This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians
While the "use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized," The Washington Times uncovering of 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. As one defense official proclaimed, "this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens." Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its "quelling civil disturbances" totalitarianism...
As The Washington Times reports,
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.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
There is one silver lining (for now)...
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
And the full Directive is below...
»
- 91773 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Well I guess it will be up to their neighbors to take them out, I mean they still live amongst us.
'They' are our children for crying out loud. You gonna shoot your own kid? No, and he's not going to shoot you either. if D.C. thought they could call our own military down on the civilian population in this country there would be no where they could hide, ever. Keep in mind, millions of us served in the military, too. And we're armed to the teeth. It would not bode well for politicos in such a scenario on this soil.
I sincerely pray that you're right.
"Those who own guns and think that implies power in a broader sense are wrong."
Yup. Guns will merely attract those running the police state like bees to nectar or flies to shit... you pick.
Meanwhile if general mayhem breaks out you are on your own because the police state will only protect those most responsible for the collapse until eventually it can't do even that. (Unless they kill everyone else)
We are screwed.
There are an awful lot of veterans who would turn on anyone who came to exterminate us like roaches. And a fair number of are active, reserves, and police would, I'm sure, defect. Not all, not most, but a decent number.
As a former logistics officer in the Marines (which made me an armory officer as a collateral duty), I can state with absolute certainty that there are A LOT of weapons stored across the homeland and thus available to be looted if it came to that. Lots of ammo, too.
>>>And a fair number of are active, reserves, and police would, I'm sure, defect. Not all, not most, but a decent number.
Correct, though dependent on geography & demographics. We won't be seeing pitched battles as in Civil War I, but we will see geographic lines being drawn between opposing... philosphies of government. Based on my conversations in the Intermountain West, many (and possibly most) LEOs and reserves would not support a federal crackdown; I'd guess that's not at all the case in the East and Kalifornia.
Unlike brown people in far off countries unlucky enough to be sitting on
resources,these people, and their families especially, live amongst us.
It was more than coincidental that the BLM backed off on Bundy, right after their agents
home addresses were printed on the internet.
There is no humanity in war, their wives and children will be targetted, and they will be far too
busy trying to protect them to be effective against the general populace in any meaningful way.
Mercenary's will be the problem.
This is precise and correct.
Mercenaries are only a problem until the money runs out. Unless they are truly resourceful like the SA mercs in Liberia with the diamond mines.
It always boils down to logistics. If the supply train is cut off, you can't operate.
Absolutely correct...there will be no civil war, just a slow stagger to fascism in the control state.
>>>>>>>It was more than coincidental that the BLM backed off on Bundy, right after their agents
home addresses were printed on the internet.
Wasn't aware of that one. Schweet! Perhaps they re-thought just WTF they were working for.The same forces that catalyze the 'second economic crisis' you forecast will degrade the Fedcoat's ability to tyrannize. We've seen how effective the US is at projecting its military power abroad over the past 12 months. Russia has annexed the Crimea and Ukraine, and China is setting up oil rigs off the coast of Vietnam. This does not make me conclude folks are skeert of the USSA. An economic crisis will force the Fedcoats onto the defensive in the US. The best they can do at that point is try to protect their strategic installations and infrastructure while rationing food for the masses. I dont think door-to-door searches are going to be on the menu. Even if they were, a group of 6 with modest training could make it a bloody sunday for the Fedcoats. You never choose to have your military engage in large scale urban warfare. At such close range, you minimize your advantages while giving your opponent a lot of chances to degrade your force.
"An economic crisis will force the Fedcoats onto the defensive in the US."
I'd expect the next economic crisis to enable the Fedcoats to rationalize massive wealth confiscation in the US.
As if Obama knows how to use military force.
Knowledge of "How to use a Gun" is not a prerequisite for using one...
Having being under fire cetainly helps to temper ones enthusiasm to use use them needlessly though.
you make it sound like Obama is in charge. Typo ?
Hmmm...
Drones grounded?
Boots on the ground only?
Guess that's Obummer fucked.
Why does anybody still live in the USA?
Im all up for Australia or NZ if they would take me. I hear qualified individuals with professional degrees have a better chance.
No, But having a $million would help.
New Zealand upped the requirement for immigration-by-investment to NZD 10 million, though if you are young-ish, english-speaking and have some sort of skill, it's not all that hard to get residency through the usual "points" system.
