On Wednesday a report published by The Washington Times appears to confirm the concerns raised among citizens and some members of the military that a new Obama directive authorizes the president's use of military force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The Pentagon directive, implemented in December of 2010 when Democrats had supermajorities in the House and Senate, allows Obama to utilize military attacks on American soil as part of an overall strategy in connection with the Patriot Act.
According to the administration, the original objective was aimed toward the fight against terrorism around the world and included language that allowed the military to pursue and "take out" confirmed terrorists on U.S. soil, even if they are American citizens. But the tweaked version that Obama officially endorsed vastly expanded the scope of the directive, allowing for the killing of U.S. citizens on American soil during times of civil unrest or vast discontent among the population toward the federal government. Thus, the bulk of the directive has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. That issue is dealt with in the Patriot Act. This directive is aimed at domestic uprisings by citizens who wish to express their outrage at the actions of the federal government -- a time honored tradition in this free society.
The Washington Times stated that a defense official who is opposed to the directive told its investigative reporter, "This appears to be the latest step in the administration's decision to use force within the United States against its citizens."
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...”
Two conditions must be met in order to justify the implementation of the directive. First, it must be shown that domestic military action against citizens is necessary to prevent significant loss of life, the wanton destruction of property, and to restore government function and public order. Second, federal, state, and local authorities must be either unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal government functions.
The key term that is leading to alarm among civil libertarians is "unwilling." Does the administration fear that a showdown between the federal government and state and local authorities would result in the refusal of local law enforcement to pit themselves against the citizens they serve, no matter what the federal authorities wish to do?
Apparently such fear is very real to the federal government. For example, agencies of the executive branch have been building up their own internal military capability with extremely large purchases of rifles, shotguns, handguns, and ammunition. Previously such agencies had no such capability nor were they viewed as entities that needed firearms and accessories. But today all of that has changed under the Obama administration. Various agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, the Department of Agriculture, the TVA, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed SWAT teams complete with heavy artillery and MRAPS -- Mine Resistant Ambush Protected militarized vehicles.
The White House and Congressional Democrats have not hesitated to launch into vehement verbal attacks and character assassination against gun owners on a regular basis since 2006, and since 2008 in particular -- the year Obama was elected with supermajorities of Democrats in both houses of Congress. Sen. Reid, for example, has referred to liberty oriented gun owners who defend persons such as Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy as "domestic terrorists."
And in a shocking admission, the White House admitted that during the showdown at the Bundy ranch, not only were armed federal snipers from the Bureau of Land Management planted on the hillsides with their targets aimed directly at U.S. citizens but it had also considered using full military force to bring the standoff to an end. Such an admission is stunning in its blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution and is tantamount to rank treason.
But the shocking revelations keep coming in the directive and only continue to provide cause for deeper alarm. The directive specifically states that military assistance can be used against American citizens on U.S. soil in the event of unrest. The wording is so broad that "unrest" can mean anything the president wants it to mean, given that there are no definitions provided.
These revelations reported by the Times are considered by many military analysts and liberty watchdogs as "the smoking gun" which proves the Obama administration is basically hostile toward U.S. citizens, particularly those who believe in personal freedom, gun rights, private property rights, and due process.
You may also be interested in the following:
My personal blog, The Liberty Sphere.
My popular series titled, Musings After Midnight.
My ministry site, Martin Christian Ministries.