Army leaks plans - shoot civilians in civil unrest

U.S. Army Military Police School Civil Disturbance Operations Course

Link

No warning shots will be fired.
'Temporary detention facilities' don't get mail / correspondence.
Escapees will be shot.

Application of Force.

a. General.

(1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available.

The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help.






Posse comitatusanyone?

The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.

and to those saying ' Not in the U.S.' and are too lazy to read........ Here's the objective...

1. Mission of Military Forces during Civil Disturbances. The mission of military forces during civil
disturbances, both in CONUS and OCONUS, which cannot be overly emphasized, is to help local and state
authorities to restore and maintain law and order.

Click to expand...

TechnoWeenie said:

and to those saying ' Not in the U.S.' and are too lazy to read........ Here's the objective...

Click to expand...

OK, I looked at your link and it's unfettered bullscat. The only thing that would make it less credible would be Alex Jones' picture on it. Do you know ANYONE who serves in uniform? Just one person? Do you even occasionally see a stranger in uniform at 7-11?

I say good luck to them getting anyone to pull the trigger.

Firstly, every Government has a contingency plan.

Second (per your link): (2) The use of deadly force is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:...

Apparently Deadly Force is a last resort. Just getting the base worked-up I suppose.

TechnoWeenie said:

...The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.

Click to expand...

They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.

TechnoWeenie said:

Application of Force.

a. General.

(1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available.

Click to expand...

This just occurred here in Colorado Springs. There were 23 break-ins to homes which had been evacuated due to the Waldo Canyon fire. The police were too busy handling fire-related issues to patrol deserted streets, so the crooks had some easy pickings.

Our state governor mobilized the Guard, which parked themselves in the neighborhoods and very effectively put a stop to the criminal activity with their presence alone.

The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help.

Click to expand...

No one was shot, and I believe with most evacuations lifted, the Guard has vacated, as well.

Posse comitatusanyone?

The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.

Click to expand...

Even the post-R. King LA riots were put down without federal help, and this law prohibits the President from acting without the request of a state governor. Should Obama ever say, "No, you need us / we're coming in anyway," some of the troops in that state would prevent their entry, probably with help from neighboring states.

Two key pieces of legislation you need to see:

1. AZ would let voters ignore un-Constitutional Federal Law

2. GOP Governors stand ground against Obamacare despite ruling

Both citizens and governors are FED UP with the Fed. If they're going to balk at every step with obamacare, how do you think they'd react if the Feds starting rolling tanks in on them?

It wouldn't be pretty.

That aside, military officers should KNOW it's their duty to refuse such unlawful orders. Our oath is to our Constitution, not to the President, Congress, or SCOTUS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that federal military use of deadly force against civilians ain't kosher.

ETA: Here's another: Maine Governor blasts the fed for "gestapo-like" tactics involving the IRS

Bottom Line: WE THE PEOPLE aren't going to stand for this. Our State Governors aren't going to stand for it. Most Oathkeepers won't stand for it -- when orders conflict with their oath, they'll follow their oath, as that's what duty does. We WILL follow the Constitution and the lawful regulations which stem forth from it. Nothing more.

MAC702 said:

They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.

Click to expand...

Of course they do; it is the job of military planners to make contingency plans for contingencies, however unlikely.

Here's the critical difference, though: an armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti could be legal and constitutional. U.S. Army troops suppressing civil unrest would not.

Not that legality or the Constitution has ever stopped them before, of course. The most famous abuse of posse comitatus was the attack on the Bonus Army, led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, where they gassed, clubbed, bayonetted, and burned men, women and children, U.S. military veterans and their families, in the nation's capital.

Just 18 years earlier, the U.S. Army intervened to suppress rioting miners in Colorado, who retaliated quite effectively against the Colorado National Guard and mine security companies, in response to the latter's attack against miner camps.

There is much established history that violated the law and the Constitution; the earliest example was probably George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Thankfully, prior practice doesn't legitimize illegal and unconstitutional abuses.

KBCraig said:

Of course they do; it is the job of military planners to make contingency plans for contingencies, however unlikely.

Here's the critical difference, though: an armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti could be legal and constitutional. U.S. Army troops suppressing civil unrest would not.

Not that legality or the Constitution has ever stopped them before, of course. The most famous abuse of posse comitatus was the attack on the Bonus Army, led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, where they gassed, clubbed, bayonetted, and burned men, women and children, U.S. military veterans and their families, in the nation's capital.

Just 18 years earlier, the U.S. Army intervened to suppress rioting miners in Colorado, who retaliated quite effectively against the Colorado National Guard and mine security companies, in response to the latter's attack against miner camps.

There is much established history that violated the law and the Constitution; the earliest example was probably George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Thankfully, prior practice doesn't legitimize illegal and unconstitutional abuses.

Click to expand...

First, let's be sure we all understand that Posse Commitatus is not an absolute ban on the use of federal forces for domestic law enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for other reasons (politically).
The statute only addresses the US Army and, since 1956, the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not restrict or apply to, the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor (in its federal capacity, the National Guard forms part of the Army or Air Force of the United States). The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive (self-regulation), but not by the Act itself.[SUP][[/SUP]

Click to expand...

I had the distinct pleasure of "attending" the riots in D.C. following MLK's assassination. I was, in fact, the first Marine to step off a helicopter onto the grass at the Elipse. Given that D.C. was then a federal enclave under the complete control of Congress there was no problem making sure all the "i"s were dotted and the "t"s crossed - and they were. We were read the declaration and received a brief explanation of both the why and legal implications before boarding for the flight to D.C. I also was part of the contingent staged at Quonset Point, RI in case the Hartford 7 trial got out of hand - as the State of Connecticutt had declared they did not think they could protect the Federal Courthouse and the judges, Marshals, and other staff if things went south. Again, "i"s were dotted and "t"s crossed by Congressional action. Same "i"s and "t"s attended to before heading up there as was done for the D.C. trip.

Bringing the Bonus Army incident up as a violation of Posse Commitatus is truely a false front, as D.C. was much more of a federal enclave then than it is now - no "Home Rule" at all, and the local police force was in fact federal employees. The City Council was but a sub-committee of a Senate committee, created to attend to the writing of regulations (not laws as we understand them these days) for the operating of the enclave.

Will the military (National Guard or federal troops) shoot civillians during a period of civil unrest? IMHO the answer is "probably", IF there are clear rules of engagement and the lives of the troops are truely in jeopardy. Massed formations, street patrols for the purpose of intimidating folks not to commit crime (just like the local cops do nowadays), and the operation of detention centers that are of necessity much more primitive than the local civil facilities, should do the trick most of the time. But when they start receiving incoming fire (see ROE comment above) they are not going to stand there like paper targets. And anybody who is worried about how our troops will adhere to ROE, I suggest they look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Will federal troops run roughshod over the land shooting anybody for any reason? Will they round up everyone on any of DHS's many lists of domestic terrorists? IMHO the answer is a resounding "NO!".

stay safe.

MAC702 said:

They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.

Click to expand...

Come to think of it, why can't we invade Venezuela? They literally stole billions of dollars worth of US oil company investments in oil producing infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that they have beaches, good looking women, good drugs and alcohol and we wouldn't have to worry about offending islamic "sensibilities" whatever the **** that is. Lets get the hell out of the desert and let those idiots kill each other.

I regards to military personel shooting US citizens, even rioting thugs in liberal plantation cities, I can't believe there are people who envision such things. First of all even during Katrina half the local cops took their crown vics and long guns home to protect their families and neighbors. Does anyone believe that if even a national crisis of apocolyptic proportions were to strike a significant amount of people wouldn't take their M4's and possibly some serious hardware home? It took how long for the entire empire to mobilize enough guns and operators to calm down just one liberal plantation? Imagine if they all go off at once! Don't forget how many people in the military come from these plantations, and how many come from "the sticks".

I can see no circumstance AT ALL, where even the most sinister officers, govenors or anyone else could possibly convince enough military personel to turn their firepower on the citizenry without they themselves getting blown out of their Ivory towers by an M1.

These contingency plans have been around for a long time. It just shows what our politicians think of us, all of them. It is not a bad thing for them to have knowledge and training for any circumstance. It is another to sign the order to murder a US citizen without due process, I don't care how bad a person he is, anyone of us could be labeled bad people. The constitution should come above any fear of bad people.

does anyone expect anything different?

papa bear said:

does anyone expect anything different?

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, papa bear.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

Any ROE, written yesterday, would not preclude the gunning down of innocent citizens when a cop....or soldier, fears for his life. Anyone who thinks that there are not soldiers that will fire on their fellow citizens is sadly mistaken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuRUlqveNYg

OC for ME said:

Any ROE, written yesterday, would not preclude the gunning down of innocent citizens when a cop....or soldier, fears for his life. Anyone who thinks that there are not soldiers that will fire on their fellow citizens is sadly mistaken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuRUlqveNYg

Click to expand...

Whether your point is valid or not, you lose ALL credibility when you put up a trailer from a movie for a citation.

Kent State never happened.

Waco never happened.

Ruby Ridge never happened.

Katrina never happened.

There is nothing to see here folks.

Go home, the government will protect you.

If even one regular soldier (now agent of the state) shoots a citizen on US soil at the bidding of a tyrannical (as perceived by the citizenry) government....as described in the link to the movie scene, that soldier and his comrades will be painted very poorly by the now victimized citizenry at the hands of a tyrannical government and their thug army.

The ideal would be for any 'orders' to be ignored and the soldier(s) not deploy. If the cops can't handle the situation maybe it's not the citizenry that is the problem. Unfortunately we now have a army which will be populated with those who will "just be following orders".

Ironically, it was the army that prevented, for the most part, thug cops during Katrina from doing what some thug cops did.....once they showed up that is.

Whether or not you consider the point valid or not is not the point. You apparently did get my point but merely disagreed with the example provided to illustrate the point I made.

OC for ME said:

If even one regular soldier (now agent of the state) shoots a citizen on US soil at the bidding of a tyrannical (as perceived by the citizenry) government....as described in the link to the movie scene, that soldier and his comrades will be painted very poorly by the now victimized citizenry at the hands of a tyrannical government and their thug army.

The ideal would be for any 'orders' to be ignored and the soldier(s) not deploy. If the cops can't handle the situation maybe it's not the citizenry that is the problem. Unfortunately we now have a army which will be populated with those who will "just be following orders".

Ironically, it was the army that prevented, for the most part, thug cops during Katrina from doing what some thug cops did.....once they showed up that is.

Whether or not you consider the point valid or not is not the point. You apparently did get my point but merely disagreed with the example provided to illustrate the point I made.

Click to expand...

The point I am trying to get through is that using make believe to back up your position, destroys any credibility. All you had to do was leave the movie trailer out of it. You could have showed the clip of the police abusing the elderly woman post Katrina and made your point much more effectively. Don't take offense but the antis that see such stuff would have a field day with it.

Ca Patriot said:

Kent State never happened.

Waco never happened.

Ruby Ridge never happened.

Katrina never happened.

There is nothing to see here folks.

Go home, the government will protect you.

Click to expand...

Dumb National Guardsmen at Kent, the rest were federal "law enforcement" Stormtroopers or moronic NO cops. No US troops. We had contingency plans to go to war with England prior to entering the second WW. They are just that, and nothing more. The danger we face is not US military, it is Nazi thugs with federal badges who don't gas about the Constitution and the scum that leads them in the "white" house and doj.

Ca Patriot said:

Kent State never happened.

Waco never happened.

Ruby Ridge never happened.

Katrina never happened.

There is nothing to see here folks.

Go home, the government will protect you.

Click to expand...

I have seen nobody here claim that the above did not happen. BTW the government did not have anything to do with Katrina, God did. Though they did screw up the response. You should do some reading on Kent State also before using that incident as an example.