Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

  1. #1

    Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

    Something I received today for a local group and felt the need to share with you all.

    The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
    The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to 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."
    U.S. Military ?Power Grab? Goes Into Effect | Long Island Press
    I could not find any congressional authority supporting this move listed in this posting by LongIslandPress which could lead someone to believe that this just a procedural change being used to ramp up already on edge emotions regard our ineffective administration. So if anyone has seen or heard anything that they can add, please bring it on, thanks.
    Dog
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  2.   
  3. seems to be the government giving itself more authority to stop what they would call insurection and we would call civil disobedience. greaaaat.

  4. #3

    US Code is NOT rules or regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    Something I received today for a local group and felt the need to share with you all.

    The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
    If there is a military regulation implementing this part of the US Code, which is LAW, it needs to be cited. This has all the trappings of trolls at work. The word "disturbance" does not exist in the US Code cited in the article.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ellsworth KS
    Posts
    340
    Keep in mind that the military cannot do this for themselves; it takes an Act of Congress.
    TANSTAAFL

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by jameshd View Post
    Keep in mind that the military cannot do this for themselves; it takes an Act of Congress.
    Congress? Do we have a Congress anymore? Obama does what he likes without it being sanctioned by Congress.

  7. #6
    They dont have the authority.

    POSSE COMITATUS ACT

    The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.

    Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[4]

    Exception: An exception to Posse Comitatus Act derived from the Force Acts allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Force Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[2]
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  8. #7
    Chief: I used to believe that also but, given all the different acts that have been written since 9-11, I am no longer sure that applies and the actions by the government seem to prove the Posse Comitatus Act to be null and void. Wish I was wrong.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by jsturges View Post
    If there is a military regulation implementing this part of the US Code, which is LAW, it needs to be cited. This has all the trappings of trolls at work. The word "disturbance" does not exist in the US Code cited in the article.
    Read the article. Dog ain't a troll.
    Just subtle changes in the code:
    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.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    Sounds troubling. Could this be aimed at 2A defenders in case we resist having our firearms confiscated? Stay informed.

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior1256 View Post
    Sounds troubling. Could this be aimed at 2A defenders in case we resist having our firearms confiscated? Stay informed.

    This was my whole thinking to quell any up rising that may occur during a citizens demonstration that gets out of hand even. This could be just dangerous in the wrong commanders hands. Anyone that is toooooo politically motivated could really create TROUBLE.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast