U.S. Military 'Power Grab' Goes Into Effect

U.S. Military 'Power Grab' Goes Into Effect

www.longislandpress.com

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

The alarm bells warning of coming martial law are almost ubiquitous on ATS. But is it so far-fetched? This new development seems to pave the way for the military to intervene during periods of domestic unrest.

The relevant part of the rule:

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.

Link to Full Text

The two sides disagree that this authority is new. Bruce Afran says it is, while an unamed defense official claims the "authorization has been around for 100 years." I don't know about everyone else, but I'll believe the guy who isn't afraid of identifying himself rather than the anonymous source.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.”

www.longislandpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wasn't this a thread just the other day?

2nd

reply to post by BobM88


Possibly in another forum other than Breaking Alternative News? I looked through the forum and didn't see a thread on it. If it is a duplicate the mods will take care of it.

This has already been posted and from what i remember its more about the fact that if the USA was invaded and no presidential/state/local authority was available to handle the problem then technically the military would be useless as they can't operate on home soil so there has to be a catch all that if someone invades and disables the normal rules that the military can turn up and sort out the problem long enough for the status quo to be restored

Really though, Goddess forbid any terrorist attack to take out all of the "heads" of state or the "lawmakers", and then an invasion on America were to happen.
But if it were to happen, who in their right mind would believe the US military would not get their boots on and go kick ***??
We don't need any rule or law to tell us we need to take care of our own.
This idea was just to anger some folks is all.
More laws= less freedoms.

reply to post by g146541


Don't forget a lot of these rules were set out before the USA had nukes/lord knows how many carrier fleets/instant telecommunications etc so they needed rules that the soldiers could understand should the chain of command fail.

reply to post by g146541


In the case of invasion by a foreign government, yes. But what about a protest that turns violent? Should the military be called in then?

reply to post by TheComte


I thought it was illegal for the American military to act in the capacity of law enforcement agents in America no?

Posse Comitatus Act isnt it?

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by TheComte

 

I thought it was illegal for the American military to act in the capacity of law enforcement agents in America no?

Posse Comitatus Act isnt it?

It certainly USED to be (most of the time). Those days have been long gone for more than a decade.

With various elements combined under DHS and the "nationalization" of many police officers, domestic police and military units are virtually indistinguishable.

ganjoa

reply to post by TheComte

This is the third thread on this story. The most comprehensive seems to be this one. And by comprehensive, I mean it was debunked all over the place.

reply to post by TheComte


Some things to research....

First off Federal Military Units cannot be used in civilian law enforcement. That is by law - 18 USC § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Secondly - State guard units are NOT governed by 18 USC 1385. State units answer to their own commander in chief, which would be the Governor of the respective state.

Third, and most importantly - There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that prevents the government from using military units in Law Enforcement functions. Congress created the law at the end of the Civil War (Reconstruction era) in order to remove Federal Troops from Southern States and in return gained their support during the disputed Presidential election.

Wiki - History of Posse Comitatus Act

The key part -

When the U.S. Representatives and Senators from the former Confederate states reached Washington, they set as a priority the creation of a statute prohibiting any future President or Congress from directing, by military order or federal legislation, the imposition of federal troops in any U.S. state

Why is that important? Because its a law, and that means Congress can modify or scrap that law all together. The issue then becomes that of States Rights vs. Federal over reach. We saw this issue rear its ugly head during Katrina.

The Governor at the time refused to place her national guard units under Federal Command. We had, essentially, a dual chain of command for the military units during that mess. In order to bypass that, Bush would of had to declare New Orleans, and by extension the State of Louisiana, in a state of rebellion in order to gain control over the state guard. We can look at history and see that did not occur. Why? Because his advisors warned him about how it would be perceived, in addition to it trampling all over states rights.

Why is it important to know about these things?

* - Well for starters its good to know what the government is doing, at ALL levels.
* - Secondly, by knowing about the laws that govern this area, people can make a better argument in terms of updating the act, scrapping it and replacing it with something brand new, etc etc etc.
* - Third, it allows people to concentrate on the core issue and not be distracted by some of the minutia that surrounds these types of topics.

Finally, it forces people to learn how our Government works, from Federal to State to Local. It forces the people to become knowledgeable about areas of our government they otherwise would not know exists.

People need to remember some basics -
The US courts have already ruled, several times now, that a US citizen cannot be stripped of their citizenship by the government (unless they came here from somewhere else). It also has ruled Us citizens are NOT subject to military law. They have ruled the military has no jurisdiction over US citizens (Jose Padilla case / Military Commission Acts of 2006 / 2008 and 2009 in addition to the recent ruling on the NDAA sections 1022/1023 (if I remember right).

The best defense against government overreach is to get involved at ALL levels of government. Know what they are doing and why and research where the authority to do so comes from.

Citizens exercising their god given rights is the ultimate threat to any government. If we fail to do our job, then we are responsible for the outcome.

Just my 2 cents...