For quite a while, Radley Balko has been drawing a line between the militarization of police and the scope and depth of damage done in the name of order. He’s done so in words, and done so in images. As the cops dress up like toy soldiers, and driving around in vehicles meant to withstand the enemy’s assault, it conjures up the notion of an occupied nation. But we know otherwise. This is America, home of the free.
Of course, there is no shortage of people on the internet who see a conspiracy under every rock of the one percent, the power elite, the oligarchy, talking softly about how much they love us while arming their minions to keep us in our place. But these are the crazies, the people wearing digital tin foil hats who fear imaginary conspiracies and cry for revolution at every opportunity. No one pays them any heed.
But what if they weren’t as crazy as we think?
Via Jonathan Turley, it appears that somebody is actually making plans. Just in case, but plans nonetheless.
Most recently, the Marines moved to create a battalion to allow the military to “be capable of helping control civil disturbances, handling detainees, carrying out forensic work, and using biometrics to identify suspects.” Now the Small Wars Journal, a respected publication closely followed in the U.S. military, has published an article entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future” by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It lays out not just the military but the legal basis for military operations to crush domestic insurrections in the United States.
It likely surprises no one that the military has contingent plans for plenty of things that will never happen. After all, better safe than sorry, and if called upon by the Commander in Chief to move out, the guys with stars on their collars would look awfully silly if they were caught empty handed.
But the kicker, as Turley notes, is that it appears that the deeper, more nefarious element of the plan, it’s legal rationale, has already been worked out. Never again will John Yoo have to scramble to justify torture.
The authors write “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” The article takes on a chilling tone, telling its many military personnel readers that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment.”
The authors spend comparatively little time considering the constitutional and legal barriers to the operations. They details how “Federal forces continue to tighten the noose as troops seize and secure power and water stations, radio and TV stations, and hospitals.” Yet, legal limitations are treated as largely irrelevant.
Not quite a thoughtful justification, but the fact that they’ve considered, and dismissed, the question of lawfulness of a military seizure of the United States is chilling indeed. Imagine, if you will, the post-seizure trial of those soldiers who gunned down one hundred American citizens in Darlington explaining, but we were just following orders, and the government told us it was perfectly lawful, and our duty, to seize control and quell the insurrection.
The very existence of such a plan, no less its disclosure, will feed the wildest imaginings of conspiracy theorists. It will also turn those on the edge into believers. It will sell guns and large ammo magazines. It will compel people to restock their shelters with food and water for the seige.
And this plan is rationalized as not disappointing the American people, who just happen to be the nice folks the military is rounding up at the point of a gun for not being sufficiently compliant. And this is a good enough legal justification for the plan?
America is exceptional in the sense that we have a bloodless coup every four years or so, in that the most powerful man in the world hands over the keys to the White House to his mortal enemy because a sufficiently large group of electors tell him to do so. Thus far, no one has refused. Many of us have been less than thrilled with the new guy. Or the old guy. Or the choices. But we sleep at night because we trust that the system, for all its flaws, works better than the alternative.
Knowing that the plans are in place just in case the American public wakes up one day and decides that they aren’t as thrilled with the way things are going as those in power want us to be changes the equation. If Congress doesn’t know about this, they need to. If Congress does, then they need to come clean and explain to the American public why they think we are the enemy. Either way, the mere existence of a plan, and a legal justification, raises the stakes. Maybe we shouldn’t sleep nearly as well at night as we do.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You know, this is not only disturbing from legal point of view. The scenario that is outlined at the beginning describes exactly such semi-spontaneous militia activity that resulted in the break up of the Soviet Union.
During the break up of the Soviet Union, local authorities typically set up militias like the one described in the article. The local authorities, on the other hand, were either subverted (e.g in Baltic states) or, in some cases, extralegally overthrown (e.g in Georgia and Chechenya). Typically, building checkpoints and collecting tolls was one of the first actions.
I find it very distressing that the US military finds it necessary to plan for the break up of the Union. Europe, whether we want it or not, relies on the stability provided by the US. If you would get into a scenario like this, we would be getting serious political turmoil within Europe and on its borders.
“digital tin foil hats”
So how do those work?
Si Ego Certiorem Faciam … Mihi Tu Delendus Eris
Vậy thì, tôi rút lại câu hỏi của tôi.
My own view is that there is not conspiracy–rather, a modus operandi. What’s secret about what”s going on? I recall too at what are called the student uprisings in France leading to the resignation of DeGaulle, that the top French generals told DeGaulle that they would not order troops to fire on French citizens. Different world in the good ol’ USA today, huh?
Therein lies the point. At any moment, the person at the top can declare himself king of the world. Without guns to back it up, it means nothing. Will American soldiers shoot at American civilians? I hope we never get an answer to that question.
“Typically, building checkpoints and collecting tolls was one of the first actions.”
Oh my goodness. It has already started…….in New Jersey.
When LBJ was POTUS there were serious urban riots where the national guard was brought in to help the police. There was a report about what happen and some the outcomes were very bad.
The Armed Services Committees should have these folks explain to them and us what they think they are doing. They are really good at killing people.
They always start with a place where no one will notice.
Kent State. It wasn’t a good thing.
Sir, word is out – aluminum foil headwear is being phased out due to “Cutting Edge” injuries and having devastating effects on disclaimers as its being replaced with 100% cotton hoodies or was it Kevlar boxers.
It’s note worthy to remind folks that here at SJ, we also learned that our own government (a Committee) put bull’s-eyes on “Belligerents” in response to protesting in mass for lengthy periods. May someone have mercy on those that dare to bellege and pity those that do so and are clueless that the vague act has been criminalized.
Imagine leaving a sports event and raising your arms above your head and yelling “who let the dogs out?” or “Yea, we are #1” above 98 decibels only to be arrested or shot with a .50 caliber mounted on a roof top because you reached to pull up your sagging pants or happen to be a serial public crotch scratcher. Thanks.
Note: the Russians have waged war against so called “Hooliganism”.
It was the Kerner Report.
I glanced at the article… forgive me if my point is mistaken and I missed something in the article:
It seems dishonest to vow that this scenario will be limited to insurrections. It seems vastly more likely to me that even a legitimate secession would be labeled an insurrection and they would attempt to put it down.
The idea that secession has to be suppressed, that states have to be kept in the Union at gunpoint, against their will if necessary… I thought we’d outgrown that barbaric, neanderthal sort of mentality. I mean, hell, we’ve gone to war to support individual soveriegnty in Libya, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, among countless others…. and we plan to crush it here in our own country?
If a state votes to leave the Union, let it leave. To do otherwise is to invite the justified wrath of most of the nation, and the world, which would be rightfully shocked and appalled at the hipocrisy of a nation founded on the notion of secession from a mother republic denying its members that right.
*/rage*
As a citizen of South Carolina, I am perhaps more sensitive than someone from another state would be about the subject of suppressing secession. 🙂
You draw a distinction between insurrection and secession that others (like me) find immaterial. Don’t get hung up on your personal issue.
Meh. It’s not entirely immaterial, or at least I don’t think it is. Secession is a process that, barring corruption in the vote, cannot be illegitimate; insurrection is a military process that has some hoops to jump through (Or, rather, some offenses that must be commited by the government against the people) before it becomes a legitimate means of resolving a grievance.
There is the possibility of an armed militia seizing power by force, in absence of attempts by the government to corrupt the vote or stop peaceful protests (which are, to my mind, the things that would legitimize armed resistance), and such a militia might need, if all other attempts at resolving the situation failed, to be ousted by force, if it was large enough.
There is, therefore, something of a need for some preparedness to control an insurrection. But it’s something that should be a last resort, and it’s something that the military should be hestitant about… and if at all possible, should be left to state governments to control, because of how offensive the prospect of the use of force against american citizens- even armed american citizens in an insurrection- is and ought to be.
However, secession- a legal, directed effort by the people to vote themselves out of a given government- should never, ever be suppressed by force of arms; the only question should be if the vote was legitimate and fair.
My apologies if I was unclear before; and I agree that I perhaps let my personal feelings influence me too much on this issue.
First, you don’t get to “meh.” This isn’t your blog.
Second, the problem isn’t the definition of seccession versus insurrection, but that it’s a difference without a distinction for the purpose of this post.
Third, if you want to harp on secession because that’s something that you are personally concerned about, do it elsewhere. Please remember this is my home and reflects my concerns. You are free to write whatever you like. Just not here.
Sorry. I hadn’t intended to offend you with the “meh.” My apologies if there’s a disrespectful implication in there; I hadn’t intended it in that fashion.
I had tried to make the point that it was distinct for the purposes of the article; perhaps let me try to be clearer.
I guess my point is that suppressing an insurrection isn’t something that we should bat an eyelash at, as a nation, barring radical changes in law or circumstance; it would be an entirely normal and natural employment of the federal government’s powers. Only if it begins to suppress speech does the idea of suppressing insurrections begin to become scary; my point being that suppressing secession is a far greater concern, because a secession is far more likely to occur than an insurrection, and because the government is more likely to use force to repress it than it would an insurrection- and it is more of a constitutional, and foundational philosophical conern, than suppressing an insurrection.
American cops seem to be able to do it without much problem.
If only to further the evidence, recently the National Weather Service/NOAA put out a bid for almost 50K rounds of hollow point ammo. [Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules.]
Why do climate researchers need ammo?
Oops, sorry about the link.
A bit more digging and it looks like the ammo is for the Fisheries Law Enforcement arm, which is under NOAA (I thought it was under Fish & Wildlife).