|
Army 'Strategic Shock' Report Says Troops May Be Needed
To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest
"Purposeful domestic resistance" would require
military to "rapidly determine the parameters defining
the legitimate use of military force inside the United
States."
|
|
|
| Steve
Watson & Paul Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Dec 16,
2008 |
|
|
|
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic
Institute warns that the United States may experience massive
civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed
"strategic shock."
The report, titled Known
Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy
Development, also suggests that the military
may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.
"Widespread civil violence inside the United
States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities
in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,"
the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.
"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction
or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse,
loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic
resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies,
and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to
disruptive domestic shock." it continues.
"An American government and defense establishment
lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would
be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments
in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home..."
"Already predisposed to defer to the primacy
of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and
divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support
and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances
to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities
to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility.
Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of
military force against hostile groups inside the United States."
Lt. Col. Freir concludes.
See Pages
31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security
Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He
joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S.
Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS
he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft
and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent
comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other
notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also
warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for
a "first term crisis" that could act as a catalyst for
such unrest.
"The current administration confronted a game-changing
'strategic shock' inside its first eight months in office,"
the report reads. "The next administration would be well-advised
to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed,
the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely
at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next
watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands
more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic
security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s
militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil
unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000
uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help
state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack
or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,”
reported the Washington
Post last month.
In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom
announced that the first wave of the troop deployment,
which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson
Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling
“civil unrest and crowd control”.
After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in
the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded
that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in
crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.
The increasing militarization
of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional
rule and establish a "military form of government,"
following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as
Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central
Command, alluded to in a November
2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks outlined the scenario by
which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means
the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist,
massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world
– it may be in the United States of America – that
causes our population to question our own Constitution and to
begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of
another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins
to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very
important.”
In the short term, the domestic
deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil
unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed
by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed
a few days ago in a leaked
internal memo from Citibank.
"The world is not going back
to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the
dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed
into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,"
wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
The memo predicts "depression,
civil disorder and possibly wars" as a fallout from an economic
collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to
aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting
from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and
already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of
dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.
The military are primarily trained
to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane
Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people
in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns
from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real
recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.
The open admission that U.S. troops
will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially
using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete
violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act,
which substantially limit the powers of the federal government
to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and
extreme circumstances.
Section 1385 of the Posse
Comitatus Act states, "Whoever, except in cases
and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution
or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the
Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both."
Under the John Warner Defense
Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006,
the law was changed to state, "The President may employ the
armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United
States the President determines hinders the execution of laws
or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection
named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs
the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the
course of justice under those laws."
However, these changes were
repealed in their entirety by HR
4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,
reverting back to the original state of the
Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President
Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel
bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect
Obama will reverse Bush's signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection
Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops
within the United States.
For troops to be deployed, a condition
has to exist that, "(1) So hinders the execution of the laws
of that State, and of the United States within the State, that
any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,
immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured
by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are
unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity,
or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the
execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course
of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause
(1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection
of the laws secured by the Constitution."
Is the incoming Obama administration
and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that
completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the
might of the U.S. Army against the American people?
[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir's Known
Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:
"A whole host of long-standing
defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions
and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on
advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine
the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force
inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of
conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian
security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already
challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated
with doing so on a massive scale at home."
The deployment of National Guard
troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes
is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using
active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America
absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely
illegal.
The political left and right need
to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another
unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of
martial law and the militarization of America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show
For Members
Click here to get your subscription today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
