Cross posted from Pat Dollard
New rules published in the Federal Register would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action inside the U.S. to prevent environmental damage or respond to “special events” and “other domestic activities.”
The alarming warning is contained in proposed rules published last week for the Department of Defense’s “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” plan.
Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling “insurrections” and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.
But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution, according to an expert.
“I think the thing that’s of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It’s totally missing,” said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.
Herb Titus
Titus, whose biography includes teaching at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools and service as founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University, reviewed the federal proposal at WND’s request.
The multi-page plan is to establish policies and assign responsibilities “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.”
“Who Killed the Constitution?” Here’s a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is … dead
The plan states, “This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities.
Titus, who has testified before Congress on constitutional issues and is authorized to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, said, “All of this is based on the assumption that government was created for the purpose of preventing things from happening in our lives.”
A plain reading of the law, he said, would allow drastically different actions than what Americans probably expect.
“Instead of prosecuting somebody charged with murder, we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives,” he said, citing the plan’s apparent permission for the government to restrain liberties when there is concern about potential damages or injury.
A contact at the Department of Defense did not return a WND call requesting comment on the proposal.
But the plan itself says the person calling for soldiers’ actions could be either a military official or civilian leader. And it renews questions about Barack Obama’s stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Even Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory “force” for Americans.
“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.
WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposal. The new wording reads, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.
Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July “Call to Service” speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”
A video of his comments is here:
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.
The newly proposed Department of Defense rules leave a virtually wide open door for what could be cited as a reason for military intervention.
It defines “Imminently Serious Conditions” as “Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage.”
Repeatedly the rules cite “special events.”
“Special event support to non-governmental organizations is a DSCA activity,” it states under policy issues.
That, Titus contemplated, could even be a Democratic National Convention in Denver.
He said it’s important to keep the foundations of the nation in mind and that many of the principles of justice and government for America were derived from the pulpits of the 1700s.
“If you go back and look at Romans 13, the civil government was authorized to punish evil doing, not to prevent it from happening,” Titus said.
The new proposal specifically states it applies to a “potential or actual domestic crisis” and even confirms that conditions not always will allow “prior authority” before “action is necessary for effective response.”
“All this is really designed to do is legitimize by rule essentially a broader discretionary power,” Titus said.
It also reverses the role of the boss, he said, because of the repeated references to a situation “manager.”
“It’s the image that’s being created. A manager. You’re supposed to do what the manager tells you. Contrast that with civil authorities who are our servants. They’re supposed to do what we want them to do,” he said.
Many state constitutions were specific in that area, he noted. Virginia’s, for example, declared that all powers derive from the people, and in Pennsylvania the constitution specifically reserved the right to regulate police to the people.
Although many would argue such military occupation of the U.S. would be reserved only for such “emergencies,” the Washington Post reported just a few days ago on plans by the U.S. military to have 20,000 uniformed troops stationed inside the U.S. by 2011.
The plan has been lauded by some in the Bush administration and Congress as a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism, despite concerns over how it would undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.
At word of the plan, the ACLU warned of expansions in “presidential and military authority,” while the Cato Institute called it a case of “creeping militarization,” according to the Post.
Gene Healy, Cato vice president, told the newspaper, “There’s a notion that whenever there’s an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green … and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”
The DoD says it will accept comments on the proposal until Feb. 2 at the federal government’s link.
19 Responses (these responses are from Pat Dollard's website, feel free to leave comments in Storm'n Norm'n comment section)
nope, fuck this shit! i love our military men and women but i also put the constitution above all things. they are not to operate on US soil and especially not in the ways Obama seems to be hinting towards. our military does not want to operate on US soil and i believe that if we were to revolt they would break rank and join us. i dont know about the rest of you but i will not stand for this.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pmNot good, my friends, not good at all!
December 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pmOkay… Fuck around on my watch.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pmSuddenly, my thoughts and musings published a month or so back on this site, followed by my two-hour appearance on Pat’s radio program, no longer seem as far fetched. \
It is rarely the individual pieces (this law, that law, this regulation, that court case) one must worry about. Rather, it is what happens when someone with the reins of power realizes what the mosaic will look like when these pieces are assembled.
It is happening faster than even I anticipated.
–tps
December 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pmI don’t understand why they took their weapons in the video.
It was their property and they were entitled to defend it.
This is bullshit.
This country of my founding fathers is nothing but an illusion.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pmthe aslu warns…………those sacks of shit have been destroying America……..now they want to warn
Some things make me go ballistic.
We are so rotted we do not even know the depth of our rot.
It is frightening.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWhat can we do?
December 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pmIn the document, which is located at http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&N=0&Ntt=Defense%20Support%20of%20Civil%20Authorities&sid=11E3200CA56D (sorry for the long link not sure how to attach a link to a word here…) the definition of “special event” bugs the living shit out of me. It states:
“Special Event. An international or
domestic event, contest, activity, or
meeting, which by its very nature, or by
specific statutory or regulatory
authority, may require security, safety,
and/or other logistical support or
assistance fro the Department of
Defense.” (The misspelling is part of the document and attests to the rapidity at which it was thrown together. Not the only misspelling I caught in the document.)
By including this definition, the writer of this document (undoubtedly to prepare for political security should there be a “domestic incident” involving a revolt, mass uprising, etc.) has effectively dismissed the Posse Comitatus Act. Further reading of the document demonstrates an expansion of privilege of DoD authority. In 185.4, paragraph C, allows authority where none exists outside the direction of POTUS or Secretary of Defense. What this effectively does is weaken the direct accountability of the POTUS and SoD by allowing other parties to proclaim the need and direction of military support for civilian policing policies, absolving the POTUS and SoD from direct accountability.
In 185.4, paragraphs e and f, the responsibility of the DoD for the use of military personnel for domestic force is absolved from the POTUS, SoD, and DoD, and widens the effective authority of lower level DoD command where none exists, which in essence is a method of spreading blame should this new found authority be abused at a future point in history.
Funny, but the socialist/liberal/communist activists protested the occurrences of death at Kent state, yet they perpetuate their ability to “pay back” by this very document.
This should be seen as a power move, in the attempt to gain control over military response to civil unrest, in the event that an uprising of resistance takes place. They are preparing for a revolution, and preparing to use the military to squash it before it can begin. Anything deemed a “special event” as defined above can trigger this, and Posse Comitatus Act be damned. Absolution of responsibility is taken away and spread throughout the ranks for the event that it is proven to be unconstitutional and punishment is meted out. Read that as: “Plausible Denial”.
Our ability as citizens to do exactly what our Founding Fathers did in replacing their form of government is being checked right before our eyes, according to the agenda of the political parties. It is, after all, both “main” parties that would allow this to happen without challenge. There is an air of “ruling class” about this country once again that has been absent between (in my estimate) 1776 to the 1990’s. This air of “ruling class” has been evidenced by the actions of our “elected officials” including the tightening of restriction and regulation of firearms, freedom of speech with acts such as “The Fairness Doctrine”, and many other examples that I could site. Our “ruling class” have enjoyed amnesty from prosecution criminally and civilly for a very long time now, as Mary Jo Kopechne could attest if she were still a viable human being. It is my belief that only revolution could cure us of this disease, either real or pseudo by ballot. (A pseudo-revolution by ballot has been proven as ineffective and corruptible, as the accuracy and integrity of the election cycle can be manipulated, therefore, real revolution will be, at some point, necessary and just.) It is also my opinion that the amnesties so widely enjoyed by our “ruling class” should disintegrate. It should be that we provide law regarding the service to one’s country as a politician holding that politician’s actions to a higher standard than the lowest common citizen. All laws passed by the politicians in office should include punishment for all infractions regardless of “class status”, meaning that if a politician breaks the laws he or she is directly responsible for the implementation of, he or she should face punishment more severe than any other citizen. If a fine of $1000 is written as punishment for a “common citizen’s” infraction, then a politician who breaks the very same law(s) should face a punishment 10 times as high, and immediate removal from office should take place. Parking tickets included… One can not reasonably expect others to obey laws that one’s own self can or will not possibly obey.
This is a potential threat to our very way of lives, and it will be passed along into policy because there are too few of us who actually get it.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pmAt least a large portion of them will. The ONLY time the military should be allowed to operate on American soil is to repel an invading force…that’s it. There’s a reason we have police departments that’s to take care of domestic criminals and insurrections. And the fact that more and more police departments are rearming and refitting themselves to better handle criminals, they’re becoming a lighter version of a military force.
Not to mention this is fucking illegal.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pmNow if you were walking the streets brandishing a gun I ‘might’ understand what happened….hard to tell who is good and bad. But I never quite understood why the Govenment felt it nesscessary to confiscate the guns of folks who decided to wait it out on their personal property.
If I had my tinfoil hat on I might say it was a test run (just like our Islamic Buddies do) for Government abuse of power just like Randy Weaver and Waco.
And considering how messed up everything is and the possibility of the mess getting far worse with losing homes, going hungry in the streets….the is a potential of civil unrest grows by the day and I don’t see Uncle Scam looking out for the best interest of me and my country.
Our politicans will attempt to keep their power and jobs by any means.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pmThe following was a comment left by me on the federal website allowing “feedback and comment” from the general public:
“The DSCA must be prevented from implementation. This documented policy is in direct conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act and in direct violation of the very Constitution that military personnel have taken an oath to defend.
Bear in mind, all military enlisted personnel take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Their oath includes following the orders of officers appointed over them, and from the President of The United States, however there exists no regulation in the UCMJ regarding the domestic use of force by military personnel as a military engagement. This was not an oversight, this was handled by the Posse Comitatus Act directly, which prevents FEDERAL MILITARY AUTHORITY from taking policing action which is reserved to the states, individually.
