Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
Wed May 15, 2013, 04:51 PM May 2013

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances' [View all]

http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/


The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

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.”


This disturbs me so much more than the (regrettable) errors which occurred in Benghazi last year, or the blunders of some IRS Agents. The surveillance of the press that has also recently come to light, on the other hand, shows that this sort of power grab is not an anomaly, not the work of 'a few bad apples,' and most certainly not the baseless fears of paranoiacs. Fellow citizens, when Ben Franklin said we would have a Republic, 'if we could keep it,' I think he was envisioning these very types of circumstances.

I have tremendous respect for the men and women who answer our country's call to serve in the military, but bad and unconstitutional policies such as these endanger enlisted ranks and civilians alike, making civil conflict, escalation, treason, and tyranny too likely.

-app

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It is distrubing and people even here were cheering this on......you have no rights. bowens43 May 2013 #1
+1000 ! nt snappyturtle May 2013 #26
The article confuses the USC with the CFR: struggle4progress May 2013 #33
Thanks for this useful info, s4p appal_jack May 2013 #34
The link in the article is to US Code as of January 2012. Three things wrong with this: leveymg May 2013 #2
See response #4 appal_jack May 2013 #5
You must have missed this part... Ikonoklast May 2013 #3
Right, because the gov't NEVER oversteps its authority. appal_jack May 2013 #6
Please show one, ONE time in this nation's history that the military arbitrarily decided to Ikonoklast May 2013 #8
Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. n/t appal_jack May 2013 #9
You are correct. Ikonoklast May 2013 #14
Then why do they need this? woo me with science May 2013 #15
There have been emergency plans in place that deal with a catastrophic event such as this since the Ikonoklast May 2013 #16
That's brazenly untrue, that nothing is new. Of course it's something new. woo me with science May 2013 #17
OFFS. The military cannot *grant* itself anything. Ikonoklast May 2013 #18
When you don't have an answer, cry "libertarian." woo me with science May 2013 #19
There have ALWAYS been plans that included the military in case of catastrophe. Ikonoklast May 2013 #22
No, you are absurdly attempting to defend a change woo me with science May 2013 #23
Read up on the history of the COG plans first. Ikonoklast May 2013 #24
Your arguments here should embarrass you, but especially that last gem of a post. woo me with science May 2013 #35
Well, if we get hit by an asteroid cluster... aquart May 2013 #31
Before posting this, I investigated whether it was nuttery or not. I think it's legit. appal_jack May 2013 #4
You're on the right track and thanks for posting. The militarization of the local police function is byeya May 2013 #12
+1 woo me with science May 2013 #20
+1 nt snappyturtle May 2013 #27
The Pentagon issued the regulation pursuant to a federal statute geek tragedy May 2013 #7
The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register 4/12 with effective date of 5/13/13 pinboy3niner May 2013 #10
Here's what appears to be the gist of it. Authorizes local commanders to take action without orders leveymg May 2013 #11
The author of the article is wrong. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #13
I agree that the author's second paragraph is awkward. appal_jack May 2013 #25
another heaven05 May 2013 #21
Succinct and to the point. I think that is exactly what has happened. nt snappyturtle May 2013 #28
At what times in modern history defacto7 May 2013 #29
We shouldn't even have a standing army mwrguy May 2013 #30
I think we can date this back to 1994, at least muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Pentagon Unilaterally Gra...