DOD to support the Police

WHAT!?!:eek:

[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. :rolleyes:

Sam Alito will be so pleased...

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.

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

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

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?

ZenGum;865753 wrote:

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.

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

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

Don't tell that to the tin-foilers!

regular.joe;865867 wrote:

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.

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.

Did you mean to go
here?

Actually, my comments are applicable to both threads.

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

zippyt;865992 wrote:

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?

USMC 2/1 Weapons Company ,

Law enforcement officials and agents wear uniforms, carry weapons, are regimented and have a rank structure....they have always had a military character. I don't believe that law enforcement in the US as a whole or in part is being militarized in an effort to take over the country.

The bastids have already taken over, this is just about making sure the plebs don't get uppity.

I'm not sure about the quality and impartiality of this source, but ..

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16521-military-quietly-grants-itself-the-power-to-police-the-streets-without-local-or-state-consent

argues that there are significant changes here. IMHO, the most serious, is that the military no longer need to wait for the police to call for help, but can act on their own initiative. The conditions allowing this are very loosely and vaguely defined.

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.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”

“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

Lamplighter;865981 wrote:

Instead, he called for a reduction in the use of drones,

Ironically enough, back to the levels under former president Bush. :eyebrow:

Lamplighter;865981 wrote:

justification for draw down of troops from the middle east

Again more ideological with no actual policy directive.

Lamplighter;865981 wrote:

closure of Gitmo,

Been wanting that for over 5 years ... still hasn't happened, yet with all that is going on still no answers. FAIL.

Lamplighter;865981 wrote:

and most importantly, justification for a
final, formal, and legal end to the US "War on Terrorism".

.. .. .. justification. Hmm... Yay?

Lamplighter;865981 wrote:

It remains to be seen what actually comes out of the politics of Congress.

W0W .. Really Lamp? You still can't find any fault with O, and just keep on blaming the other team. smh.

classicman;866074 wrote:

<snip>
W0W .. Really Lamp? You still can't find any fault with O, and just keep on blaming the other team. smh.

Hi Classic... glad to see you're back.

My posting was...

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".

Did I misquote any of the issues in his speech ?
Did I omit any important issues in his speech ?
Does it remain to be seen what will come out of the Congress ?

I read your post, no need to repost.

All is well, nothing to see here. these are not distractions from the scandals plaguing this administration. These have nothing to do with the precedent set again the media.

Keep those Rose colored glasses firmly in place and the Kool-Aid well chilled.

I thought you were referring to OP of this thread and Obama's speech on 5/23.

Maybe you could repy to my questions about those.

But, if you were just looking for criticism of Obama,
you can find one of mine here... immediately following your posting
at http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=799782#post799782
and in post 86 and 88 and 90 of that same thread.

Never mind... as you were.

This is why I don't post here much anymore.
I ask for the answer to 2+3; and the response is lightbulb.

classicman;866087 wrote:

Never mind... as you were.
This is why I don't post here much anymore.
I ask for the answer to 2+3; and the response is lightbulb.

OK, here are your 2+3

Originally Posted by Lamplighter
justification for draw down of troops from the middle east
Again more ideological with no actual policy directive.

1) Obama followed through on the Bush plan to remove ALL combat troops from Iraq
Reuters
[COLOR="DarkRed"]12/18/11[/COLOR]
Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war

(Reuters) - The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled out of Iraq on Sunday,
ending nearly nine years of war that cost almost 4,500 American and
tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and left a country grappling with political uncertainty.

2) Obama established in2009 and re-affirmed and re-affirmed (2013) in his speech 5/23/13
his commitment to removal of troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter
closure of Gitmo,

Been wanting that for over 5 years
... still hasn't happened, yet with all that is going on still no answers. FAIL.

Obama being blocked by Congress was widely reported,
but do you trust the Washington Times ?

Washinton Times
[COLOR="DarkRed"]12/8/10[/COLOR]

President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S.,
dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign
pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

The move to block the prison’s closure was written into a massive year-end
spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206,
part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push
through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January.

News of the Guantanamo provision brought a quick and sharp rebuke
from the Obama administration Wednesday.

