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)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 governments 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, Its quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.
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, Its 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
Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances' [View all]
appal_jack
May 2013
OP
It is distrubing and people even here were cheering this on......you have no rights.
bowens43
May 2013
#1
The link in the article is to US Code as of January 2012. Three things wrong with this:
leveymg
May 2013
#2
Please show one, ONE time in this nation's history that the military arbitrarily decided to
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#8
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
There have ALWAYS been plans that included the military in case of catastrophe.
Ikonoklast
May 2013
#22
Your arguments here should embarrass you, but especially that last gem of a post.
woo me with science
May 2013
#35
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
The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register 4/12 with effective date of 5/13/13
pinboy3niner
May 2013
#10