Once Upon a Time in Amerika

Have you heard of Pentagon Directive No. 3025-18? Maybe you know it as the Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) directive issued on December 10, 2010. It contains information outlining how U.S. “military 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...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..."

So, as it is understood by all, the U.S. military is not to be used against U.S. citizens, i.e., fellow Americans, except when specifically authorized by the President of the United States and in accordance with the law. …but, if Federal military commanders find themselves in circumstances that they believe warrant military intervention and they are unable to get prior authorization from the President, well…

Exactly what is a “large-scale, unexpected civil disturbance” and who gets to make the call at that point? And there-in lies the rub.

Consider the following…

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (that is, the job of securing to the governed the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them (i.e., the People) shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Remember that from school? It's called the Declaration of Independence. (Parenthetical comments are mine.)

So, is a general uprising, the kind hinted at…no, make that “specified,” in the Declaration of Independence, considered the kind of “unexpected civil disturbance” delineated in Directive No. 3025.18? Which is it, then? Do we have the right to change out, i.e., alter or abolish, bad government for a government that better suits our needs or are we restricted from doing so under pain of force when our so-called leaders sic the military on the American people?

The “Posse Comitatus Act” was passed into law on June 18, 1878 and updated in 1981. The Act was instituted with the intent of limiting the powers of the Federal Government in using federal military personnel to enforce state laws.

Now, one might ask why the following agencies each require its own internal SWAT force: 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.

While what I have addressed, thus far, is with particular reference to the possible use of federal troops against U.S. citizens, there is another side to this issue and that is the fact that the federal government is now in the business of militarizing our local civil law enforcement agencies and/or our local agencies are taking it upon themselves to do such.

Interestingly, as I was thinking on this topic, the following appeared yesterday on my news radar: “Andy Griffith Goes Full Robocop” by Mark Steyn. Mr. Steyn happened upon a story in the American Spectator titled “Homeland Security in Haverford,” written by a local resident, Reid Smith. Oddly enough, Mr. Smith references a story in the Haverford-Havertown Patch.

Haverford-Havertown Patch editor, Alison Smith, wrote a glowing piece about Delco’s ‘new “SWAT ONE” crimefighting vehicle – a 2014 Lenco “BearCat” ballistic engineered, armored-response vehicle, purchased with Homeland Security grants under FEMA’s Urban Area Security Initiative program.’

Neither Mr. Reid Smith, Mr. Mark Steyn, nor I are as impressed and excited as Ms. Alison Smith appears to be. The two comments at the end of Ms. Smith’s article are instructive, as well, of how locals feel about the situation. The responses are not much different than those generated by the GT Patch article on the purchase of our BearCat.

Maybe you’ve read lately of what seems to be an alarming number of lock-downs and emergency issues occurring in town. I wonder just how long before a simple argument between two neighbors will result in a call out of our BearCat and GT-SWAT. My concern is that as our police militarize we stand more and more of a chance of an incident getting out of hand. Unfortunately, any physical contact of an officer of the law by you constitutes, at minimum, harassment and could very easily escalate to resisting arrest, assault, or worse. In other words, if a police officer places his/her hand on your arm to get your attention and you push it off to pull away, that is a violation of the law and all bets are off at that point.

Here’s how Will Grigg puts it: Police are trained to believe that they put their lives at risk  in every encounter with a citizen, and to regard any gesture of non-compliance as an immediate and impermissible risk to that most sacred of all considerations, “officer safety.”

Let’s be careful out there, people, it’s a jungle.