U.S. MILITARY
CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING:
THE WAR AT HOME
By Frank Morales
Under the heading of "civil disturbance
planning", the U.S. military is training troops and police to suppress
democratic opposition in America. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil
Disturbance Plan 55-2, is code-named, "Operation Garden Plot".
Originated in 1968, the "operational plan" has been updated over the
last three decades, most recently in 1991, and was activated during the Los
Angeles "riots" of 1992, and more than likely during the recent
anti-WTO "Battle in Seattle."
Current U.S. military preparations for suppressing
domestic civil disturbance, including the training of National Guard troops and
police, are actually part of a long history of American "internal security"
measures dating back to the first American Revolution. Generally, these
measures have sought to thwart the aims of social justice movements, embodying
the concept that within the civilian body politic lurks an enemy that one day
the military might have to fight, or at least be ordered to fight.
Equipped with flexible "military operations in
urban terrain" and "operations other than war" doctrine, lethal
and "less-than-lethal" high-tech weaponry, US "armed
forces" and "elite" militarized police units are being trained
to eradicate "disorder", "disturbance" and "civil
disobedience" in America. Further, it may very well be that
police/military "civil disturbance" planning is the animating force
and the overarching logic behind the incredible nationwide growth of police
paramilitary units, a growth which coincidentally mirrors rising levels of
police violence directed at the American people, particularly
"non-white" poor and working people.
Military spokespeople, "judge advocates"
(lawyers) and their congressional supporters aggressively take the position
that legal obstacles to military involvement in domestic law enforcement civil
disturbance operations, such as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, have been
nullified. Legislated "exceptions" and private commercialization of
various aspects of U.S. military-law enforcement efforts have supposedly
removed their activities from the legal reach of the "public domain".
Possibly illegal, ostensible "training" scenarios like the recent
"Operation Urban Warrior" no-notice "urban terrain" war
games, which took place in dozens of American cities, are thinly disguised
"civil disturbance suppression" exercises. In addition, President
Clinton recently appointed a "domestic military czar", a sort of
national chief of police. You can bet that he is well versed in Garden Plot
requirements involved in "homeland defense".
Ominously, many assume that the training of military
and police forces to suppress "outlawed" behavior of citizens, along
with the creation of extensive and sophisticated "emergency" social
response networks set to spring into action in the event of "civil
unrest", is prudent and acceptable in a democracy. And yet, does not this
assumption beg the question as to what civil unrest is? One could argue for
example, that civil disturbance is nothing less than democracy in action, a
message to the powers-that-be that the people want change. In this instance
"disturbing behavior" may actually be the exercising of ones' right
to resist oppression. Unfortunately, the American corporate/military
directorship, which has the power to enforce its' definition of
"disorder", sees democracy as a threat and permanent
counter-revolution as a "national security" requirement.
The elite military/corporate sponsors of Garden Plot
have their reasons for civil disturbance contingency planning. Lets' call it
the paranoia of the thief. Their rationale is simple: self-preservation.
Fostering severe and targeted "austerity", massive inequality and
unbridled greed, while shifting more and more billions to the generals and the
rich, the de-regulated "entities of force" and their interlocking
corporate directors know quite well what their policies are engendering,
namely, a growing resistance. Consequently, they are systematically organizing
to protect their interests, their profits, and their criminal conspiracies. To
this end, they are rapidly consolidating an infrastructure of repression
designed to "suppress rebellion" against their "authority".
Or more conveniently put, to suppress "rebellion against the authority of
the United States." And so, as the Pentagon Incorporated increases its
imperialist violence around the world, the chickens have indeed come home to
roost here in America in the form of a national security doctrine obsessed with
domestic "insurgency" and the need to pre-emptively neutralize it.
Its' code-name: "Garden Plot".
Recently, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon
"acknowledged that the Air Force wrongfully started and financed a highly
classified, still-secret project, known as a black program without informing
Congress last year." The costs and nature of these projects "are the
most classified secrets in the Pentagon."(1) Could it be that the current United
States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2 Garden Plot is one such
program financed from this secret budget? We have a right to know. And
following Seattle, we have the need to know.
As this and numerous other documents reveal, U.S.
military training in civil disturbance "suppression", which targets
the American public, is in full operation today. The formulation of
legitimizing doctrine, the training in the "tactics and techniques"
of "civil disturbance suppression", and the use of
"abusable", "non-lethal" weaponry, are ongoing, financed by
tax dollars. According to the Pentagon, "US
forces deployed to assist federal and local authorities during times if civil
disturbance will follow use-of-force policy found in Department of Defense
Civil Disturbance Plan-Garden Plot." (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Standing
Rules of Engagement, Appendix A, 1 October 1994.)
ORIGINS OF OPERATION GARDEN PLOT:
THE KERNER COMMISSION
"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a
slave."
