Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama's plan to use the military against citizens - Washington Times

Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama's plan to use the military against citizens - Washington Times





Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama's plan to use the military against citizens - Washington Times


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.

PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets

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.