If you're over 50, though, you'll probably need the million$.
Exactly:
http://yourescapetoecuador.com/retirement/why-should-you-retire-in-ecuador/
In spite of all that's not right, there's still a lot that is right. The U.S. people are still worth the effort. You guys. Us. We. We the People. We are still 'We the People' and I'll be dipped if any one single misguided president can stop liberty. Crash the currency, steal all the gold, muck up every logistical thing there is to muck up and we are still 'We the People' and we will always prevail. We've been tested before and there is no force for good or for correction more powerful than 'We the People.' You can bank on it.
9/11 Full Retard is underway!... All systems go!!!...
We know it will certainly be a huge event or event(s) and it more than likely will not invovle Israeli nukes in buildings this time!
Guess we should at the very least thank President Remus for heading the Israeli government off at the pass from doing that one again!
You mean like the one that went missing off the B52 from Minot a few years ago? Plane went(unauthorized) with 6, Only 5 recovered after sitting on the tarmak in Texas...
Ah, No body remembers that one...
(A high mortality rate among the involved within the next year....)
(Google: 'missing b52 nuclear bomb minot')
"You mean like the one that went missing off the B52 from Minot a few years ago? Plane went(unauthorized) with 6, Only 5 recovered after sitting on the tarmak in Texas..."...
You got that all right samsara
The only thing you left out were the crew members that tried to stop it and ended up after the fact paying with their lives!... Bet The "Dick" Cheney and G.W. knows what happened to them all!
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=3630
Seig hiel bitchez
why would we need this in a great economy
What kind of nut-cases would actually follow orders to fire on U.S. civilians, from this ignorant, inexperienced fool of a potus? Seriously! If feds/cops are that trigger happy out there, we all in trouble! This is America Damnit! This is America isn't it? This isn't Russia is it? Wake up!
Kent State University, 1970.
"If feds/cops are that trigger happy out there, we all in trouble!"
On the contrary, the Criminals wearing costumes will be in a world of hurt.
No, this isn't Russia. Russia is actually more free.
I was in a Marine Corps infantry unit in the Rodney King riots. My unit was mobilized, and we packed our gear, drew weapons from the armory, and were sitting on the grinder for hours with deuce and halfs sitting, idling, just waiting for the call. Several Marines were horrified that we were being deployed agaist US citizens. I saw the Reginald Denny footage though, and I was ready to take a scalp or two if needed.
The military is full of young, fairly intelligent, typically idealistic individuals that pull together to work as a team because they (now mistakenly) believe that the orders they receive are lawful and just. There will always be an element that will follow orders.
Logisticaly, it is impossible to deploy the US military against the US population. They had a hard enough time in Iraq. The losses that would be sustained against fighting the US population would be staggering. There are plenty of very well trained vets, that are true Patriots, that would have no second thought about putting down a home grown tyranny at any cost. Geneva Convention? What's that? It would make the Civil War look like a second string JV effort. I hope it never comes to pass, but with each following day we approach it with an accelerated pace.
.
awesome.
now all that needs doing is defining the "trrrstic tyrnnizers" that grew up in homes all around the true Patriots, pointing 'em in the targeted direction,
and it's game on!
Fortunately, the opposition overwhelmingly self-identifies. Bumper stickers.
i see lots of calls to gather and march on washington armed, etc. one mini-gun could kill every one between the capital and washington monument in about 4 minutes.
the best logic is to dissipate. let people stupid enough to congregate pick the fight and lose.
some people say to kill the head and the body dies, but it would be hard to locate the head as the public figures normally associated as our heads are just puppets. the next best thing is to shoot it in the ass and let it slowly die and bleed out. death by a 1000 cuts.
people on this thread, i hope if it were to ever go down have an untraceable bug-out. you have been on the list for a long time.
the protest in the ukraine is not a model to follow, if the existing government wanted to stop it, it would have been all over but the bloody cleanup in about 10 minutes. anybody that thinks they can stand toe to toe with our military or mercenaries armed and toe'd by our government is delusional.
the fight may, or may not be picked by a small group, but the real fight will be after the massive attack, have to discipline yourself to hunker down till the time is right and you can use your logic to live, fight, and win.
rifles, pistols, etc. etc. are just tools, the most dangerous weapon you posess is your mind. so although the manliness in all of us want to rush right into a fight, the disiplined among us will know when, and how to fight against an out of control government.
dj's right, I was 13 when that happened. I remember the folks saying "the dirty hippies deserved it" and made a solemn and silent vow to myself to never serve. Joined up with a rock-n-roll outfit and became a "dirty hippie" myself, just to piss 'em off.