Frederick Douglass,
Rochester, New York is the former home of Frederick
Douglass's, North Star newspaper. In 1964, it erupted in one of the
first large-scale urban outbursts of the decade. Precipitated by white police
violence against the black community, the July uprising lasted several days,
subsiding only after the arrival of 1500 National Guardsmen. In "the fall
of 1964, the FBI, at the direction of President Johnson, began to make riot
control training available to local police departments, and by mid-1967 such
training assistance had been extended to more than 70,000 officials and
civilians."(2)
On July 29, 1967, President Johnson issued Executive
Order 11365, establishing the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.
It is more commonly known as the Kerner Commission, named for it s chair,
former Major General, and then Governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner. The creation
of the commission came hot on the heels of the violence in Detroit, a conflict
which left 43 dead, several hundred wounded and over 5,000 people homeless.
Johnson sent troubleshooter Cyrus Vance, later Secretary of Defense, as his
personal observer to Detroit. The commission issued its final report, completed
in less than a year, on March 1, 1968.
Although the Kerner Commission has over the years
become associated with a somewhat benign, if not benevolent character,
codifying the obvious, "we live in two increasingly separate America
s" etc., the fact is that the commission itself was but one manifestation
of a massive military/police counter-insurgency effort directed against US
citizens, hatched in an era of emergent post-Vietnam "syndrome"
coupled with elite fears of domestic insurrection.While the movement chanted
for peace and revolution, rebellious, angry and destructive urban uprisings
were occurring with alarming frequency, usually the result of the usual spark,
police brutality, white on black crime. The so-called urban riots of 1967-1968
were the zenith, during this period, of social and class conflict. "More
than 160 disorders occurred in some 128 American cities in the first nine
months of 1967."(3)
The executive order establishing the commission
called for an investigation of "the origins of the recent major civil
disorders and the influence, if any, of organizations or individuals dedicated
to the incitement or encouragement of violence."(4) The work of the
commission was funded from President Johnson s "Emergency Fund." The executive order sought recommendations
in three general areas: "short term measures to prevent riots, better
measures to contain riots once they begin, and long term measures to eliminate
riots in the future."(5) Their two immediate aims were "to
control and repress black rioters using almost any available means", (6)
and to assure white America that everything was in hand. Commission members
included Charles B. Thorton, Chairman and CEO, Litton Industries, member of the
Defense Industry Advisory Council to the DoD and the National Security
Industrial Association, John L. Atwood, President and CEO, North American
Rockwell Corporation ("Commission Advisor on Private Enterprise"),
and Herbert Jenkins, Atlanta Chief of Police and President of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.
During the early stages of staff recruitment,
commission Deputy Executive Director Victor H. Palmieri "described the
process as a war strategy"(7) and so he might given the overwhelming
presence within the commission and its consultants of military and police
officials. One quarter of over 200 consultants listed were big-city police
chiefs, like Daryl F. Gates, former chief LAPD. Numerous police organizations,
including the heavily funded Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(financiers of SWAT), guided the commission s deliberations. No less than 30
police departments were represented on or before the commission by their chiefs
or deputy chiefs.
A key player within the commission,
"consultant" Anthony Downs, stated at the time that, "it would
be far cheaper to repress future large-scale urban violence through police and
military action than to pay for effective programs against remaining
poverty." (8) As for the military, twelve generals, representing various
branches of the armed services appeared before the commission or served as
contractors. The commission s "Director of Investigations", Milan C.
Miskovsky, was "on leave as assistant general counsel of the treasury, and
formerly connected to the Central Intelligence Agency."(9)
The Kerner
Commission s "study" of "civil disorder" lead directly to
(civilian) recommendations regarding the role of the military in domestic
affairs.
The report dutifully "commends the Army for the advanced status of its
training." Further, it states that "the Department of the Army should
participate fully in efforts to develop nonlethal weapons and personal
protective equipment appropriate for use in civil disorders." In addition,
"the Army should investigate the possibility of utilizing psychological
techniques to ventilate hostility and lessen tension in riot control, and
incorporate feasible techniques in training the Army and National Guard
units."
THE ARMY AND CIVIL DISORDER
Under the heading, "Army Response To Civil
Disorders", the commission report states that "the commitment of
federal troops to aid state and local forces in controlling a disorder is an
extraordinary act An Army staff task group has recently examined and reviewed a
wide range of topics relating to military operations to control urban
disorders: command and control, logistics, training, planning, doctrine,
personnel, public information, intelligence, and legal aspects." The
results of the Army brass s study was subsequently, "made known to the
National Guard and to top state and local civil and law enforcement officers in
order to stimulate review at the state and local level."(10)
The Army Task Force which assisted the Kerner
Commission issued its own report in early 1968. In it, the Pentagon took a
multi-pronged approach to solving the civil disturbance problem.
