Posted by
Snikks on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:00:00 AM
Could Obama and his "Civilian Police Force" Plus the Army be used against the American people during Civil Unrest?
“Purposeful domestic resistance” A situation in which our military would have to define the legitimate cause of use of our military within the borders of the United States. A most fearful situation to ever be considered indeed.
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.” The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads. “Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.”
It then goes on to say, “An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”
“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concluded.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the program in April 2008 when he retired from the Army, serving 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. He works closely with the likes of Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger.
Comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other well known figures such as Colin Powell, and Joe Biden, Freir warned the incoming Obama administration should in fact be ready for a "first term crisis" that could act as a catalyst for such civil unrest.
“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” says the report. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”
We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack. The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.
An Army Times article dated Sept 8 says that Northcom has announced the first troop deployment was is in place as of October 1st, stationed at Ft. Stewart and Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Co. Their mission, "civil unrest and crowd control”. After considerable voices of concern were heard involving the admissions in the Army Times article, Northcom then retracted statements made, but still conceded that non-lethal as well as lethal weapons traditionally used in crowd control and rioting would still be utilized in the field.
We have to ask ourselves is this build up of our military within our borders part greater plan to dismantle our Constitutional rule and install a military form of government, following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks explained a possible situation in which martial law would go into effect, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.” In short, the deployment of troops in a domestic situation would likely be targeted at combating civil unrest that would come after a total collapse of our economy, that would have a follow up of devastating hyperinflation.
Citibank sounded a warning recently in an internal memo that was leaked. “The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” A statement made by Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist. The memo goes on to state a prediction, “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States. For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Will The Obama administration and Northcom wait for a situation or event to take place that would totally overwhelm a state or states authority, to then deploy military might against the American People? Consider Lt. Col. Freir's "Known Unknowns report.
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”
Martial Law and the militarization of America, or the foundation to a bad movie?
You be the judge.