I appreciate the greens, ya'll but for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action, right?
My Mom commited suicide right after I turned 15. I was her only child (that lived), and she made sure that I would be the one to find her.
Was she stupid? That's a definite possibility. I'd rather think that she was conflicted. She thought she could change me if she made sure I found her dead body. She was wrong.
Sorry, acetinker. Very sorry. It's good you've prevailed. We all have our crosses to bear. Everyone has a story. Some are more tragic than others, but we all get dished our share in this life. God bless you and keep you.
A lot of this isn't really new for America. Hoover ordered the US Army to clear out the Bonus Army camps after WWI, Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard a couple times during the 60s, Bush Sr. sent in the army during the LA riots, Bush Jr. sent the 82nd to patrol New Orleans, and of course the federal military has been used domestically for suppressing outright rebellions/secession.
WTF does "federal functions" all entail?? That vagueness could cover anything! O can say that enforcement of obamacare is a federal function of government being that it was passed and signed by the congress and president. And any local officials that decide to side with the citizens, the military comes in with martial law. We are truly living in dark dayys.
Concentration Camps were a Federal function for the Third Reich....
Our Catamite in Chief is Caligula and Nero rolled into one. Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen are the modern Diocletian.
Hmmm, you left out the part where it states DCSA (Defense Support of Civil Authorities) "is initiated by a request for such assistance from civil authorities..." Para 4c
Also, it has to be reviewed for legality (Para 4e) and ias such DCSA would be illegal because of Posse Comitatus if the sole purpose was to enforce State laws. In other words, Federal laws would need to be broken in order for DCSA to be used for enforcement.
Protection is very different than enforcement though, and I could see the Govmint using this directive "for your own protection." Seems like the whole thing is a CYA document for the Govmint when they go to court.
and just what makes you think these assholes care about laws or courts? Have you been sleeping for the last few decades Mr Vanwinkle?
He could put it in a picture frame and hang it up in the Oval Office--alongside his Nobel Peace prize,, WANKER.
William J. Lynn III, lobbyist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Lynn_III
Now off making real money.
For all you who think the coporate/government tyranny axis is tinfoil hat stuff.
And, yet again...assholes.
Decisions decisions...
Who does Right Sector hate more, Jews or Russians?
Who does Obama hate more, Israelis or White American small business owners?
Who does Harry Reid hate more, Cliven Bundy or John Swallow?
Who does Nuland Etal hate more, Jesus or everybody else?
Who does Putin hate more, Chechen terrorists or Ukranian oligarchs?
Who does Solange hate more, Jay-Z or Rhianna?
Who does Merkel hate more, Obama or Putin?
Who does Nigel Farage hate more, Cameron or Dhragi?
Who does Bernanke hate more, foreign Treasuries holders or dollar swaps derivatives dealers?
Too true, c-ghost. Very insightful how you strung that out.
Who does the population love more, themselves or God? That could be the real question, eh?
today is my fat-finger, slow computer, double click, double post day - my appologies.
You guys better stop this shit.
I am running out of freedoms to hate you for.
Now that's funny. Incredibly sad but funny nonetheless.
I don't know why they even bother with this endless stream of unconstitutional pretenses any more, since they just do whatever they want, whenever they want... then simply refuse to prosecute themselves.
The USSA has been 100% tyranny for some time, and will remain so forever... unless a significant percentage of their prey decide to eliminate the predators, which seems highly doubtful.
"What kind of nut-cases would actually follow orders to fire on U.S. civilians, from this ignorant, inexperienced fool of a potus?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Around 50% of people will kill someone just because a man in a white coat tells them to.
What kind of nutcases?
http://www.truthistreason.net/video-police-shoot-man-3-times-immediately-upon-entering-house-haydens-note-the-failed-war-on-drugs
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/dean-weingarten/cops-more-likely-to-murder%E2%80%A8/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JySzR9G5KNc
We need our "Wolverines"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc
Its a fear tactic. Its like the kid bowing up his chest in a bar. You dont ever want a bar fight. All laws are political. Make any law you want enforceing it is the fight.