"Expanding the suggestion of Cyrus Vance, Military Intelligence working
with the FBI, local, county and state police forces undertook a massive domestic
intelligence gathering operation the Senior Officers Civil Disturbance Course
was instituted at the Military Police Academy in Georgia Security forces
ranging from Army troops to local police were trained to implement their
contingency plans Contingency plans, called planning packets, were prepared for
every city in the country that had a potential for student, minority or labor
unrest."(11)
In addition, "the Army Task Force that had
designed this program took on a new name, the Directorate of Civil Disturbance
Planning and Operations. The Army Task Force transformation into the
Directorate occurred during the massive rioting that broke out in black ghettos
of 19 cities after the assassination of Martin Luther King in April
1968."(12) At that time "seven army infantry brigades, totaling
21,000 troops were available for riot duty. And a hugh, sophisticated computer
center kept track of all public outbursts of political dissent, thereby
furnishing the first of the Army Task Force s prescribed remedies: intelligence."(13)
By June of 1968, the Directorate had become the
Directorate of Military Support, setting up shop in the basement of the
Pentagon. "Better known as the domestic war room, the Directorate had 150
officials to carry out around-the-clock monitoring of civil disorders, as well
as to oversee federal troop deployments when necessary. At the cost of $2.7
million, this massive directorate also developed policy advice for the
secretary of the Army on all disturbances and maintained intelligence packets on
all major U.S. cities."(14)
Even though the full extent of US military
intelligence activities during this period is far from generally known, "by 1968, many Justice Department
personnel knew that the military was preparing to move in massively if needed
to quash urban riots, and some officials feared the development of a large
national military riot force. It was well known among top officials that the
Department of Defense was spending far more funds than the Justice Department
on civil disorder preparations indicative of the growing trend at the
federal level toward repression and control of the urban black
rioters."(15)
By 1971, Senator Sam Ervin, later of Watergate
reknown, had convened his Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights which
"revealed that Military Intelligence had established an intricate
surveillance system covering hundreds of thousands of American citizens.
Committee staff members had seen a master plan - Garden Plot that gave an eagle
eye view of the Army-National Guard-police strategy."(16) "At first,
the Garden Plot exercises focused primarily on racial conflict. But beginning
in 1970, the scenarios took a different twist. The joint teams, made up of
cops, soldiers and spies, began practicing battle with large groups of protesters.
California, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, was among the most
enthusiastic participants in Garden Plot war games."(17)
As time went on, "Garden Plot evolved into a
series of annual training exercises based on contingency plans to undercut
riots and demonstrations, ultimately developed for every major city in the
United States. Participants in the exercises included key officials from all
law enforcement agencies in the nation, as well as the National Guard, the
military, and representatives of the intelligence community According to the
plan, joint teams would react to a variety of scenarios based on information
gathered through political espionage and informants. The object was to quell
urban unrest "(18)
Unrest of a different sort took place on the evening
of February 27th 1973. At that time, a group of Native Americans
occupied a trading post in the village of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge
Reservation in South Dakota. By the 2nd of March the takeover had
"triggered the army contingency plan for domestic disturbances. Emergency
Plans White now coded as Garden Plot brought the Army into South Dakota Three
army colonels, disguised as civilians, and reconnaissance planes
assisted", while "the Justice Department used the army to conduct intelligence
for civilian law enforcement around Wounded Knee."(19) Information on
other instances in which Garden Plot was "triggered" over the
intervening years is presently locked in Pentagon vaults.
In essence, the contemporary roots of militarized
efforts to suppress domestic rebellion lie in the US Army s master plan, Department
of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot. Since at least 1968,
the military has expended billions of dollars in this effort. The plan is
operative right now, most recently during and after the Los Angeles uprising of
1992. A view into details of this plan is possible by way of an examination of United
States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot which is the
"implementing" and "supporting plan for the Department of the
Army (DA) Civil Disturbance Plan - GARDEN PLOT dated 1 March 1984 (which)
provides for the employment of USAF forces in civil disturbances." It is
specifically drawn up "to support the Secretary of the Army, as DOD
Executive Agent for civil disturbance control operations (nicknamed GARDEN
PLOT), with airlift and logistical support, in assisting civil authorities in
the restoration of law and order through appropriate military commanders in the
50 States, District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and US
possessions and territories, or any political subdivision thereof." The
plan "is effective for planning on receipt and for execution on
order."(20)
U.S. AIR FORCE 55-2 - GARDEN PLOT
"The long title of the plan is United States
Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Employment of USAF Forces in Civil
Disturbances. The short title of this document is USAF Civil Disturbance Plan
55-2. The nickname assigned by Department of the Army is GARDEN PLOT."
