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.Directive 3025.18.
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.
Remember it. This is the first time that I can recall there ever being concrete proof that the US Govt has plans to use military force against US civilians inside the US.
Considering our history this is disturbing.
But whats even more disturbing is the fact that the militias were right. James Yeager was right.
We were probably heatbeats away from this thing kicking off. Its a miracle that cooler heads prevailed and the fight was canceled but this tells me one other thing.
All that ammo that the US Govt is buying isn't normal.
They're gearing up for a fight.
Sidenote: It dawned on me during the discussion in the comments section that this is a doomsday order. The second they implement this directive all bets are off. We'll be lucky if we just have a great depression. More than likely we'll see violence that will startle the world. Additionally we'll be lucky if the US continues as we currently know it.
Under Posse Comitatus "it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws.." --But that was then, this is now.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
--Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. --wiki
Also there are alleged assaults on federal agents at Bundy, and federal agents are widespread..
DeleteI get the feeling that that falls under unlawful orders. I like to think that Soldiers and Marines are less likely to shoot U.S. citizens than the various feds are. Sorta glad to see that the president wasn't stupid enough to find out one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteI believe that would entirely depend on which military unit was deployed who started shooting first. If the militias started shooting first you can bet dollars to donuts that servicemen would return fire in self defense. I base that on the common philosophy that the rule book goes out the window when you are taking fire and anyone trying to kill you is now a valid target.
DeleteMilitary would do everything to avoid exchanging fire but once that first round is incoming, it's on.....
don't say that with joy or glee. someone will be video taping such an encounter. additionally if someone is seriously killed or injured they're gonna have relatives.
Deletei know it still applies in the circle i run in but kick me in the teeth but if you mess with family you've signed your death warrant.
having said all that, you're talking about the start of an insurgency inside the US. want to know the dirty little secret?
THE MOST VULNERABLE AREAS ON US MILITARY BASES IS FAMILY HOUSING. terrorist probably already know this. retirees, vets and servicemembers already know this.
you kick off something like what this directive is talking about and its gonna be katy bar the door. it will lead to random violence that will make what happened in S. Africa look like a picnic. it will lead to acts of reprisal, a lockdown of the major cities, a siege mentality at US bases and probably a great depression.
we'll be lucky to see the US continue as its currently constructed.
that order is a doomsday weapon. if they deploy that then all bets are off.
Wasn't said with joy or glee at all, just a statement of fact. I and most people I was with had the same philosophy "If I'm shot at I'm sure as hell going to shoot back and make it home alive" and I'm sure it still applies today.
DeleteThink about it, people with military grade weapons and probably many with military training were facing off with the Federal Government. For all intents and purposes the feds were facing an "army" all be it a small one, why wouldn't they use the military? None of the other federal agencies including the FBI are equipped or trained to deal with an army.
ReplyDeleteI remember the 92 riots (2 years before I stated my 8) and that 1500 Pendleton Marines were used to convince people to settle down. Basically the scuttlebutt I heard at the time was that the Marines in full riot gear were held back and "pointed to" by the police and other units dealing with the rioters/looters saying "If you don't stop we are going to turn them loose." Supposedly that was enough to convince most people to go home. Did it actually happen like that, I have no idea, but it seems plausible to me.
The State of Ohio used the National Guard for mortal force against unarmed civilians -- Kent State massacre, May 1970.
ReplyDelete"don't say that with joy or glee. someone will be video taping such an encounter. additionally if someone is seriously killed or injured they're gonna have relatives.
ReplyDeletei know it still applies in the circle i run in but kick me in the teeth but if you mess with family you've signed your death warrant.
having said all that, you're talking about the start of an insurgency inside the US. want to know the dirty little secret?
THE MOST VULNERABLE AREAS ON US MILITARY BASES IS FAMILY HOUSING. terrorist probably already know this. retirees, vets and servicemembers already know this.
you kick off something like what this directive is talking about and its gonna be katy bar the door. it will lead to random violence that will make what happened in S. Africa look like a picnic. it will lead to acts of reprisal, a lockdown of the major cities, a siege mentality at US bases and probably a great depression.
we'll be lucky to see the US continue as its currently constructed.
that order is a doomsday weapon. if they deploy that then all bets are off."
Soo much this. that isnt even taking into account assignations all over the place of staff, supporters, and surrogates (and their families) of who gives the order even low level staffers in legislators or the white house would be come targets.
Solomon, calm down. Think critically
ReplyDeleteAnd that ammo BS again?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-be-paranoid-homeland-security-is-cutting-way-back-on-bullets-151f5dbe8118
You gotta stop this shit, Sol.
dude! what the fuck! sorry but Axe might be solid when it comes to military tech and even covering small wars but he's knows jack shit about the operational art and the steps necessary to prepare for deployment....or getting ready for combat.
