Last week, the
Washington Times mentioned the fact that the
Obama administration seriously considered using military force against
Cliven Bundy and his supporters during their standoff back in April. This should come as no surprise after we reported that there was word that the Defense Department had
approved a drone strike.
Apparently, the Obama administration considered a strike on protesters, exercising their
First Amendment rights, which ironically, are supposed to be protected by the same administration under the US Constitution.
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 Times also said the consideration was based on
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” which was issued on December 29, 2010 and signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary
William J. Lynn.
The revelation came up during as the Times discussed the fact that 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.”
The directive reads in part, “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.”
“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.
However, the issue is that it is the duty of the
militia to deal with these issues, under the direction of Congress, not the
Executive Branch and certainly not the US military. According to
Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 15:
“The Congress shall have Power To …provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions….”
Yet, the fact that this was even considered or brought up as a possible scenario is frightening. No violence occurred by the members of the Bundy family nor any of their supporters, but there was plenty of violence from federal agents and clearly a show of force from them,
including snipers and
scores of agents with tasers and
fully automatic weapons. And for what?
No violent crime had occurred. People simply were exercising their right to free speech, something the federal government was created to protect, not encroach upon.
Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost.
You folks remember these rumors, I do. maybe more to it than we thought back in 2014. I remember Oathkeepers warning those on the ground. just in case. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/breaking-eric-holder...
BREAKING: Eric Holder ORDERS DRONE STRIKE ON BUNDY RANCH
Rumors are floating about suggesting that Attorney General Eric Holder has officially given the O.K. for a drone strike on the Bundy ranch. Although any such action has yet to occur, a source within the Department of Defense felt obligated to come forward as he expresses the legitimacy in such concerns.
The information comes from John Jacob Schmidt of
Radio Free Redoubt, who says he was able to obtain information from a source that reports to the Oath Keepers. According to the report, Holder has given the go ahead on a, “hot drone strike,” that would certainly wipe out anyone and everyone in the immediate area.
Schmidt also explained in his report that no such action has thus far been made and expressed his hope that the government could come to some other form of resolution.
The national administrator of Oath Keepers, Leslie Bishop Paul, also wrote on his Facebook wall that the claims, “may, or may not,” be true, but expressed his optimism that, “sunlight,” would bring about another solution.
“Pray it isn’t true and pray it never happens,” Paul concluded.
The Liberty Beacon recently released a blog on the matter saying that the government is treating the Bundy situation like that of a schoolyard bomb threat. They go on to suggest that such an act of aggression would certainly, “be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back,” and would effectively trigger a revolution.
They further speculate that there may be manipulative means behind the threat saying that violence isn’t actually their intention. Instead, the Beacon suggests that the government is hoping to instigate violence from the militia guarding the property which, in turn, would allow for the government to enact martial law.
According to the blog, “So is this disinformation to get the boots on the ground to evacuate the scene so that BLM people can move in Waco style, or is it absolute bull to have us put out false info and destroy our credibility.”
Adding to the credibility of such an explanation, the founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes explained that it is entirely likely that the government would use the claims in a sort of a disinformation campaign. He further noted that, “The person who reportedly gave the information, he said, believes what he heard,” according to the Examiner.
Rhodes went on to explain that his source mentioned that Holder felt justified in his decision after being inadvertently backed by Reid’s claims where he labeled Bundy supporters as, “domestic terrorists.”
Mr. Conservative was not able to independently validate any such claims.
Adding further confusion to the claims, Schmidt conveyed, “Personally, I call “BS” on this supposed source. The story screams ‘set up’ and ‘operation whack-a-mole’. I understand this administration already thinks it can legally kill someone, without a trial, and their lemmings have referred to the patriots as “domestic terrorists,” but I believe someone (possibly in the Obama Administration), like a school kid, pulled the school fire alarm just to see what would happen.”
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (
Click for details).
Contributed by Secrets of the Fed of Secretsofthefed.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment