Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens

Spread the love

Loading

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those 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” under two conditions.

Of course we have this assurance from Obama:

President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”

But given what a stinking liar Obama is, you know the opposite it true. DrJohn’s Law.

More at the Washington Times

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is why many in law enforcement and within the military have signed to be “Oathkeepers”. So, if an order comes from on high, that order will be seen as unlawful. Also, many military commanders are quite reluctant to lend direct support of any kind into their local communities.

@David:

Also, many military commanders are quite reluctant to lend direct support of any kind into their local communities.

Don’t count on it. The Posse Commitatus Act has been set aside. The Obama Administration has been working hard to remove those reluctant commanders from military service. When Republicans regain power they need to reinstate the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878. I have no illusions that Obama, (who is without question a Constitution ignoring, tyrannical, narcissist,) would not hesitate to violate his own promise to enact his fundamental transformation.