The Militarization of Domestic Law Enforcement: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’ | Global Research
...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.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
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.”...
...Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade...
"Civilian Inmate Labor Program" - will we all be a part of forced labor camps?
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r210_35.pdf
“Chapter 2 Establishing Installation Civilian Inmate Labor Programs 2–1. Policy statement
a. With a few exceptions, the Army’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program is currently limited to using inmates from
facilities under the control of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). Section 4125(a), Title 18, United States Code
allows the Attorney General to make available to other Federal agencies the services of Federal inmates and defines the types of services inmates can perform. The FBOP provides civilian inmate labor free of charge to the Army.”
**my note: So what exactly constitutes those “few exceptions”?**
So as I read further in to this doctrine I came across the criteria established for these so called “camps” and I have to admit I laughed when I saw this. These are the types of prisoners they will NOT accept:
1. Prisoners that are significantly in the public eye.
2. Prisoners convicted of any of the following offenses: sexual misconduct (IE rape, child molestation etc), arson, drug offenses (transporting or selling of illegal drugs), violent crimes (murder etc) or anyone found to be mentally incompetent or undergoing treatment for a psychiatric condition.
3. Anyone who poses a threat to the public, any principal organized crime figure, anyone deemed to be a flight risk or anyone that has been deemed a “problem” by the correctional facility.
So my question here is (laughing as I write this) what prisoners would be left? The document states they have to be a low level security inmate so petty criminals can be used and that’s about it.
Definition of civilian inmates:
“Civilian inmates:
Prisoners incarcerated in a Federal, State, or local government penal facility. Prisoners of a military confinement
facility are not civilian inmates.”
So as the New World Order seeks to make us all “prisoners” does that mean we will all be subject to confinement and forced labor on military bases? As those who protest against the unjust treatment of our citizens, the rape and pillage of our lives, the slavery we are confined to by the top 1% of our system, are arrested and jailed will they comprise these “camps”?
U.S. Army's Civilian Inmate Labor Camp a.k.a. Revised REX 84 FEMA Internment Camps for Civil Unrest
Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen periodically. Plans for roundups of persons in the United States in times of crisis are constructed during periods of increased political repression such as the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy Era. For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the “ADEX” list.
The Rex-84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Exercise Plan; otherwise known as a continuity of government plan), indicates that FEMA in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies conducted a civil readiness exercise during April 5-13, 1984. It was conducted in coordination and simultaneously with a Joint Chiefs exercise, Night Train 84, a worldwide military command post exercise (including Continental U.S. Forces or CONUS) based on multi-emergency scenarios operating both abroad and at home. In the combined exercise, Rex-84 Bravo, FEMA and DOD led the other federal agencies and departments, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Veterans Administration through a gaming exercise to test military assistance in civil defense.
The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was authorization for the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of martial law.
Existence of a master military contingency plan, “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike” were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in “Garden Plot and the New Action Army.”
...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.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
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.”...
...Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade...
"Civilian Inmate Labor Program" - will we all be a part of forced labor camps?
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r210_35.pdf
“Chapter 2 Establishing Installation Civilian Inmate Labor Programs 2–1. Policy statement
a. With a few exceptions, the Army’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program is currently limited to using inmates from
facilities under the control of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). Section 4125(a), Title 18, United States Code
allows the Attorney General to make available to other Federal agencies the services of Federal inmates and defines the types of services inmates can perform. The FBOP provides civilian inmate labor free of charge to the Army.”
**my note: So what exactly constitutes those “few exceptions”?**
So as I read further in to this doctrine I came across the criteria established for these so called “camps” and I have to admit I laughed when I saw this. These are the types of prisoners they will NOT accept:
1. Prisoners that are significantly in the public eye.
2. Prisoners convicted of any of the following offenses: sexual misconduct (IE rape, child molestation etc), arson, drug offenses (transporting or selling of illegal drugs), violent crimes (murder etc) or anyone found to be mentally incompetent or undergoing treatment for a psychiatric condition.
3. Anyone who poses a threat to the public, any principal organized crime figure, anyone deemed to be a flight risk or anyone that has been deemed a “problem” by the correctional facility.
So my question here is (laughing as I write this) what prisoners would be left? The document states they have to be a low level security inmate so petty criminals can be used and that’s about it.
Definition of civilian inmates:
“Civilian inmates:
Prisoners incarcerated in a Federal, State, or local government penal facility. Prisoners of a military confinement
facility are not civilian inmates.”
So as the New World Order seeks to make us all “prisoners” does that mean we will all be subject to confinement and forced labor on military bases? As those who protest against the unjust treatment of our citizens, the rape and pillage of our lives, the slavery we are confined to by the top 1% of our system, are arrested and jailed will they comprise these “camps”?
U.S. Army's Civilian Inmate Labor Camp a.k.a. Revised REX 84 FEMA Internment Camps for Civil Unrest
Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen periodically. Plans for roundups of persons in the United States in times of crisis are constructed during periods of increased political repression such as the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy Era. For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the “ADEX” list.
The Rex-84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Exercise Plan; otherwise known as a continuity of government plan), indicates that FEMA in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies conducted a civil readiness exercise during April 5-13, 1984. It was conducted in coordination and simultaneously with a Joint Chiefs exercise, Night Train 84, a worldwide military command post exercise (including Continental U.S. Forces or CONUS) based on multi-emergency scenarios operating both abroad and at home. In the combined exercise, Rex-84 Bravo, FEMA and DOD led the other federal agencies and departments, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Veterans Administration through a gaming exercise to test military assistance in civil defense.
The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was authorization for the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of martial law.
Existence of a master military contingency plan, “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike” were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in “Garden Plot and the New Action Army.”
