Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’ in USA

[rambone]

The Pentagon has quietly granted itself new the power to police the streets of the USA without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

These changes have been issued in DoD Instruction 3025.21, titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.” A link is posted below.

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.
​

U.S. Military Power Grab Goes Into Effect

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.”

​

TEXT OF DOD INSTRUCTION 3025.21:
DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

​

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Suppressing insurrection has always been a constitutional use of the military.

Just because Senator Foghorn Leghorn (D-DownSouth, I say, I say) got all butthurt over bluecoats making his state behave does not mean that the use of the military is not constitutional.

 

[rambone]

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013

Comment #1.
Comment on Proposed Rule: 32 CFR Part 182 DOD–2009–OS– 0038. The definition given in § 182.3 of ‘‘civil disturbance’’ is overly broad and encompasses any number of situations that the Legislature and DOD entities might not have in mind at the time of drafting this rule. It is my recommendation that specific reference be made to DOD Directive 3025.12 within § 182.3 to allay any possible misreading of 32 CFR part 182.

If Posse Comitatus is going to be suspended in times other than those specifically authorized by the Constitution, Congress must act to make the language clear and unambiguous. In addition, the definition of ‘‘Emergency Authority’’ in § 182.3 and DOD 3025.12 is unclear. In what sort of a civil emergency can prior Presidential authorization be ‘‘impossible’’ to obtain. These two definitions read together give an extraordinary degree of latitude to DOD entities within the borders of the United States. Finally, I question whether a rule is the appropriate venue for an expansion of this nature. Perhaps this is a task best left to congress for full public scrutiny and debate. Should this really be a task left to the DOD to make a rule essentially gutting 10 U.S.C.A. 331–4?

Despite the fact that this rule has received certification by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), I seriously question whether there are not significant implications for its enactment under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). If it is left to the DOD to determine when force is necessary, absent a Presidential order and absent the cooperation of local
authorities, Posse Comitatus is for all intents and purposes at an end.

DoD Response:
No action required. This instruction cancels DoD Directive 3025.12. ‘‘Civil disturbance’’ is an approved definition in the DoD Dictionary and makes no reference to the Posse Comitatus Act being ‘‘suspended.’’ Also this rule does not make reference to the suspension of Posse Comitatus Act. It lists those actions that are permissible and restricted under the Act. The author also recommends that Congress, rather than DoD, make the language ‘‘clear and unambiguous.’’

 

[badwolf.usmc]

First of all, the DOD doesn't grant itself anything. These types of regulations are put into place by the elected civilian government of the United States. Second, i like how you forget about these parts:

d. The employment of Federal military forces to control civil disturbances shall only occur in a specified civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances as authorized by the President, normally through issuance of an Executive order or other Presidential directive authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense to provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific State or locality in accordance with sections 331-334 of Reference (d).

So the military can't just go somewhere, by itself, and take just take over. Also:

c. Any employment of Federal military forces in support of law enforcement operations shall maintain the primacy of civilian authority and unless otherwise directed by the President, ...

And:

b. The primary responsibility for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order in the civilian community is vested in State and local governments. Supplementary responsibility is vested by statute in specific agencies of the Federal Government other than DoD. The President has additional powers and responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States to ensure that law and order are maintained.


All this from your link.

 

[rambone]

First of all, the DOD doesn't grant itself anything. These types of regulations are put into place by the elected civilian government of the United States.

So how did my congressman vote on DoD Instruction 3025.21?

Second, i like how you forget about these parts:

d. The employment of Federal military forces to control civil disturbances shall only occur in a specified civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances as authorized by the President, normally through issuance of an Executive order or other Presidential directive authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense to provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific State or locality in accordance with sections 331-334 of Reference (d).

So the military can't just go somewhere, by itself, and take just take over.

I specifically made mention of this in the OP. Its not just the president, it is "Federal military commanders," whatever that means. And when prior authorization is "impossible," whatever that means. The language is vague. That was also pointed out in the OP.

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.
​

c. Any employment of Federal military forces in support of law enforcement operations shall maintain the primacy of civilian authority and unless otherwise directed by the President, ...

The president, or his "Federal military commanders." Either way the field is being readied for the use of soldiers inside the USA. You guys can romanticize about George Washington crushing the tax protesters but this does not seem like a good thing to me at all.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Suppressing insurrection is a Constitutional authorization of federal power. Suppressing the insurrection of drunken thuggish farmers or savage state governments was constitutional and a great idea.

 

[kalboy]

.
The president, or his "Federal military commanders." Either way the field is being readied for the use of soldiers inside the USA. You guys can romanticize about George Washington crushing the tax protesters but this does not seem like a good thing to me at all.

As in all cases where you have a concern regarding gov't activities you should be in touch with your elected reps.

 

[rambone]

Suppressing insurrection is a Constitutional authorization of federal power. Suppressing the insurrection of drunken thuggish farmers or savage state governments was constitutional and a great idea.

Great idea, lol. Your position is noted, Freeman.

As in all cases where you have a concern regarding gov't activities you should be in touch with your elected reps.

Should I call the Pentagon complaint department or...?

 

[kalboy]

Great idea, lol. Your position is noted, Freeman.


Should I call the Pentagon complaint department or...?

No, complaining here is much more effective.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

So how did my congressman vote on DoD Instruction 3025.21?


I specifically made mention of this in the OP. Its not just the president, it is "Federal military commanders," whatever that means. And when prior authorization is "impossible," whatever that means. The language is vague. That was also pointed out in the OP.

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.
​

The president, or his "Federal military commanders." Either way the field is being readied for the use of soldiers inside the USA. You guys can romanticize about George Washington crushing the tax protesters but this does not seem like a good thing to me at all.

First question: Your congressman doesn't have to vote on DOD Instructions, they approved the Secretory of Defense, who appointed a Deputy Secretary of Defense who had this DOD Instructions drafted up.

Second question: These are not federal laws, they are guidelines for officers to follow, so they are intended to have some flexibility. There is something in the military call Commander's Intent, which is a way to empower junior leaders and prevent micro-management.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

So we should/could be seeing military intervention at peaceful protests here soon? Lord only knows how many people here would have considered Occupy a "civil disturbance."

 

[avboiler11]

So we should/could be seeing military intervention at peaceful protests here soon?

Very likely, almost certainly NOT.

And I would think its obvious that "impossible to get Presidential permission" to mean POTUS (and those in the line of succession) is deceased. Because lets be honest, POTUS is *never* "unreachable", especially in this day and age...double-especially when the issue is suspension of habeas corpus.

 

[HenryWallace]

No, complaining here is much more effective.

Correct! Complaining here used to be called communicating with your fellow citizens. Now it seems to be a 'you're not doing enough', soapbox lovin, the 'sky is falling' proclamation. Even though, they're (you too 'Freeman') completely disregarding the OP as mere Paranoid Conspiracy....

I've got a Conspiracy for you!

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

What really scares me more than the .gov with the monopoly of power is the fact that some gun owners in an actual SHTF scenario wouldn't know who to point their guns at.

 

[kalboy]

Correct! Complaining here used to be called communicating with your fellow citizens. Now it seems to be a 'you're not doing enough', soapbox lovin, the 'sky is falling' proclamation. Even though, they're (you too 'Freeman') completely disregarding the OP as mere Paranoid Conspiracy....

I've got a Conspiracy for you!

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

What really scares me more than the .gov with the monopoly of power is the fact that some gun owners in an actual SHTF scenario wouldn't know who to point their guns at.

What scares me is that some don't seem to know that George Washinton originated the power of the military to bear arms against the public, this is not something that might happen it's something that has happened
and that some practictioners since have included, Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower. This is not new and it's not the pentagon that granted themselves this power it was freely given by the president and congress.
My point being if you'd like to see it revoked complain to those with the ability to do that.
This was going on long before Pastor Niemoller wrote his famous words.

 

[88GT]

The language is vague.

Aside from the fact that we both know you dislike this with or without justification simply because it means power in the hands of the feds, rendering the argument that you find "vagueness" in the language largely moot, is there language that would satisfy you to the point that you could live with the existence of such a directive because is spells out exactly when, where, and how the military may exercise this power?

The president, or his "Federal military commanders." Either way the field is being readied for the use of soldiers inside the USA. You guys can romanticize about George Washington crushing the tax protesters but this does not seem like a good thing to me at all.

Federal authority/power of any kind makes you ill. What weakens your position is that you seem to be able to fabricate out of whole cloth an issue where none exists.

There is no need for the government to "ready" anything for any purpose. It is the government. If it wants to go Full Tyranny, it simply does. It doesn't need a bunch of laws paving the way just to make it legal.

What scares me is that some don't seem to know that George Washinton originated the power of the military to bear arms against the public, this is not something that might happen it's something that has happened
and that some practictioners since have included, Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower. This is not new and it's not the pentagon that granted themselves this power it was freely given by the president and congress.
My point being if you'd like to see it revoked complain to those with the ability to do that.
This was going on long before Pastor Niemoller wrote his famous words.

You are wasting your time. There is a cohort of INGOers so committed to the cause of libertarianism that they have convinced themselves that the Republic in its infancy was just a hotbed of libertarianism, and that it was libertarianism that guided all the decisions about government. I guess they didn't get the memo: anti-federalists lost.

 

[rambone]

What scares me is that some don't seem to know that George Washinton originated the power of the military to bear arms against the public, this is not something that might happen it's something that has happened and that some practictioners since have included, Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower.

Don't forget Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Don't forget Patton. Don't forget that three of the presidents just mentioned threw American citizens into military prison camps without due process. I get that the military has been unleashed on Americans over and over again. That's a mark of shame on America, not pride. Its a sign of failure. People that don't know history are simply ignorant. People who know our history and still say "it can't happen here" are fools. Its not a matter of if it happens again, it is when.

 

[kalboy]

I never said that US military vs the people was something to be proud of, I was pointing out that this balloon went up long ago. It happens on a continuing basis .

 

[HenryWallace]

I never said that US military vs the people was something to be proud of, I was pointing out that this balloon went up long ago. It happens on a continuing basis .

Whether or not it's happened before, it's wrong. Go by the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts and you'll find mass majority of laws, taxes, power grabs, and monopolies are WRONG!

Don't forget!

For The People, By the People, and Answerable to the People.

If we are trying to justify present Tryranny with old Tyranny it merely shows how it's become the new norm.

Like I said before, what scares me the most is Fellow Gun Owners not knowing who to point the guns at when it really comes down to it...

 

[HenryWallace]

Come on guys and gals! This is Social Media... This is where we're supposed to disregard Main Stream Media regurgitations.

 

[HenryWallace]

To me.... What seems to be so overly pointed about the type of commenting and arguing that goes on at this site is that it's always started by a person basically saying "Nothing to see here, go on about you business"...