I support both of Obama's policies above, and believe he was blocked by Congress on several instances.
I would have liked things to have moved faster than it has,
but it would be disingenuous to deny that Congress played no roll in slowing things down.


Anything else ?

nope, so far so good. Just keep the Kool-Aid well stocked.

classicman;866102 wrote:

nope, so far so good. Just keep the Kool-Aid well stocked.

Ummmm.... Adak has been doing this for us, but we haven't heard much from him lately.
Maybe because Bengazi sort of ran out of steam for McCain and Graham ;)

Classic, if you want a more in depth discussion of these various "scandals",
why not start a new thread on each (or the ones) are particularly of concern to you ?

I am having more in depth discussions elsewhere. I was lamenting that the cellar used to be better at this than any alternative when people were not so polarized. Now there aren't any from the other side. Adak is as much an extremist as you and doesn't come close to what I am talking about.

Here ya go Lamp... here is another perspective of the President's speech.

"The clear purpose of Obama's speech was to comfort progressives who are growing progressively more uncomfortable with his extreme secrecy, wars on press freedom, seemingly endless militarism and the like. For the most part, their discomfort is far more about the image being created of the politician they believed was unique and even transcendent than it is any substantive opposition to his policies. No progressive wants to believe that they placed such great trust and adoration in a political figure who is now being depicted as some sort of warped progeny of Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. That creates internal discomfort and even shame. This speech was designed to allow progressives once again to see Barack Obama as they have always wanted to see him, his policies notwithstanding: as a deeply thoughtful, moral, complex leader who is doing his level best, despite often insurmountable obstacles, to bring about all those Good Things that progressives thought they would be getting when they empowered him."

in a political figure who is now being depicted as some sort of warped progeny of Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney.

By whom? It makes a difference you know.

Here ya go Lamp... here is another perspective of the President's speech.

I know there are other perspectives, and I read through your entire link.
I would add one word to your sentence:

Here ya go Lamp... here is another political perspective of the President's speech.

Like many TV movies that run for an hour-and-a-half,
but could have been better told in 30 minutes,
I think this article is covered fully in the last paragraph:

Ultimately, one can persuasively highlight passages in
Obama's speech that support any or all of these perspectives.
That's what makes it such a classic Obama speech.
And that's the point: his speech had something for everyone,
which is another way of saying that it offered nothing definitive
or even reliable about future actions.
No matter how good it made some eager-to-believe progressives feel,
it's impossible rationally to assess Obama's future posture regarding
the war on terror, secrecy and civil liberties expect [? sic] by his actions.
Until one sees actual changes in behavior and substance on those issues,
cheering for those changes as though they already occurred
or are guaranteed is the height of self-delusion.

I disagree with his final summation.
... I doubt many people (including liberals or progressives or extremists like me)
are cheering for those changes as though they had already occurred or are guaranteed...

But even this author recognizes that Obama's call for an end to this country's
"Perpertual War on Terrorism" was close to a spectacular turning point.
Obama's identified the mechanism for this was repeal or revision of the AUMF.
(9/18/11 Congressional Resolution: "The Authorization for Use of Military Force" signed by GWB)
This is the domain of the Congress and it is incorrect to try
to say Obama's could make it happen if he really wanted to to.

It's the reason I said it remains to be seen "what will come out of Congress"

classicman;866171 wrote:

I am having more in depth discussions elsewhere. I was lamenting that the cellar used to be better at this than any alternative when people were not so polarized. Now there aren't any from the other side. Adak is as much an extremist as you and doesn't come close to what I am talking about.

Be the change you want to see. I'd love for a sane conservative voice to be expressed, but they've mostly been weeded out of the political and media spheres, and now only retired senators seem to be willing to act sane. Adak may be an extremist, but he's mainstream as far as the Republican Party these days is concerned.

And, as an aside, if you want to see someone beating up on Obama every bit as much as he beat up on Bush, try Ted Rall.

Adak may be an extremist, but he's mainstream as far as the Republican Party these days is concerned.

Yeh ... NO.

I wish. But the non-Adaks are deferring towards the Adaks of the party, not the other way round.