Obama’s Directive Outlines Policy To Use The Military Against Citizens by Washington Times | May 28, 2014
Outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.. 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.” HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit. The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic. Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop. The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states. “The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia. In addition to adding funds, the bill language requires the ONA to study alternative U.S. defense and deterrence strategies related to the space warfare programs of both countries.
China is developing advanced missiles capable of shooting down satellites in low and high earth orbits. It also is building lasers and electronic jammers to disrupt satellites, a key U.S. strategic military advantage. Russia is said to be working on anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons. “The committee believes the office must remain an independent organization within the department, reporting directly to the secretary,” the report said. Mr. Marshall, sometimes referred to as the Pentagon’s “Yoda,” after the Star Wars character, has come under fire from opponents in the administration, who say he is too independent and not aligned with the administration’s soft-line defense policies. The ONA is known for its extensive use of contractors and lack of producing specific overall net assessments of future warfare challenges, as required by the office’s charter. One example of the ONA’s unconventional thinking was the recent contractor report “China: The Three Warfares,” which revealed Beijing’s extensive use of political warfare against the United States, including psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare. “‘The Three Warfares’ is a dynamic, three-dimensional, war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” the report says. A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment. NO DENNIS RODMAN DEFENSE Navy Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon is deploying more and higher-quality missile defenses to counter potential nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran. “This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime,” Adm. Winnefeld said in a speech to the Atlantic Council. “The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.” He added that missile defenses are needed “because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat.” He was referring to the heavily tattooed and pierced former NBA star, who has traveled to North Korea as a guest of leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Rodman calls the dictator his “friend.” “A robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack and is, in my view, our No. 1 missile defense priority,” Adm. Winnefeld said. North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. It recently threatened to conduct a fourth nuclear test, and analysts say signs from the closed communist state suggest the North Koreans may test a missile warhead.
U.S. Will Train Rebels To Counter Cia’s AlQaeda Terrorists In Syria by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | May 28, 2014
Shell game as U.S. continues bloody effort to unseat Syrian government Earlier this year Jamal Maarouf, leader of the Syrian Revolutionary Front, admitted his “moderate” fighters conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda proxy in Syria. Maarouf told The Independent he was instructed by his U.S., Saudi and Qatari benefactors to work with al-Nusra terrorists who slaughter civilians and summarily execute Syrian soldiers. Maarouf said if “the people who support us [U.S., Saudis, Qataris] tell us to send weapons to another group, we send them. They asked us a month ago to send weapons to Yabroud [in Syria] so we sent a lot of weapons there. When they asked us to do this, we do it.” On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported “Barack Obama will authorize US troops to train selected Syrian rebels, in order to counter the rising power of Al-Qaeda-linked extremists.” “The current policy approach continues to be strengthening the moderate opposition, which offers an alternative to the brutal Assad regime and the more extremist elements within the opposition,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. Psaki’s remark counts on the ignorance of the American people concerning the U.S. role in the effort to overthrow the al-Assad regime and replace it with something more amenable to the geostrategic objectives of the financial elite. In shell game fashion, the United States claims, according to the Journal, “pressure exerted by US allies in the region, in particular Saudi Arabia, have forced the decision” to arm “moderates” who are in fact radical jihadists.
Obama’s anticipated announcement, however, is nothing new. In October, The Washington Post reported the CIA had expanded “a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, U.S.-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war.” As noted above, the line between “moderate” and “radical” proxy mercenaries is routinely violated in the effort to overthrow the Syrian government. This fact is hidden from the American people by the corporate media. In 2013, the U.S. attempted to retrofit its motley mélange of radical jihadists illegally operating in Syria by creating the Islamic Front. The front consists of Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Haqq, Ansar al-Sham, and the Kurdish Islamic Front. Jaish al-Islam, or Army of Islam, is itself a coalition of mercenary groups funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Although the front reportedly excluded al-Nusra and the al-Qaeda inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS), it shares a radical jihadist ideology, we reported in December. Obama Lectures Female Reporter After She Asks About Syria VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOd52XGeV8A Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist 1 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7ZHenQnu4 Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist 2 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnV_pNe_BB0 Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist 3 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtbYnslB0o The men behind Barack Obama part 1 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k The men behind Barack Obama part 2 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJCMWcoms
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND