Obama's planned use of military against American citizens

The MRAP collecting dust in the local pd's parking lot tells me its been going on for a bit....

a reply to: Phage

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.

The feds cannot legally just jump in.

1) Do you believe the state authorities and the national authorities are completely untied with one another? Asking for assistance is not exactly a huge obstacle.
2 ) Come on. Obama agree to break the rules? Yeah, that's never happened before...

a reply to: Phage

The Feds cannot just jump in.

Hmmm anyone who has been paying attention to the last 6 years, and the 8 years before that.

Pretty much has seen the US federal government doing whatever the hell it wants to.

a reply to: neo96
I misspoke. This directive does not make it possible for the military to jump in without first being invited by civil authorities (and Presidential approval).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96
I misspoke. This directive does not make it possible for the military to jump in without first being invited by civil authorities (and Presidential approval).

"Illegal" and "Impossible" are nowhere near the same thing.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

1) Do you believe the state authorities and the national authorities are completely untied with one another? Asking for assistance is not exactly a huge obstacle.

The premise of this thread is that it allows the President to take unilateral action. It does not.

2 ) Come on. Obama agree to break the rules? Yeah, that's never happened before...

The premise of this thread is that the directive allows the military to legally do so. It does not. Why bother with a directive saying the President cannot do it if all he has to do is break existing laws?

Obama is on his way out...on to the next one. We the American citizens won't allow to be taken down by him, or the next one, or the next, etc....Talk to me, talk to your neighbor, and if the "one" has the balls to turn on his fellow Americans then he will go down in history as the worst President ever...and I can guarantee you one thing no one really truly wants that label. Not when you make it that "far" supposedly up the chain of command and you seemingly become the national hero....who in their right mind that made it that far would turn on their people? If they do, then deal with the rest of "us."

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

"Illegal" and "Impossible" are nowhere near the same thing.

Correct.
This directive does not make it legal for the military to jump in without first being invited by civil authorities (and Presidential approval).

Why bother if Obama and the military are unconcerned about legalities?

a reply to: Phage

Why bother if Obama and the military are unconcerned about legalities?

Because the bill was obviously created for some reason or another.

If something sparks and people ask questions, they will have this bill (along with numerous others) to back their actions. Most people wouldn't piece together the logical flukes and loopholes between what the bill legally allows, and whatever the government decides to do. In fact, most people don't even know who their governor is.

Our stupidity is something they take for granted.

And even then--if they decided to take the legal route, the state's "okay" and Obama's agreement wouldn't exactly be hard for them to obtain.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

Over here in Phoenix, we have a massive underground complex for the "Arizona National Guard", underneath Papago Park. Why it's there?, what is it's purpose? No body knows.
I will be expecting a knock on my door very soon for saying this.

Kratos...

a reply to: Phage

Why bother if Obama and the military are unconcerned about legalities?

It's an election year (an important election) and it's a hot topic.

They are doing everything to make this look oh-so prim and proper.

IMO, this is another red herring.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

Because the bill was obviously created for some reason or another.

It isn't a bill, it's a directive, a DoD policy statement. In this case a clarification of earlier directives concerning military assistance of civil law enforcement. It says so right 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.

Most people wouldn't piece together the logical flukes and loopholes between what the bill legally allows, and whatever the government decides to do.

It's pretty clear. And we always have the ACLU, right?

Our stupidity is something they take for granted.

I'm not stupid.

And even then--if they decided to take the legal route, the state's "okay" and Obama's agreement wouldn't exactly be hard for them to obtain.

"They" have had a long time to do so, this particular incarnation of the policy came out in 2010.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's an election year (an important election) and it's a hot topic.

The directive was issued in 2010, changed in 2012.

originally posted by: Phage
The premise of this thread is that it allows the President to take unilateral action. It does not.

from the first week as a US Marine until now, the Marine Corps answers directly to Potus, not congress. The USMC teaches this and lives by it, I cant count how many times I heard it.

a reply to: HanzHenry
So then, if this directive gives the President the power to order the military to take action against US citizens, what's the point if he already has that power?

a reply to: Phage

I'm not stupid.

I was referring to society's stupidity on a whole.

As for everything else--they can't roll out all at once. Especially with about half the population being aware of their actions. Bit by bit, one step at a time. "They've had a long time to do so" means absolutely nothing. Look at the small moves they've been making the past few decades, slowly inching us closer to their plans.

It doesn't just happen over night.

Its a slow process.

That's how they getcha.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

That's how they getcha.

I see.

By issuing directives that, when misinterpreted, say that they can do something they can supposedly do anyway because they don't pay any attention to law anyhow.

Got it...or not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

It's an election year (an important election) and it's a hot topic.

The directive was issued in 2010, changed in 2012.

The OP article is current.

That's why I said "It's an election year".

It's being emphasized again.

I'm a 20 year Navy veteran, and I'm insulted that people think the military would turn on the population and do the things mentioned in the OP. Like others have pointed out, the Posse Comitatus act is very misunderstood. I find it ironic that there is a forum on here by that name, and it's basically nothing but bashing the police. Pathetic.

a reply to: Phage

Everything isn't on paper, you know.

This thread isn't intended to attack Obama directly, nor is it stating that everything on paper is the law of God. The point is--they made it for a reason. What that reason is? None of us know yet.

Not really "misinterpreted," more like "ignored."

The government breaks the law all the time.

Why bother making these bills, laws, or directives if they don't pay attention to laws?

To make it look legal.

See, xuenchen makes a fantastic point;

The OP article is current.

That's why I said "It's an election year".

It's being emphasized again.

See how that works? Social manipulation.

Gotta make it look pretty, then no one will question it.