Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’
35 replies, posted
[url="http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/"]Long Island Press[/url]
[img]http://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Military_1.jpg[/img]
[quote]The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:
[b][i]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.[/i][/b][/quote]
[url="http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2013/04/dsclea.html"]Document[/url]
No words....
-yeah i knew that was stupid-
[editline]16th May 2013[/editline]
Seriously though, I hope this isn't actually used, since I highly doubt that the American government is going to be taking powers away from itself in the foreseeable future.
I want to move to England.
Isn't this the National Guards job?
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40661466]Isn't this the National Guards job?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the national guard is meant to respond to large-scale civil disturbances or protests when the police forces aren't adequate.
Incredibly odd that it's being given to military commanders as well.
Think we could get a less sensationalist source on this one?
Alright Europe, we saved your asses last time, now it's your turn to storm our beaches.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;40661563]Alright Europe, we saved your asses last time, now it's your turn to storm our beaches.[/QUOTE]
Sure sounds like wingnuts in here.
This is not good.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40661486]Yeah, the national guard is meant to respond to large-scale civil disturbances or protests when the police forces aren't adequate.
Incredibly odd that it's being given to military commanders as well.[/QUOTE]
The National Guard is part of the United States Army. They are every bit as military as an active duty Soldier. They just have an expanded civil role, in that they also respond to domestic emergencies.
If local authorities also includes the National Guard I would see why the full military should get involved, but other than that this is ridiculous.
Makes you wonder why they even bother putting up all of the bill passing masquerades if they can just do this at the drop of a hat. If you are going to turn a country into a totalitarian state and already have the power of doing so, you could atleast have the common courtesy of being honest about it. Live broadcasting the burning of the constitution would in the very least look cool and dramatic, have some style.
soooo uuuuh can the president do anything about this?
Looks to me like its saying if both the president and the state governors are incapicitated than the military has the go ahead to help bring an extreme situation under control. I see no problem with this. A little sensationalist I think.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40661977]Looks to me like its saying if both the president and the state governors are incapicitated than the military has the go ahead to help bring an extreme situation under control. I see no problem with this. A little sensationalist I think.[/QUOTE]
If that is the case, I sincerely hope that an "extreme situation" does not include the president or one of the state governors coughing at an incorrect pitch.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40661977]Looks to me like its saying if both the president and the state governors are incapicitated than the military has the go ahead to help bring an extreme situation under control. I see no problem with this. A little sensationalist I think.[/QUOTE]
"Civil disturbance" is far too vague though. They could feasibly deploy troops against, say, an Occupy protest and be legally justified in doing so. Of course this bill could have its uses, but the abuses are far closer to home, so to speak. Short of a Red Dawn-style multinational curbstomp, there really aren't many situations where something like you're talking about would happen.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40662008]"Civil disturbance" is far too vague though. They could feasibly deploy troops against, say, an Occupy protest and be legally justified in doing so. Of course this bill could have its uses, but the abuses are far closer to home, so to speak. Short of a Red Dawn-style multinational curbstomp, there really aren't many situations where something like you're talking about would happen.[/QUOTE]
It would be pretty logical to assume that the US military would try to help its own country if the entire non military government staff suddenly died. A specific bill would probably not be necessary for that.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40662008]"Civil disturbance" is far too vague though. They could feasibly deploy troops against, say, an Occupy protest and be legally justified in doing so. Of course this bill could have its uses, but the abuses are far closer to home, so to speak. Short of a Red Dawn-style multinational curbstomp, there really aren't many situations where something like you're talking about would happen.[/QUOTE]
I don't think an occupy protest would incapacitate the president and cause state authorities to lose control of a situation. And I agree with the bottom state t you made, which is why I think it's sensationalist. There really aren't many situations where this law could be applied.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40662008]"Civil disturbance" is far too vague though. They could feasibly deploy troops against, say, an Occupy protest and be legally justified in doing so. Of course this bill could have its uses, but the abuses are far closer to home, so to speak. Short of a Red Dawn-style multinational curbstomp, there really aren't many situations where something like you're talking about would happen.[/QUOTE]
technically, yes. in practice, it would only be used in a large scale revolt(violent or otherwise). if a (very) large group of protesters took the "occupy" term to the extreme and charged the capitol building or white house and somehow got through then yea the military would respond. likely unilaterally without any approval from the president.
i don't get why this is surprising. the military is generally used against external "threats", but the dogs can be used to quell uprisings just as well and have been doing so as long as professional standing armies have been around.
Makes me wonder if this is being done in advance to that stupid open carry march on DC this summer.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;40661563]Alright Europe, we saved your asses last time, now it's your turn to storm our beaches.[/QUOTE]
Tell us when you expect any civil war to end and we'll join in a year or so before.
Oh man, america really is the laughing stock of the world
I think people are missing the part where this only applies if the president is incapacitated (for whatever reason) and the existing authorities can't handle the situation.
They're not going to be responding to protests with stealth bombers or drones, etc.
Heh. Heheh. We're uh, just having a discussion here in Facepunch.
Right guys. Yes
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;40661563]Alright Europe, we saved your asses last time, now it's your turn to storm our beaches.[/QUOTE]
Just watch out for the needles
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40662248]I think people are missing the part where this only applies if the president is incapacitated (for whatever reason) and the existing authorities can't handle the situation.[/QUOTE]all part of the plan, soon Obamantichrist fakes his death so that martial law can be established and all good american people of God will go to prison camps forever!
[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;40663171]First [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1270764"]black widows found in Scotland[/URL], now this. I see what's happening here. RIP Scotland.[/QUOTE]
I must be missing something, how is this related to Scotland?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40661393][url="http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/"]Long Island Press[/url]
[img]http://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Military_1.jpg[/img]
[url="http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2013/04/dsclea.html"]Document[/url]
No words....[/QUOTE]
FEMA is on the brink of dissolving the US government and shipping all of the country's undesirables to concentration camps for slaughter or deprogramming.
Also the entire left wing movement as it exists today is run by Moveon.Org and the DailyKos, and is funded by George Soros.
This is the end.
I'm nervous.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;40661563]Alright Europe, we saved your asses last time, now it's your turn to storm our beaches.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.viking-mythology.com/images/The_Vikings_were_hated_everywhere.jpg[/IMG]
Vinland may yet still be ours.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.