People will support tyranny untill the checks stop. Then you have a fight.
Old news see here and here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006)
Hey Tyler if this is true then Z/H should be plastered with ads. from "Head Shrinkers".
Being a cynic linked to tripled risk of developing dementia, Finland study suggests | National Post
If you're cynical and you watch too much porn, you're really in trouble.
1) How to defeat a drone
2) How to having a boating accident once a year
3) How to acquire a target under various conditions and ranges
4) How to be very patient
Looks like Caesar is threatening to cross the Rubicon, only if need be of coarse.
I see there not Cesar, rather Mussolini.
Guns don't kill people. Presidents kill people.
The men and women involved in writing this. The congress people and senators involved in passing this. This fuck for signing it. The media for not exposing it.
ALL have committed treason. Period.
Now what are we gonna do about it.
This isn't Congress at all - this is an Executive Order. Obama is doing this unilaterally.
He's planning to stay past his term, people. I'm definitely going to be writing an article about this soon.
Apologies....I should be accurate. True. I guess the cast of characters allowing it to go on (see rant above) are still party to this treason. he should be led out in cuffs tomorrow, if not today. Followed by a long line from the senate, congress....
Perhaps I too will write an article.
:-)
I'll stick to writing limericks
There once was a man named Barack
Who was as popular as a pet rock
Then he was voted into power
And the people he did shower
With a liquid that was yellow and sour
aargh...that isn't a limerick. Wrong rhyme at the end...like nails on a chalkboard.
You did that just to annoy, right? 'Cause the now the right ending line is just stuck in my head.
dup
Sorry, was done while tending to other matters of national security
Here are some optional endings
...a liquid that was amber and hot
...liquid squeezed from the strap of his jock
...liquid raining from the end of his cok?
BTW, your moniker sounds Islamic hijackylike
Since I saw something, it was my patriotic duty to say something
Wait for the knock, and for your own safety, do not resist
"BTW, your moniker sounds Islamic hijackylike"
plain JAIN
No, It sounds like one of the oldest, and the most passive, non-agressive religion on the earth.
Google it. JAINISM
The word Jainism is derived from a Sanskrit verb Jin which means to conquer. It refers to a battle with the passions and bodily pleasures that the jaina ascetics undertake.
Said Samsara
There once was a man named Barack
Who was as popular as a pet rock
Then he was voted into power
And the people he did shower
With his anally diseased small cock.
FIFY
Your right, it is not Congress. But Obama is just the stooge for the 4th state.
I've been telling my husband this same thing ever since Obama was re-elected, Don't worry about Hillary - Obama's not going anywhere!
This is an interesting statement...
The use of unarmed drones for spying is fine then?
They'll use armed drones anyway and lie about it.
They'll use the "winged" variety
Well, technically speaking, drone carrying and/or dispersing a nerve agent (for example) might not be considered as 'armed'.
They'll think of something.
They'll just change the law when martial law is issued...
Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
The government is going out of its way to intimidate the people.
What do you expect from a paranoid and secretive institution?
"costreimbursable basis" bitchez...
Obama's drones will kill many Americans, he will label us as domestic terrorist then bomb us. All the mindless liberals will be cheering while they burn " change change, change oh fire, fire"
Obama's drones will kill many Americans, he will label us as domestic terrorist then bomb us. All the mindless liberals will be cheering while they burn " change change, change oh fire, fire"
Will label us terrorists? He already has.
Heres the actal .mil link:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf
Keep in mind that they will allow immigrants to serve as a bases of becoming a citizen. Obey or ELSE.
This is another nothingburger.
The military has long been authorized to step in locally to protect federal property, this goes well far back beyond Obama and 9/11 but the kicker is a national emergency needs to be declared first.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_11.asp
...
A major source of confusion is the Posse Comitatus Act, which many people believe-incorrectly-prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce the law in the United States.
What was originally no more than a way to prevent US attorneys and local sheriffs to require federal troops to enforce the law has become, in popular myth, a general proscription of any use of federal troops to enforce the law. This general belief is belied by the fact that despite the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidents after 1878 have used federal troops to enforce the laws when they saw fit to do so. Presidents have used the Posse Comitatus Act as an excuse to reject or avoid actions they did not want to do, but have not hesitated to work around the act to do what they wanted to do. During the labor riots of the late 19th Century, Presidents used federal troops to intervene in labor disputes under the pretext of protecting federal property. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson breached the actual terms of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing his subordinates to use troops without first obtaining his authorization. During World War II and for three decades thereafter, federal troops were frequently involved in law enforcement actions, such as surveillance, search, detention, and arrest in the course of authorized domestic operations. Federal troops not only enforced the law of the land, including making arrests and detaining lawbreakers, but they were expected to do so by a generally grateful public. The real intent of the original Posse Comitatus Act was to restore to the President sole authority to authorize the use of federal military forces to enforce the law in the United States.
The real effect of the Posse Comitatus Act has been to slow down the response time for the use of federal troops. In the West, after the Civil War but prior to the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, local U.S. marshals and sheriffs could get the Army troops to help them enforce the law quickly and reliably, which was important in that place and time. After the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, local lawmen had to ask through channels to the territorial governor, who had to ask the President, who, if he approved, would have to send the authority back down through the military chain of command - all resulting in so much delay that the bad guys usually got away. That reactive and laborious procedure remains in effect today.
...
Legal Authority to Use Federal Troops to Enforce the Law
The Insurrection Act is the most important legal authority for the President to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce the law. The Insurrection Act (there is really no single 'Insurrection Act' per se but this name has been applied collectively to the four statutes noted below) consists of four statutes enacted at different times for different reasons that, when considered as a whole, provide the power that Presidents have used many times as the legal basis for using troops to enforce the law. The four sections of the act are as follows:
The Insurrection Act is the most sweeping authority for the President to authorize and order the use of the federal troops for domestic operations. The President may not act on warning or even at the start of an incident, but must wait until the governor or a state legislature asks for federal assistance. This tends to discourage advance preparations and movements of troops-although Presidents have authorized such actions. This tiered approach in which the federal government acts only after local and state governments have failed, was workable when the cost of delayed response was acceptable, but it is inappropriate for the current situation.
...
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
And with good reason, the only way to bypass the state asking for assistance in the Bundy incident besides declaring a national emergency would be since 9/11 in the case of a terrorist attack. Then the President can bypass the state authorization needed first to send in troops directly in a matter like this. Secondly and more importantly the directive never would have applied in the first fucking place with Cliven Bundy because the President wasn't incapacitated and not able to declare an emergency or terrorist act in the first place.
That is the reason why Harry Reid was squawking about calling them terrorists there wasn't shit they could do to send in the military to back up the BLM unless it was declared a terrorist act. No way to call it a national emergency here since it was a localized and self contained with no harm to the general populace type of problem or potential property destruction either since it was fucking desert to begin with.
The other issue if they declared it a terrorist act they would have essentially been labeling veterans formally as terrorists also since groups like oathkeepers were involved on the side of Cliven Bundy. You'd fracture and possibly lose control of the miltary and also federal police force groups like the DHS since they are stacked with military veterans in their employ.
Obama and his crew maybe a pyschopaths but they would have lost control of military and in turn their control of the country if they listened to Harry Reid and followed through.
That is one red line they can't cross just yet.
If the military has always had this authority, then why this new directive just 4 years ago? And why did they recently get rid of the old law Posse Comitatus Act?
http://z3news.com/w/president-obama-violating-posse-comitatus-act/
http://godfatherpolitics.com/9112/obama-tailoring-military-leadership-to...
The PCA is still in effect and the Insurrection Act has gone back and forth a couple times on specific details within. I suspect this directive is a renewal of previous directives. That kind of thing tends to require periodic review and renewal. They may have also needed to update the older version of the directive to include specific authority regarding drones (drone use becoming commonplace around this time); as appears to be the case with the prohibition on armed drones being included in this directive.
While the sins of the current imperial presidency are many, this one directive doesn't strike me as being any kind of bold new encroachment. Heck, G. Washington gathered up the state militias and personally led them to put down the Whiskey Rebellion back in the 1790s...just a few years after the signing of the Constitution.
