Just after the election, it was reported by many in the blogsophere, including here at AOR, that Obama was planning to establish a domestic civilian defense force. Some are now suggesting that the groundwork for this civilian army has been laid in a new directive (PDF) issued by the Department of Defense on January 23 (three days after Obama’s Inauguration), replacing a previous directive (PDF) from 1992 regarding use of civilian personnel.
Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05…
Doug Ross points out that the old directive was very specific as to deal with civilian personnel deployed overseas, and mentions the term “overseas” 33 times. The new directive does not mention the word “overseas” a single time. Additionally, the new directive includes objectives for the civilian defense force such as “restoration of order” and “stability operations” as highlighted above.
As I mentioned in my original post on this subject, I am not one that normally buys into conspiracy theories. Yet there is nothing that says that what has happened in other countries around the world couldn’t happen here under the right conditions. What often starts off as well-meaning can easily end up as abuse of power. If Obama is sincere about using a civilian force for civil service, or even for national security, the temptation would be there to use it for other things, which Posse Comitatus envisioned and was enacted to combat. Obviously much more would need to be done before such a force were to be established, but this may lay the groundwork for the establishment of such a force outside the legislative process.
This could very well be nothing, but it is curious that such a dramatic change in regulations occurred so early in the Obama administration after talk in November by Rahm Emmanuel and others about a civilian defense force. We already know that the left wants to stifle the free exchange of ideas and silence the opposition. The queston is, are they serious about instituting a Marxist, civilian, domestic force to be used to restore order and provide stability operations, or is this just a simple rewording of the regulation for overseas use? If so, why remove the word “overseas” from the original language?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Which is why no one has called for one.
You can all go back to sleep now.
Umm Our Armed Forces ARE civilian Volunteers. Only Democrat Presidents in the past 110 years have instituted the draft.
On a personal note any attempt by Obama to impose a civilian security force in this area will be met force for force
Oh, yeah, only Democrat presidents instituted the draft, unless we count Eisenhower to wrap up Korea (draft was still in effect from WWII), for the start of Vietnam in 1954, and saying “instituted” leaves out Nixon and Ford. Saying “in the last 110 years” leaves out Lincoln.
Martin, you note that our military forces are composed of civilians who volunteered, and then you say you’ll oppose “civilian security forces” in your area. Did you mean to imply as you did that you oppose the U.S. armed forces? Or did your brains suddenly shut down, and you accepted the bizarre and false claim that there are plans for a different kind of military inside the U.S.? You almost sounded rational there for a moment.
@Ed Darrell – I SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL READ BILL AYERS SPEECH OF JUNE 18, 1969. YOU CAN FIND IT @ http://WWW.ARCHIVE.ORG ENTITILED: You Don’t Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows
← Previous Comments