DOD to support the Police

[xoxoxoBruce]

WHAT!?!

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21826-21839]

SUMMARY: This rule implements DoD regulations and legislation
concerning restriction on direct participation by DoD personnel. It
provides specific policy direction and assigns responsibilities with
respect to DoD support provided to Federal, State, and local civilian
law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances.

DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom LaCrosse, 571-256-8353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 21827]]

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. The purpose of this rule is to implement the statutory
requirements for the Department of Defense support of civilian law
enforcement agencies. This rule provides specific policy direction and
assigns responsibilities to Department of Defense key individuals
providing support to Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement
agencies, including response to civil disturbances 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 other political subdivision thereof.
b. The legal authority for this rule is 10 U.S.C. 375,
``Restriction on participation by Military Personnel.''

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Rule

a. Support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act
The primary restriction on DoD participation in civilian law
enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act. It provides that
whoever willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse
comitatus or otherwise to execute U.S. laws, except in cases and under
circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, shall be fined under title 18, U.S.C., or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both. Section 182.6 (a) describes in detail the
assistance that the Department of Defense may and may not provide
civilian law enforcement agencies.
b. Support During Civil Disturbances
The President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the
United States to employ the Armed Forces of the United States to
suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various
conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal
Government, including the Department of Defense, for civil disturbances
is important due to the potential severity of the consequences of such
events for the Nation and the population. The employment of Federal
military forces to control civil disturbances shall only occur in a
specified civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances as authorized
by the President, normally through issuance of an Executive order or
other Presidential directive authorizing and directing the Secretary of
Defense to provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific
State or locality.

III. Costs and Benefits

This rule does not have a significant effect on the economy.
However, the Department of Defense may provide support to civilian law
enforcement entities on either a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis
depending on the authority under which the support is provided. The
benefit to the elements of the Department of Defense providing such
support may include a benefit that is substantially equivalent to that
derived from military operations or training. Additionally, the
recipient civilian law enforcement agencies benefit from the Department
of Defense's substantial capabilities when those capabilities are not
needed for Department of Defense missions.

Good thing we can kick their ass with our assault rifles.

[Lamplighter]

Sam Alito will be so pleased...

[regular.joe]

DOD has always been able to assist law enforcement in a very limited way. There really is nothing new here. Unless you really believe that Obama, already a horrible socialist, is planning to take over the country he is already the elected leader of-with the Armed forces. Thereby becoming a horrible dictator as well.

Not even close to happening.

[ZenGum]

Given the militarization of your police, would many people even notice?

You know the story about the frog in slowly heated water?

[tw]

Why are they trying to solve a problem that does not exist? When civilian resources need assistance, resources are assigned to the National Guard. And deployed by the state's Governor. Why are Federal troops required? Same resources need only be released to the Governor.

Or does the system break down when the enemy has breasts that exceed 155 mm?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Given the militarization of your police, would many people even notice?

They may notice with the coming drone strikes but then again if Uncle Sam blows up a few pedophiles first...

You know the story about the frog in slowly heated water?

The boil seems pretty steady already.

[ZenGum]

There'll be unarmed drones for a while first. All is well.

[regular.joe]

I know this makes for interesting conversation. Seriosly. This is not somthing that is happening in this country. A lot of weird shit might be going down. I assure you military coup is not one of them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[piercehawkeye45]

Don't tell that to the tin-foilers!

[Griff]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I know this makes for interesting conversation. Seriosly. This is not somthing that is happening in this country. A lot of weird shit might be going down. I assure you military coup is not one of them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Coup no, militarization of law enforcement continuing on same track.

[Lamplighter]

I suppose most Dwellars know I support Obama.
That said, IMO yesterday's speech was probably the his best-to-date.

I did watch and listen to all except the first couple of minutes.
I expected him to build up to a justification for adopting the Bill in the OP.
But he did not.

Instead, he called for a reduction in the use of drones,
justification for draw down of troops from the middle east
closure of Gitmo, and most importantly, justification for a
final, formal, and legal end to the US "War on Terrorism".

There was point in his talk where he could easily have slipped
in his adoption of that Bill, but I think he went the other direction.

It goes without saying, I was much relieved.
It remains to be seen what actually comes out of the politics of Congress.

[Griff]

Did you mean to go
here?

[Lamplighter]

Actually, my comments are applicable to both threads.

[zippyt]

Back in the early 80's when the Olympics were in LA , i was stationed at Camp pendelton , we were on alert if things went sideways

[tw]

Originally Posted by zippyt

Back in the early 80's when the Olympics were in LA , i was stationed at Camp pendelton , we were on alert if things went sideways

As a National Guard unit? Or as a Federally deployed military police unit under Pentagon jurisdiction?