The directive in question is not really related to the discussion in the first link you posted. A violation of the PCA is different from the militarization of police and expanding federal police power. While they look similiar in terms of outcome (state using organized force), the PCA applies strictly to appropriate domestic use of a standing army. There is a legal mechanism by which the military can be employed domestically. The PCA lays out the framework. And yes, there have always been legal provisions to do so. Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Constitution charges the federal government with the duty of protecting the states against invasion and domestic violence.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Considering what Harry Reid was trying to accomplish. Little more needs to be said.
This is precisely why we have the Second Amendment.
This is precisely why we have the Second Amendment.
temporarily
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/29/operation-choke-point-de...
Just another item in the long list of abuse of power, just like this one
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/29/operation-choke-point-de...
That will be used next to shut down PM dealers
http://agoracommodities.com/
and
https://www.amagimetals.com/
both accept Bitcoin.
No doubt.
So what do we have with no constitution, no arms, no free speech, and no PM's?
If you like your Directive 3025.18, you can keep your Directive 3025.18
While the "use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized," The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive
It's been around since 2010.
WT just now reporting?
Why?
Because a poster on another page mentioned it today...
Hello stranger. Nice to see you posting here.
Its funny how the far fetched prelude to many science fiction/dystopia movies from my childhood are becoming facts.
I think you mean "unfunny."
Fuck me folks,
Even the maniacs running the show here would have some restraints (I think) about something as filthy as this EO.
How do you lot feel about becoming legitamite targets in your own country?
A tad pissed off, and fucking violently furious would be me mind. Just who the fuck do these imbecilic cuntish world wreckers think they are? Take heed 'O', take even more heed you cunt cameron, your days are growing shorter. Pass all the laws and EO's you want, as when the people finally say no, as the UKIP vote here shows, the people say no.
You filthy fucking shitheads are living on borrowed time.
It cant come soon enough you cunts.
NSA, GCHQ, etc etc, think about what you lot protect, and think about what you lot WILL have to protect. Were they worth it?
Were you?
;-)
And besides this directive was known publicly back in 2010. It just updates the existing laws to allow for miltary commanders in extreme circumstances to deal with an emergency when the President for whatever reasons is unable to provide authorization which clearly wasn't the case with Cliven Bundy since he certainly could have.
the second part.
Just spells out the scope of what they can also do once the emergency is declared and the President couldn't authorize action by declaring an emergency in the first place and the next in command and so on and so forth down the line can't get the situation under control afterwards. The military essentially and we knew this already becomes the proverbial lender of last resort here to keep the system intact law or directive or not.
This article is grasping at straws here trying to tie this directive to the Bundy situation. It would have never applied in the first place.
Obama and the boys even saying they considered this directive which never would have applied anyways is just them antagonizing the ignorant great unwashed masses who don't critically think and just read key words without doing any real reading or thinking.
Dude, BLM land is federal property. The Bundy fight was a fight over the use over BLM land.
Thank you, oh great and powerful Oz.
the united states is a gas station mascarading as a country.
--mohan jccain.
So the U.S. is putting mascara on itself?
That's a new theory.....
but but but Bush did the same thing, both parties are the same.....
You don't believe that Revster.
Duplicate
Stop allowing your sons and daughters to enlist, unless you want little Susie and Johnny shooting at you!
When they're 18 yrs old, please enlighten me on how this is done???
Well if you had raised them well, as Christians, WITH MORALS, you just need repeat God's commandment to honor your father and your Mother.
You tell them that Government sanctioned murder is dishonoring you.
Of course you teach non violence while they are maturing through your actions and words.
And that will do it.
If you did not raise them well then they will rebel and become cannon fodder.
Fuck off. you cvan teach people proper ethics without some desert religion indoctrination.
I'm willing to bet I'm just as ethical as any church-going bible sucker and I've no god.
Pardon my 'filthy" mouth, but words don't hurt people. Ignorance does.
By whose or what objective standards do you deem yourself to be ethical/moral?.....Your own imagination?
Fervent opposition, explanation, persuasion, and prayer.
I considered enlisting when I was younger, but I was too smart and too affluent.
I missed out, huh?
Bone smokers weren't allowed in back then.
That's good for a laugh. Just another lofty unenforceable piece of paper.
All it's likely to do is motivate some patriots in uniform to give the Commander in Chief the "von Stauffenberg" treatment.
This directive doesn't get me too wrapped around the axle as I see it to be more prohibitive than permissive. The question I have is if the people in power actually pay attention to the legal framework. Or if they'll actually pay a penalty for violating the rules. The fact that they don't really care about the 4th Amendment (or us in general) makes me question if one day soon enough, they'll just say "eff it" and roll hard on us.
I remember during the Katrina nonsense, Lt. Gen. Honore yelled at some soldiers/police who were pointing guns at people. He basically told the soldiers to knock off the crap, reminding them where they were and why they were there. So maybe there is hope.
Remember, during Katrina, Bush couldn't send federal FEMA help to New Oeleans until that idiot governor of Louisiana gave him permission, or requested the help, which she withheld for several days.
Obama doesn't need anyone's permission. He does whatever the fark he wants.
Deleted: duplicate
The law reads that the military is used to protect Federal property. We will have to see how long that lasts. I'm all for the military used to protect military bases -- I'm not so sure about the army used to protect parklands or some other such nonsense. Think of what would have escalated if Cliven Bundy and his group had to contend with tanks and APCs rolling into the rangeland, and not the Interior Poh-lease.
all property is federal property. See Kelo v N. London
What did we expect them to do with 2,300 tanks "for domestic purposes" and 6 billion rounds of ammo...play tiddly winks?
Just think - there's a hellfire missile out there with your name on its nose cone! WOOOOPEEEEE!!!
Russia's going to make a hellofalotta dough selling their drone hijack kit to Americans! You just hook it up to your smartphone and let it spoof your troubles away.
Yup. We better learn Russian and Mandarin for "lock and load."
What's the fun of being dictator if you can't shoot some muppets???
As we all know the severity of the Shit-come-Down may depend on your geo-loc. Haven't seen this before but knew the wording of some parts cause I checked the minutes and leg. for the muni I live in...I'm posting this on the off chance that variations may exist of this abomination county to county, muni-muni etc., and that it might be worth your time to lookup not only your state laws but your "neighborhood" legistaion/minutes- lots of important things (maybe).
Ugh. Must band together, avoid the divide/conquer indoctro guise.
(SKULL AND CROSSBONES) TRAITORS BEWARE!!!! (SKULL AND CROSSBONES)
Directive No. 1 - “Defense Support of Citizens against Corrupt Diplomatic/Intelligence/Commercial and/or Economic Authorities,” was issued May 29, 2014, and states that U.S. citizens “are provided emergency authority under this directive.” to arrest, detain and try ANY person who has committed treason against the Constitution.
All types of force are authorized, up to and including lethal force. The pursuit of these traitors is not limited by ANY type of boundary or time limit, Bounties are authorized for live renditions of traitors, however bounties will also be paid double for the return of a body, provided a full biometric verification that the targeted traitor has been terminated. If upon verification that the family of the traitor enjoyed the fruits of the traitors labours, then that family too shall be rendered for extirpation with FULL bloodline destruction.
Signed: By where the power of government came from and shall invariably return to.
Amen Brother
<<< tyrannical power elite
<<< benevolent rulers
delete
THIS is what tyranny looks like! But why should we be surprised? Isn't that what all Marxist dictators have done -- wage war against their own people?
run! You've been tricked into "fighting the illegals!" with "fences". Those fences are to keep YOU IN, not to keep them OUT.
It's Bush's Fault.
Bush may be the dunbest fucker ever and is for sure a war criminal but how is this his fault? You're just as stupid as he and Obama are, probbaly moreso.
Article III, Section 3.
"Treason against the United States, shall consit only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
It appears these directives have been declared in open court pursuant to being entered in the Federal Register. The directives are not overt acts, but seem to constitute a general declaration of intent to use military force to override the desires of the public at large - the People.
There appears to be no mention of requiring the explicit request of the State Government as required in Article IV, Section 4 or the Constitution, and also appears to be in direct controvention of the Posse Comatatus act of 1871.
This would appear to be directly aimed at the nullification movement, providing a means to enforce executive and oligarch will on the general voting population when that will is in conflict with the will of the voters.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/05/government-considered-using-military...
Above link....Obama considered using the military to kill the Bundy people......
Do a websearch for Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland.
All one has to do is watch the most recent West Point speech and his reception by his troops to see how much traction such a move would hold.
I think that graduating class knows exactly what's going on.
If they will not follow illegal orders they will be threatened, killed, or replaced.