man, but Ryan WAS, for me, too flaky at the time, seems to be growing in office. We shall see in 2016, I need to more about all possible candidates.

 

[Plasmaball]

boring....there is nothing there to worry over

 

[percysunshine]

boring....there is nothing there to worry over

See...what did I tell y'all?

Plasmaball is an IRS agent.

.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Oh, I can't wait until he does. That will be a horrible but memorable day.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Eisenhower used Federal troops in 1952, in Mississippi. Still, this is troubling, not a pleasant topic on a Saturday morning. The Times iis slanted, but this requires looking into. These are the so called Homeland Security powers, though it dates back to long before Bush II OR Obama:
_________________________________________________________________________

Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985)

His use never exceeded the limits of Posse Comitatus which for all intents and purposes is dead under Herr Obama and his goose steppers. The irony is that during the Bush era, the democrats actually reversed a key portion of the Warren Defense Authorization Act but once their monkey is in charge, not a whimper. Traitors who deserve a traitor's death.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wearers of the little tin hats braying into the night wind. A reflecton not of reality but of their neurosis.

 

[Bfgrn]

My guess is he plans on doing much worse before he leaves office, and he's going to have all of the legal means he needs already in place. He's already replaced most of the leadership in the military with his own guys.

It's happened in other countries, and as long as we sit back and allow it to happen, it will happen here.

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

Honor?

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, I can't wait until he does. That will be a horrible but memorable day.

Obama will just declare victory and leave if we stand up to him.

His favorite way of screwing with us is taking our money anyway.

 

[jillian]

His use never exceeded the limits of Posse Comitatus which for all intents and purposes is dead under Herr Obama and his goose steppers. The irony is that during the Bush era, the democrats actually reversed a key portion of the Warren Defense Authorization Act but once their monkey is in charge, not a whimper. Traitors who deserve a traitor's death.

posse comitatus is insane BS...

get over yourselves. if you raise arms against the government, they should blow you off the planet.

 

[mudwhistle]

He is neither that powerful, nor that popular. Also, strong opposition exists; that noted, citizens must be ever watchful. It has been written, by some in the Nixon administration, he toyed with the idea of using the military before he came to the conclusion he must resign.

The difference between Nixon and Obama is one had honor and the other has not.

No Democrat president will ever resign. They've been lying to themselves for too long to ever entertain the notion.

Honor?

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater

Yes, but he had a respect for the office that Obama doesn't have.