Deleteadditionally did you even read the article?
thinking critically means that i take in all the evidence and then when that evidence changes i adjust my thinking to fit the new information.
LIKE I SAID. THIS IS THE FIRST EVIDENCE THAT THE US GOVT HAS FORMULATED PLANS FOR US TROOPS TO BE USED AGAINST ITS CITIZENS.
that puts everything in a brand new light. it puts the ammo purchases in a new light.
sorry, but i will never suffer from normalcy bias. thats why people got wrecked in the run up to the market crash in 2008. people were being told that all is well right until they got blindsided. same with the housing market. its the same shit that hits people when they're in a bad place and everything in their body is screaming to go but they ignore it and next thing you know they're robbed, raped, and murdered.
this story has my mind screaming. the economy is in the dumps and even contracted but no one is sounding the alarm.
something is coming and i don't know what but shit is not right.
what amazes me is that you can't feel it!
If you really had taken in all the evidence, you'd know that Axe didn't write that article. Robert Beckhusen wrote it.
Deleteits Axe's blog dumbass. i swear. arrogant bastards always like to drill down to some minute point instead of dealing with the bigger idea whenever they're losing an argument.
Deleteyou're not worth my time.
It wasn't some minute point for you. It was your entire basis for discrediting the article.
Deletenew evidence has arrived courtesy of the Washington Times. are you really that fucking stupid that you can't roll with the fact that Axe didn't have this info when he published and in essence was simply parroting "conventional wisdom"?
Deletewell guess what sunshine? conventional wisdom has been proven wrong for about the 100th time.
you're the type of guy that will be getting assaulted and will not believe its happening. what more evidence do you need? are you really such a pussy that you will believe whatever talking points government agency A, B, or C feeds you?
god damn you're stupid!
Again, it wasn't Axe that wrote that article. It was Robert Beckhusen.
DeleteAnd, I haven't insulted you, so why are you insulting me? Rather poor manners for a Marine.
It doesn't matter whom wrote it.
DeleteHistoriographers would disagree about the importance of authors so your an idiot, but I digress, if you plan for the worst, and nothing happens, no big deal, if you fail to plan and something does happen, the only thing you will have time for is a run to walgreens for some vaseline.
Deleteok. i'm an idiot, but the blog belongs to Axe so he's the person that will be pointed to on any material that shows up there....guest writer or not.
Deleteas far as the govt planning for worse case, i get that but you have to admit that this directive is in essence a doomsday order. for them to have even considered using the military for the Bundy incident is being over shadowed by this meaningless side show about who wrote the piece that showed up on War is Boring blog.
something else needs to be considered here.
how afraid are public officials of the populace? if a few out of shape guys with rifles and pistols that are about to tumble over in the easy warmth of a April day in Nevada freaks them out then how are they gonna handle real beasts that train, lift, workout and are proficient in their skill set?
take this along with the massive NSA spying and you have the seeds of the USA police state already in place.
Ok here is my best way to explain the ammo buy by DHS. Using the numbers in the article below the NY times says the DHS has 100,000 peace officers. It purchased 750 million rounds over a 5 year buy. So when you break the numbers down that comes to 1500 rounds per officer per year. Most departments give 100 rounds per officer per month to train with so that accounts for practice. 50 rounds to qualify, and then you have 223 rounds for those that carry ARs. I don't remember how many they are given to practice with on the AR side of things. Add in any new hires and they will burn up a few 1500 rounds or so during their training let alone practice in their first year.
DeleteBy the way I hear prior military gets in to any DHS openings before they are ever posted.
I think that explanation makes way too much sense for some people on here, Tony.
DeleteIt is the United States of America. Not, the United Federal Government of America or, the United World Government.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Times. Concrete proof ?
ReplyDeleteWhat does consideration entail?
ReplyDelete"Do we think we need to send in troops?"
"Nope"
"Okey dokey"
There is probably a much more detailed protocol to determine it, but to suggest there is any real consideration given is probably overstating it.
On a different note, to think that a State wouldn't use force to defend itself, it's institutions and it's legitimacy is naive. 'Against all enemies, foreign and domestic', right? Such a policy isn't out of the norm.
I don't think the Bundy ranch incident rose to the level of the need to use force and it looks like the State wisely decided that was the case as well.
Now, if there had been groups shooting at Federal LE, that might have changed things, e.g. sending in FBI HRT, but I bet there are a whole lot of things that need to happen before you would see troops sent in.
Solomon,
DeleteSide note on your open carry crowd and how they are just making everything worse.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/guns_after_elliot_rodger_businesses_like_chipotle_and_sonic_are_our_best.html