At a recent Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing, those in attendance were shocked to realize that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) would be extended for a few more decades out of necessity.
Currently President Obama could authorize “lethal force” be used on Americans in the US, he meant that Obama was empowered by the AUMF to assign military to patrol American streets as a matter of routine.
In fact, with a revision to the Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies (DSCLEA), the US Military has full authority to police the streets of America without consent from the state or local governments.
Should a “civil disturbance” be declared, “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.”
By broadly defining what a civil disturbance is, and without a statutory chain-of-command stated, individuals in the US Armed Forces could interpret an “emergency” which would facilitate deployment of soldiers into American cities with full legal backing.
AUMF was a collaboration of the Congress and the US Armed Forces to battle against the attacks on 9/11. According to the text, the AUMF empowers the president when “acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad”, threatens national security and foreign policy with “grave acts of violence” then “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts” with the use of military force.
Earlier this year the House of Representatives HR 198 entitled, “Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force” was recently introduced for consideration. The bill is championed by House Representative Barbara Lee and supported by 9 of her peers, including House Representative Walter Jones.
According to the text of the proposal: “Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), signed into law on September 18, 2001, has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.”
Senator Angus King commented at the SASC hearing: “This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today.”
Robert Taylor, acting general counsel for the Department of Defense (DoD) told Senator Lindsey Graham that as long as the terrorist group was associated with al-Qaeda, Obama had the authorization to “put boots on the ground” whether in a foreign country or on American soil.
Graham asked: “Would you agree with me, the battlefield is anywhere the enemy chooses to make it?”
Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations chimed in: “Yes sir, from Boston to FATA [Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas].”
Sheehan explained that should the DoD decide that a group were to become a threat, general criteria on how to handle that group would be applicable regardless of if this were a domestic or foreign operation.
Essentially, al-Qaeda is the definer of whether or not America becomes a battlefield complete with US Military controlling the populace under directives of martial law.
King stated that this interpretation reveals that Obama has been “granted unbelievable powers” and sets “a very dangerous precedent.”
In March the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published a document that criticizes Patriots are a viable threat to the US government and places them in the same category as other right-wing extremists.
The report reads: “Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify.”
Mainstream media is pushing the ideology that patriots, constitutionalists and pro-gun supporters are the biggest and newest danger to our society.
By planting the seed that this alleged increase in membership in anti-government groups will correlate with a period of time similar to that which was demonstrated before the false flag Oklahoma City bombing took place. In a moment’s mention, the mainstream media is now gearing the public to anticipate that a large event will occur and those who will be responsible will be patriots or constitutionalists.
The assertion is that the Constitutional right to form and maintain a militia in America is a threat to the US government. Priming the masses with these ideals creates a sense of aggression toward those who wish to restore our nation to a Constitutional Republic.
Earlier this year, a paper entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right” published by Combating Terrorism Center, a think-tank at the West Point US Military Academy that the “far-right”, “anti-federalist” and groups that support “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government” are dangerous as “racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The paper asserts that Islamic extremists are coercing populations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia to assist them in gaining power with the purpose of over-throwing the US government and its allies.
The document states that these “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”