Topic: U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect

[Pandora]

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

... 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.”

... One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

RTWT.

Oh and the author is wrong about what Article IV of the Constitution authorizes.

[IronDioPriest]

There is a huge constituency of conservatives who practically deify the military. "Our heroes in uniform" will be the very last that such people will ever suspect of malicious intentions, right up until the point when citizens are mowed down. Then it's too late, if it's not already.

[Glock32]

There is a huge constituency of conservatives who practically deify the military. "Our heroes in uniform" will be the very last that such people will ever suspect of malicious intentions, right up until the point when citizens are mowed down. Then it's too late, if it's not already.

Yes. This is a key aspect of the "cultural virus" aspect of the Left. It infects institutions and then repurposes them for its own ends. And mainline conservatives will cheer it on because they are compartmentalized and cannot or will not see what is happening at a higher level. They just have this age old veneration of police and military.

There is a good reason the Founders were against the existence of a standing army. It's how the Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire, the whole crossing of the Rubicon. The whole notion that the military would decide for itself that it has this expanded authority is galling to the extreme, but not even remotely surprising.

This soft tyranny is rapidly making preparations to become a hard tyranny.

[AlanS]

There is a huge constituency of conservatives who practically deify the military. "Our heroes in uniform" will be the very last that such people will ever suspect of malicious intentions, right up until the point when citizens are mowed down. Then it's too late, if it's not already.

Everyone I know justifiably backs the military....until they come into town armed. The worship ends there.

[Libertas]

The Founders would go apesh*t over the very thought!

Oh, and not to make too fine a point on it...there is NO greater civil disturbance in the land than the Obama Regime!  Want to test that new self-appointed authority? There's the best place to start!

Crazy bastards!  Go back and read the Constitution, the Declaration and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers!

You know, we hear the chatter about running this or that op (all in the name of "preparation" and "as a last resort" of course), the rise of SkyNet/Big Brother/Drones et al, the ever encroaching state into all aspects of daily life...then the chatter about FEMA camps...and we are laughed off as nuts...then this shyt comes along!

Who is more nuts, the people seeing the signs and warning people or the people who refuse to see the signs and heed the warnings?

The TCAAP here in town on the north side by the State Highway Patrol entrance has a slew of army vehicles and lots of ground marked off with stakes...is that all about a supposed EPA clean up or something else?  WTF am I to think, given everything else going on?!

No way this ends well...but I guess it was never meant to...