It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's planned use of military against American citizens

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:38 PM
Here's my source

2010 Pentagon Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” is an attempt to give Obama authority to violate the Posse Comitatus Act – using our own troops against us on American soil.

The bill in question, no. 3025.18, can be read in full here

1. PURPOSE. This Directive:

a. Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for DSCA, also referred to as civil support.

b. Incorporates and cancels DoD Directive (DoDD) 3025.1 and DoDD 3025.15 (References (a) and (b)).

c. Supplements the regulations (in DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))) required by section 375 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), (Reference (d)) regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.

d. Provides guidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA when requested by civil authorities or by qualifying entities and approved by the appropriate DoD official, or as directed by the President, within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any political subdivision thereof.

e. Authorizes immediate response authority for providing DSCA, when requested.

f. Authorizes emergency authority for the use of military force, under dire situations, as described in paragraph 4.i. above the signature of this Directive.

That's only the first page. "Military support for civilian law enforcement" huh?

Does that sound shady to you, or is it just me?

edit on Xx64060631PM56 by XxNightAngelusxX because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:43 PM
A friend was part of this ,He was exaining the security at a nuclear plandt then they went back and trained how to neutralize them.
They have had plans for that contingency for some time. Where it get's fuzzy is :Who will turn on us and HOW many guns will brought to bear?

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:43 PM
a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

sounds alot like selective martial law IMO

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 06:52 PM

Obama's planned use of military against American citizens - See more at:

It's happened before....

And we might as well consider Local Law enforcement to be militarized as well.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 07:02 PM
Posse Comitatus has been effectively neutralized for domestic purposes.

The DHS (includes the Coast Guard) and the National Guard are not included in Posse Comitatus.

And militarized police forces are exempt as well.

The Act, as modified in 1981, refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

Posse Comitatus

So yes, Obama can do just about anything he wants to.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 07:05 PM
And let's not forget Obama's statements prior to the 2008 election.

It's a major plan.

youtube captions;

Is Obama planning to have a Civilian Security Force in addition to the military?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama Civilian Security

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 07:19 PM

originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
Does that sound shady to you, or is it just me?

I would say it's just you, but this is a pretty common meme among conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists in general do not understand the complex relationship between military and civil authorities. They look at Posse Comitatus like fundamentalists look at the Bible, and understand it even less. Having read this directive, and some of its predecessors, it's hard for me to see anything nefarious in it. It's mostly about how states have to reimburse the military if they request military assistance, and how the military can respond to things like fires but has to leave once the state or locals show up. It forbids the military from using "power that is regulatory, prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory." It forbids the military to quell civil disturbances unless the disturbance directly threatens government functions. Pretty hard to usher in martial law when you're not allowed to compel anybody to do anything and your power is limited to protecting Federal property.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:19 PM
People also don't seem to realize how many active duty service members are aware of how corrupt and broken our Govt. is. Not to mention how many of us are members of ATS and other conspiracy sites.

The vast majority of us neither trust nor like our Govt. yet people still think we are going to turn our weapons on our friends, neighbors and families.

It's not going to happen.

a reply to: olaru12

The Kent State thing was National Guard, a completely separate and different entity than active duty military. They're not comparable in my opinion.
edit on 31-5-2014 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:47 PM
Having read the articles provided, there are a few things to consider before such happens.

The first thing is that any President, to use federal force, would require a natural disaster or cataclysm, where the local authorities would be over taxed.

The article is correct that this would not be the first time, as US history has lots of examples, though the country is way too large for any sort of pacification on the part of the US Military, its forces spread to thin.

So then the question is what would be the opportune targets would he strike?

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:55 PM
Don't automatically assume all Active Duty Soldiers will just waltz around and destroy American lives.

As another poster pointed out, a few of us Soldiers are members of this site.

Don't be so quick to pass judgement solely based on some law, its far more complicated than that.

Many US Soldiers hold their fellow citizens at heart. Going to Iraq an Afghan is one thing, orders are orders...
Being ordered to destroy American lives is another and will be met with resistance and hesitation, for those that hesitate, its up to the resisters to coax them to not follow a blind am unjust order.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:04 PM
a reply to: Arnie123

Don't be so quick to pass judgement solely based on some law, its far more complicated than that.
- See more at:

Who's passing judgment?

I know military folks are some of our best citizens.

The only judgment I'm passing is on the (insert non-T&C friendly insult here)'s who are passing these bills. I know it doesn't mean nation wide martial law is gonna spread like the plague tomorrow... but its still concerning. Why would they need a bill like this if they didn't intend to use it for something?

EDIT; SPEAKING OF WHICH! Lookie what I just found;

Obama Plans To Attack Veterans

According to a recent opinion published by Western Journalism, Obama is set to attack veterans as his first target against the American populace.

The report covers various points, such as:

- Veterans swore an oath to defend us against enemies foreign and domestic and have the ability to defeat local law enforcement.

- A document by DHS classifies veterans as potential enemies of the state

- Document show Obama knew about VA “death panels” 5 years ago

- FEMA signed and agreement with the Russians Emergency Ministry, Russia’s version of FEMA, last year to provide security at mass events here in the US. So security that pats you down at places like sporting events might be Russian.

edit on Xx61590931PM59 by XxNightAngelusxX because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:18 PM
From your source article:

Obama’s planned use of the military against American citizens has now gained substantial acknowledgment in the mainstream media by a report in The Washington Times...

The Washington Times is not, I repeat, not mainstream.

As for the subject, why is it suddenly all Obama's fault? Something that's been common for decades is all Obama's master plan now? I think you're just being silly.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:20 PM
this is NOT just Obama. This is the country hijackers behind the scenes, every thief will fight to the death to keep what they stole.

The military has many good people, but the high % of non-US members has me concerned. Why would you recruit in foreign countries, or allow someone not at least 3rd generation to join?

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX
Your right, it's just a lot of folks would interpret otherwise.

Truth is, I don't think they need it either, Ill be the first to admit, their are some mindless gung ho folks, what society or Organization doesnt have them?, but very few, fewere than you think.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:55 PM
a reply to: links234

As for the subject, why is it suddenly all Obama's fault? Something that's been common for decades is all Obama's master plan now? I think you're just being silly. - See more at:

Whaddoya' mean "suddenly" Obama's fault? His screw ups have always been his fault.

That said, I know all presidents step behind the curtains and sign whatever they damn well please into play whenever we're not paying attention. I never once said its ALL anyone's fault. I didn't write the article.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:59 PM
Or you could read one of the multiple other threads here on ATS where the idea it is new, will lead to martial law, etc has been debunked -

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:04 PM
The issue I see is asking Americans to go against fellow Americans and they may consist of family members, friends, etc...might be a hard sell. I'm not buying it, I don't see it happening here because say what you will of "government", it still is comprised of people who have loved ones and belong to a community. Perhaps that's just me, and my optimistic thinking, but I look back on American history and yes, she is young, I still see more good than bad.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:10 PM
Makes me think of Bush sr talking about "The new world order"..this #s been in the works some time and i doesnt matter what puppet at the helm..look for the puppetmasters.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:12 PM

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Or you could read one of the multiple other threads here on ATS where the idea it is new, will lead to martial law, etc has been debunked -

Debunked? LOL.

All I'm seeing is more and more excessive debating about the same topic. Its all speculation, and none of us can say for sure what's most likely to happen. Pretty arrogant to refer to those threads as debunking.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:16 PM

That's only the first page. "Military support for civilian law enforcement" huh?
So lets see what it says specifically about that:

i. Federal military 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 (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d)) or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j)) and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))). 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 because:
(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,
(2) When duly constituted Federal, State, or 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

Now, let's have a look at 5525.5 (from 1983)

It is DoD policy to cooperate with civilian law enforcement officials to the extent practical. The implementation of this policy shall be consistent with the needs of national security and military preparedness, the historic tradition of limiting direct military involvement in civilian law enforcement activities, and the requirements of applicable law, as developed in enclosures E2. through E7.

The Feds cannot just jump in.
1) Local (or state) authorities have to ask for assitance.
2) The President has to agree we the local (or state) authorities.

Back to 3015.18:

g. Federal military commanders, Heads of DoD Components, and/or responsible DoD civilian officials (hereafter referred to collectively as “DoD officials”) have IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AUTHORITY as described in this Directive. In response to a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious conditions and if time does not permit approval from higher authority, DoD officials may provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States. Immediate response authority does not permit actions that would subject civilians to the use of military power that is regulatory, prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory.

edit on 5/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in