Inside the Ring: Directive
outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens
By Bill Gertz of The Washington Times
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
Mr. Bundy
is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over
unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy
in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when
the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon
directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed
drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned
aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the
directive says.
The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William
J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units
within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons
and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama
administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of
counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department
of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues
that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has
launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the
fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to
comment.
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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment