May 30th, 2014

Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians

This article was originally published at Zero Hedge

While the “use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. As one defense official proclaimed, “this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens.” Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its “quelling civil disturbances” totalitarianism…

As The Washington Times reports,

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. 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,” the directive states.

“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.”

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.

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

There is one silver lining (for now)…

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

And the full Directive is below…


Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

34 Responses to “Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All

  1. 1
    connie Says:

    I support the Oath of the Constitution! LOVE, PEACE AND TRUTH!

  2. 2
    Chris Says:

    There was no need to send in the Military to the Bundy’s.

    The militia’s aggressive behavior towards anyone not inline with their thinking was enough to completely disorganize the unity that once existed.

    Let this be a hard lesson learned for all.

    1. First and foremost The Oath Keepers need a SOP spelling out what we will and will not do when we are mobilized in the future.

    2. Second any other group will needs to understand what we represent and what we will not take part in. And that we do not fall under their direct command nor take orders from them unless arranged to do so.

    3. All involved need to understand that one head can be chopped off easily but many heads are hard to kill.

    4. Before any action is taken in a co-op with different groups, the most important thing is unity with the end in mind. It is important to remain separate yet cohesive. Having a good PR. man out in front before problems arise which I promise they will.

    I just returned from the Bundy’s, and found that the people there are still fighting among themselves, there are a few very good people that keep their mouths shut and serve the effort by there actions.

    When I openly told some that I was an Oath Keeper, most did not care, but a few had bad things to say and made accusations. I could have replied in defense and caused disunity but I decided that at this point my actions would speak louder than any words, and so I went to work trying to help where I could. Sometime a thick skin and honest action will say more than bringing out the obvious facts.

  3. 3
    Charlie BROWN Says:

    Let’s be real for a moment, this will be a war, in war people die. To the military what side are you on an unconstitutional lying commander and chief? Or are you for the Constitution for which you took an oath to protect? Your conscience should be your guide, not your career and not your paycheck. The Republic lies in your decision.

  4. 4
    Stephen Says:

    Thank you Charlie Brown. I owe no allegiance to the scum bag president. I will not let this country down.

  5. 5
    JOHN Says:

    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson

  6. 6
    Jim Says:

    All those involved with the Bundy standoff need to seriously think about what Ben Franklin said “Either we all stand together or we all hang separately”. That incident could have started a civil war in this country if a shot had been fired by either side. If we are to defeat obama, and the scum that would fight for him, then we must stand together with a common goal.

  7. 7
    Ron Stiffler Says:

    I’m confused! Is there a defined breaking point? or is it down to whom ever shoots first? Every day the rate of erosion is increasing, when or how will the end-point be defined? I am an OK member and LOST, what is my guide, just backing the Oath I took?, but how, when and in what way, screw the ballot box.

  8. 8
    Charlie BROWN Says:

    I’m with you Ron the liberal media is pushing for all it is worth to not let a good crisis go to waste, as in Santa Barbera I don’t see how a war can be avoided at this point, but like you I don’t wan’t to start it,yet I don’t want them to get the upper hand either. Pretty confusing. And you military guys I know you can see that your commander and chief does not give a tinkers damn about you, so stand strong and defend the constitution and your contrymenl we are counting on you.

  9. 9
    Cal Says:

    The most important point that many here have forgotten or did not know is that ALL unconstitutional laws, bills, etc are NOT lawful (legal) here, they are “color of law”, pretend laws created by officials by officials but with no lawful authority. Every time one is written and invoked the people involved should be immediately arrested, charged with treason and other criminal and civil offenses.

    “To the military what side are you on an unconstitutional lying commander and chief? Or are you for the Constitution for which you took an oath to protect?”

    they were REQUIRED as part of the contract agreed to when they took the office or position they occupy to take this Oath and keep it, or one similar to it:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Notice that the most words describe exactly what they are to do for the US Constitution before anything else, including following orders of US presidents and/or orders of those above them or the duties of the position or office they will be occupying. Also notice that “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is joined in the same sentence with “and the orders of the officers appointed over me”, that is how low on the priority scale those presidential orders are compared to the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it. Plus that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” is mentioned because it requires ONLY lawful orders to be followed. So as many in the US Military found out before, THEY are held accountable for their actions following orders or not because they are REQUIRED to know what the oath says and MEANS.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.
    This quote might make it clear for many who do NOT understand that we do not give our loyalty to ANY person serving within the government. Those who serve within our governments are there to carry out the duties assigned to the branch in which they occupy a position – they are SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES with assigned duties admittedly expensive one with inflated egos. (caps are mine)


  10. 10
    Cal Says:

    Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

    There is NO LEGAL (lawful) standing army until the Congress declares war. US presidents are Commander in Chief when the Militia is called, and until until the “standing army” can be out together and called forth when and if needed.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNTIED STATES…”

    James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    War can ONLY be declared by the congress. NO standing army until a war is called, the Militia of the several states are the only ones constitutionally assigned those duties. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our counties, states, nation until and unless a war is declared by the congress. It does so here in US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11 (“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”)

    The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.);

    And here in Clause 15 (“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”);

    And again here in Clause 16 (“To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”).

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them…”

    Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

    It flat out says that there is NO STANDING MILITARY – they are forbidden here, allowed for a specified time ONLY unless the congress declares war – in Clause 12 (“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”).

    James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” Madison was not alone in this belief.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars (standing army) may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

    The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148