Understanding that domestic tranquility and security is necessary, it is highly counter productive to establish a means for military force that is to be used as a local policing agency absolved from state and local authority and accountability. The usurpation and break down of direct authority and accountability from the POTUS and SoD, by allowing others in the “command structure” to authorize domestic deployment is a direct attempt to absolve those who should be responsible for answering the tough questions that inevitably will arise upon the deployment of such a force should the privilege be abused. Nobody would argue against the deployment of National Guard service members in the event of a natural disaster such as a hurricane, earthquake, fire, etc., but should the deployment of National Guard or standing military forces be used domestically for purposes such as, say, “The Democratic National Convention” (Or Republican for that matter.), as defined in the “special event” clause, as a policing agency can and will be deemed to be an attempt to intimidate common citizens away from demonstrating their first amendment rights peacefully. Kent state is a prime example, which was dealt with appropriately, however unfortunately too late it was. Anyone remember that one?
The DSCA is a direct attempt at usurping standing law that deems it against Constitutional premise in regard to the authority and implementation of the military. It is to the states that this authority belongs, and it is with the states that it should stay. Arbitrary “special events” provides potential for abuse, whether widespread or singular, and whether widespread or singular, one abuse is beyond logical comprehension as far as willingly allowing it to happen.”
December 13th, 2008 at 1:47 pmI hate to break it to these incredibly dimwitted socialist dictator types but if they ever tried to impose some sort of martial law within our borders they may well be shocked to find that the greatest military force the world has ever known, which is composed 100% by American volunteers, might suddenly refuse to take orders. Not saying that the worst case scenario wouldn’t be a bloody mess, but if I were to wager on who came out on top I would bet heavily on the freedom loving men and women who are confidant in their ideas of liberty and justice and understand that living amongst brain-dead zombies is possibly worse than death.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmThis is extremely troubling. Someone asked what we can do, IMHO the long term action is for people of our mindset to take a paycut and go into education and get into all areas of the government, everything from school board to congress. I felt a calling and have left the private sector, taken a paycut and am a full time instructor at a local college. Every day I wake up I beleive I can make a difference and influence and re-educate the youngsters minds.
IMHO the short term action is buy a lot of guns and ammo and keep a very close eye on things. Write letters, talk to people, call into talk radio shows and sound as inteligent and articulate as possible, educate your kids and do not assume the educational system is doing it. Bottom line is try to persuade as many people as possible.
If Obama or some other despot were to try some type of action against the American people he could be overwhelmed with force. If just 5% of the American public decided to act as one, whatever that would entail, that would be a 15 million person action. That would completely overwhelm any “force” Obama came up with.
This is precisely the reason why every home must have to ability to defend itself against bad buys. If just 1% of a city decides to be lawless at the same time that will overwhelm the cops, case in point was the LA riots in 92. I live in Central California and during the riots there wasn’t a cop to be found around here, not highway patrol and city forces were running at minimum staff levels to put additional officers to help LAPD. Now just imagine if it was 5% and organized, they would never know what hit them.
I can’t beleive we’re having this conversation but for me its about being prepared. I recently bought a huge gun safe and ther were others twice as big as mine and the guy told me they are moving em out like hot cakes. One to two full semi trucks a month. Other people are a little spooked as well.
Just my 0.02$ worth.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pmAs regards the “mosaic,” the part I call “Frankenstein” has been under construction since Bush 41. And what is Frankenstein? Imagine the surveillance infrastructures of the old Soviet Union and Romania extended to include everything that generates any sort of electronic receipt, and amplified by the analysis capabilities of advanced computing technology.
The key phrase in this article was uttered by Mr. Titus: “… we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives …” That is precisely what Frankenstein has been doing for quite a few years, albeit imperfectly.
Add to this article an as-yet unreported bombshell: According to www.americanpolicy.org, the USA is now only two more states away from having the required 2/3 majority under Article 5 to hold a “Constitutional Convention” in which our Constitution can be repealed or rewritten in its entirety — just as America has elected her first Marxist president and the Congress is controlled by radical Lefties.
So, this explains why these “rules” are now appearing in the Federal Register, along with the surveillance infrastructure to profile EVERYONE in this country who would likely revolt against a wholesale repealing of our rights under the Constitution and spearheaded by a Marxist/Communist president.
These are the pieces of the mosaic you describe.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pmIf “they” had to round up just 10%, and 50% of that 10% said no, “they” wouldn’t be able to deal with it. Especially if you figure there would be another 10-15% of our society that would be sympathetic to their cause.
One of the best things about American society is the extreme independence streak that runs through it. We are a nation of rebels who don’t like other people telling us what the fuck to do. A shitstorm would break out like one never seen before.
We can never ever surrender our guns.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:25 pmThis policy was implemented for the Loss of wealth and rights via the financial meltdown and the constitutional convention run by Pelosi, Reid and ZERO.
Protect your women and children. May God protect those that love Him.
December 14th, 2008 at 8:10 amThat is exactly what happened in the showdown in Moscow when Gorbachev tried to use the military against Yeltsin in 1991.
People should never underestimate the patriotism of the military or the power hunger of the politician.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:29 amI’m trying to remember where I read it recently, but the primary architect for this change in the military mission statement is none other than Robert Gates. That’s the main reason Obama is keeping him on. I’m off to buy more ammo.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:56 amWOW !!!
Are we in trouble or are we in trouble ???
Can you spell R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N ???
December 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm