The Military is Now Preparing to Take Over for the Police Across the United States

There are several things one would want to accomplish ahead of the formation of a totalitarian state.  One of these is to fill the minds of the citizenry with mindless propaganda and make them terrified to death of an outside enemy.  Check.  Another is to disarm the population.  Working on it.  Yet another would be to militarize the police, or even better have the military itself take responsibility for law and order in communities across the nation.  The reason that this is so important is that a military force “policing” a random area has no connection to the community itself.  This makes them by definition much less accountable to the people they are supposedly protecting.  Plus, they are trained to kill.  Sadly, it appears that the Department of Defense is looking to use the military across the streets of America.  From The Long Island Press:

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.”

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.”

But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.

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.

Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”

As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” 

The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.

But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”

Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.

“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.”

So that’s where journalism comes in.  The profession that is being spied on 24/7 by the Department of Justice.  Check please.

Full article here.

In Liberty,

Follow me on Twitter!


 Add your comment
  1. Good lord. Unbelievable. It’s just one Rutgers guy and a columnist saying this so far, but that is little comfort.

    Has anyone else reported on this yet? First I’ve heard of it.

    The only good news (if you can call it that) is that this probably would have happened regardless of whether or not they had the authority prior to some kind of catastrophic event. Still, its pretty clear they’re getting ready.

  2. The pace is quickening…..need to get the police state in position before TSHTF

  3. And Obama is already allowing them to rape just like the Nazi’s!

  4. twomidgetsonahorse

    Lots of pieces to position on this chessboard before checkmate can be achieved but it’s getting close

  5. The precedent for separating civilian and military power goes even further back than 200 years. I think it was in the later Roman empire they came up with the concept (around the time of Diocletian, but I’m not certain). Apparently, there were too many local “commanders” actually creating more civil unrest in a quest to become emperor.

    What is that line about failing to learn from history?

  6. The constant degradation of our military has left us in this position. Although a good percentage of battle hardened right leaning military NCO’s and Officers have left the ranks due to political climate now in place, I believe that a large portion of active duty personnel WOULD NOT FOLLOW such orders if they were to be made.
    As far as former and retired military (like Oathkeepers) they will “Hold The Line” just like they have in the past. NOT ON OUR WATCH !
    As far as DHS, FEMA and UN a good portion WOULD probably follow such orders but they would meet a good deal of resistance from within the ranks as well as without.
    God Help Us All if the situation gets to that point, and the way things are going it not only seems like it could but I think it could happen a lot sooner than most people (who are either indifferent or just plain stupid) think.

    • Patrick M,
      I occasionally hear comments like yours concerning the modern soldier (of any service) “a large portion of active duty personnel WOULD NOT FOLLOW such orders “. I used to think like that, but I know firsthand that this is absolutely not the case today. I retired from 29 years of total service recently, and the rank and file military member of today is shockingly ignorant, brain-washed by their public education, and seemingly void of traditonal values. It is quite rare the young servicemember who is bold enough to stand up for what is right, either morally, or ethically. Our modern youth know virtually nothing about our Constitution, any rule of law, Executive, Judicial, or Legislative powers. I always found it interesting how many Americans raise their right hands to take the oath of defending our Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, who couldn’t tell you the first thing about it. I am saddened by the state of our youth, and acknowledge that they will one day lead our great-but-faltering nation. I am not celebrating the fact, but want you to realize that you are up against a very different creature than you dream.

    • First of all I Thank You and Commend You for Your Service, You are truly a Brother in Arms. While I agree to a point with your assessment of the current ranks and their mindset, I have to tell you I have been very active with THOSE SAME YOUNG RANKS and questioned their Oath’s to their faces. I was surprised and delighted by their responses. One Staff Sgt. on the AC 130’s (will not disclose unit) and his whole crew (including Officers) were quite reassuring with their responses.
      The same has come from fully 99% of both rank and file that I have been in direct contact with in regards to this very point.
      I understand your doubt but I assure you once TSHTF we will see how serious a good deal of our troops REALLY TAKES THEIR OATH’S.
      As far as the veteran’s and retired/former military I KNOW that they will give their all to hold the line. NOT ON OUR WATCH !

    • That’s the reason the U.S. allowed over 350, 000 nato troops to train with and get to know
      american military weapons here in the U.S. this past summer…check it out on youtube.

  7. One thing to remember, in the 1950s Ike sent the federal troops into Arkansas to enforce desegregation without the permission of the governor (Faubus), so there is already precedent for the Pres to do it for a US Constitutional violation reason.
    However, this new regulation goes far beyond any US Constitutional violation and is very dangerous to the republic, since any “disturbance” an be declared a just reason.

    • Joe,
      Precedent is a legal term for the courtroom. I would suggest a careful study of the term ‘Posse Comitatus’. Many things have been done in the past that were profoundly wrong in our nation- like the WWII Internment Camps, and the Tuskeegee Medical Experiments, to name just a few, but that in no way makes them acceptable- either morally, ethically, or legally.

    • Didn’t Nixon declare that ‘if the President does it, it’s legal’?

    • yeah, he did…when he told france to f.o. when they wanted to get their gold back when the value of the dollar was falling…youtube

  8. The only thing we have ever learned from history is that we have never learned from history.

  9. This flows from the Homeland Security Act, which is so similar to the Enabling Act that legalised the Nazi usurpation of total and permanent power in Germany.

    While Hitler affirmed and extended this, it derives from Article 48 of the German Constitution of 1920 (in which the meddling fingers of US President Woodrow Wilson can be discerned): ‘In cases where public security or order are seriously disturbed or threatened in the Reich, its President is empowered to take the measures necessary for restoring these.’ More worryingly yet, Hitler was not the first to implement it, that was done by a previous Chancellor, Brüning, much as Bush the Second with the HSA. And, similarly again , both the Bs used these with a discretion their successors did not attempt to match.

    America is degenerating into the Fourth Reich.

  10. The Military votes uniformly Republican and never Democratic, so it is the Republicans who are hard core Fascists and the Military is their blunt instrument of oppression.

    • And Democrats Obama and Clinton are/were innocent bystanders? Just tryin’ to do their best against evil Republican congresses? Oops, except Obama has had the senate the whole time, and the house for his first two years.

    • Hey guys,
      The military is merely an instrument in the hands of the commander in chief (pres). It is the pres who is changing the military’s orders, not the military. The big question will be whether the military will fire on its own citizens as the pres has asked of its commanders (else they are requested to retire per recent testimony from retired military generals). This last item is the scariest because it proves motive on the part of the pres.

    • Union-thug,
      How little you know is embarrassing.

    • While I agree with some of your points my position is NOT FANTASY. My views are based upon my prior service USAF, SAS and those of my Brothers in Arms both active and inactive. My group is comprised of rank and file from privates/airman to retired Rear Admirals, Lt. Col.,and others in all branches of the military and different Gov’t Services.
      There are over 15 Million former/retired military with various degrees of training and most (95% or greater) still able bodied and armed. That sir comprises the largest potential standing army which is what poses the greatest threat to a out of control government.
      Also although it is possible that the current active ranks could follow such orders I can assure you it WILL NOT be ALL.
      That being said, it would not be a walk in the park or even a civil war type of situation and the damage (on Both Sides) would be greater than any this country has ever seen.

  11. Shades of the Nazi Brown Shirts.

  12. Will the military fire on it’s own citizens?
    – You bet they will.
    Oh, there will be disenters here and there but the rank and file will shoot your ass dead.

    • I am afraid you are right…. famous psychological studies done with Americans prove it. Kent State proves it. If given the order, most will obey and fire.
      The key is the order from the generals who get it from the pres (or else the pres finds a general who will issue the order).

    • Joe I just do not believe that ALL or even MOST troops would follow such orders. My belief is based on my personal experience over the past 2-3 years with all branches of the military both active and former/retired as well as rank and file. I also questioned friends and personal contacts within my local law enforcement as well as FEMA & DHS ( The 2 most likely to participate in such actions).
      The bottom line is that a fair percentage WILL fire upon us if ordered to but you must remember the MILLIONS of Trained Retired/Former Military and Law Enforcement that has taken prudent steps to prepare for such a scenario.
      Would it get nasty, You Bet but it would not be the slaughter that a lot of people might think. “NOT ON OUR WATCH”

    • Patrick,
      Not every German during the 3rd Reich was a Hitler-lover, nor were all of the Japanese believers in Hirihito’s god status. Nevertheless those armies ruthlessly, and efficiently dispatched their orders with zeal. Every military world-wide is more than capable of pressuring the troops to do the mission at any cost. They always weed out the weak-minded who are not in the battle with all of their heart. Don’t comfort yourself with a fantasy mindset on this subject. Military personnel are trained to complete the mission, and the leadership will not tolerate any dissent at all. If the NCO’s are unable to coerce the combatant into the proper mindset they will be relieved of duty, and rapidly removed from the battle to maintain good order and discipline.

  13. I concur

  14. The Union League posted on May 17, 2013 at 6:59 saying:”The Military votes uniformly Republican and never Democratic, so it is the Republicans who are hard core Fascists and the Military is their blunt instrument of oppression”

    I say you’re an idiot!

    I’ve served for 28 years and I don’t remember taking any oath to the Republican party. How I vote is, frankly, none of your socialist attitude!

    I’m also a Superintendent, that’s an E-8 for those ignorant (Union League) of military rank. I’m a part of Homeland Defense responsible for the majority of Air Sovereignty over this great nation and it’s good citizens.
    I serve with very a very devoted number of military members, including US Air Force, Army, Navy and our beloved Canadian Air Force.

    I don’t appreciate AT ALL being discussed as if we’re animals in some freak show, especially by those who KNOW NOTHING about those serving in today’s ranks or those past. We serve faithfully and though there’s a different generation serving, the CORE is still CORE!

    My Family has served for over two centuries. Our forefathers served as a Private (Age 73) in the Revolutionary War and Colonel during the Civil War. Father (US Navy) and Uncles (US Army) served during the Korean and Vietnam War and Bay of Pigs. My sister and brother (both US Navy) served. I have served for 28 years (US Air Force). My son serves as well (US Army).

    You want military members to do what is right? Then treat them with honor and respect and don’t throw them to the wind driven by thoughtless self-serving theories driven by a bunch of BS from those who have never served, except their own self-interests!


    When freedom fails…
    those good men are thrown into filthy jails
    and those who cried “appease!” appease!”
    are hanged by those they tried to please.

    Proud to Serve!

    • I commend your commitment, and I mean that sincerely.

      However, there was nothing to be proud of about Korea, Vietnam, nor the Bay of Pigs.

      Serving now? That’s agreeing to do the bidding of a criminal gov’t in its illegal/unconstitutional activities around the world.

      How many active duty soldiers have already broken their oaths by serving in unconstitutional conflicts? Ask Ehren Watada.

    • While I understand and agree with your right to believe what you want, I detest your opinion. You and people like you (who probably never served , much less performed under fire) DO NOT DESERVE THE FREEDOM THAT OUR MILITARY (ALL BRANCHES) PROVIDE.
      You go ahead with your BS but believe me when TSHTF you and all those poor bastards like you will be left to your own designs and if by chance you happen to pass into my zone we will continue this discussion face to face. GOD HELP YOU.

Leave a Reply