It's dated July 11, 1984.
The plan opens with some basic
"assumptions", namely that "civil disturbances requiring
intervention with military forces may occur simultaneously in any of the 50
States, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, US possessions and
territories." And like the current situation in Vieques, Puerto Rico,
"civil disturbances will normally develop over a period of time." In
the event it evolves into a confrontational situation, under Garden Plot, it is
a "presidential executive order" that "will authorize and direct
the Secretary of Defense to use the Armed Forces of the United States to
restore law and order."
According to the Air Force plan, the military will
attempt "to suppress rebellion whenever the President considers that
unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the
authority of the United States, make it impractical to enforce the laws of the
United States in any state or territory by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings (10 USC 332)". Applying its own version of equal protection
under the law, the military can intervene "when insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in a state so hinder or
obstruct the execution of the laws as to deprive individuals of their
Constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities or when the insurrection
impedes the due course of justice, and only when the constituted authorities of
the state are unable, fail or refuse to protect that right, privilege,
immunity, or to give that protection (10 USC 333)." In other words, the
Army makes an offer of "protection" that the citizenry can t refuse.
T.Alden Williams, in a sympathetic 1969 treatment of
the Army in civil disturbances, put it this way: "Where officials have not
shown determination, or have invited violence by predicting it, violence has
developed. Hence, it follows that with few exceptions, serious riots are
evidence of police failure and that, implicitly, it is at the point of police
failure that states and their cities redeem their national constitutional guarantees
and the Regular Army may be asked to intervene."(21) Some redemption.
According to the Air Force plan's
"Classification Guidance", the roughly 200 page document "is
UNCLASSIFIED and does not come within the scope of direction governing the
protection of information affecting national security. Although it is UNCLASSIFIED, it is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY as directed by
AFR 12-30. This plan contains information that is of internal use to DOD and,
through disclosure, would tend to allow persons to violate the law or hinder
enforcement of the law." Consequently, the plan s "operations
orders and operating procedures must be designed to provide the highest degree
of security possible." Therefore "the entire staff should identify
known or suspected opposition awareness of previous operations and operations
plans", while "procedures should be designed to eliminate the suspect
sources to the degree possible." And "in the event of organized
opposition some sort of advisory intelligence gathering capability should be assumed."
The Air Force document warns, under the heading of "Open Literature Threat", presaging current military discourse on "info-war", that "any information/document, though seemingly unclassified, which reveals information concerning this Plan is a threat to OPSEC (operational security)" This is especially true given the nature of the "Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Threat." Recognizing that, "prior to and during sustained military operations in Support of the Plan, the potential HUMINT threat could be considerable", the plan recommends that "every effort should be made to reduce vulnerability to this threat by adhering to OPSEC procedures and safeguarding Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI)."
Under "Operations to be Conducted:
Deployment", the Air Force plan states that "a civil disturbance
condition (CIDCON) system which has been established to provide an orderly and
timely increase in preparedness for designated forces to deploy for civil
disturbances control operations, will be on an as required basis for USAF
resources for such operations as aerial resupply, aerial reconnaisance, airborn
psychological operations, command and control communications systems,
aeromedical evacuation, helicopter and weather support." The Air Force
does have some experience in this area. "In response to the US invasion of
Cambodia, student unrest broke out. Under Operation Garden Plot, from 30 April
through May 4, 1970, 9th Air Force airlift units transported civil
disturbance control forces from Ft. Bragg to various locations throughout the
eastern US."(22) In fact, two years earlier, "Air Force Reserve C-119
and C-124 units participated in Garden Plot operations set up to quell domestic
strife that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King."(23)
Although the section on "Counterintelligence
Targets and Requirements" is "omitted", the plan does specify
its targets, namely, those "disruptive elements, extremists or dissidents
perpetrating civil disorder." A "civil disturbance" is defined
as a "riot, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or
assemblages, or other disorders prejudicial to public law and order. The term
civil disturbance includes all domestic conditions requiring the use of federal
armed forces pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15, Title 10, United States
Code." Conditions precipitating Garden Plot activation are "those
that threaten to reach or have reached such proportions that civil authorities
cannot or will not maintain public order." As for legal authority,
"the Constitution of the United States and numerous statutes provide the
President with the authority to commit Federal military forces within the
United States DOD Directive 3025.12 provides guidance in committing Federal
armed forces."
FORCE STRUCTURE
The "application of forces should be in the
following order: local and state police, Army and (in support role) Air
National Guard under State control, Federal civil law enforcement officials,
federal military forces to include Army and (in support role) Air National
Guard." According to the plan, "State Adjutants General prepare civil
disturbance plans for the employment of National Guard units under state
control." Specifically, "as a general rule for planning purposes, the
minimum forces to be supported in any single objective area is 5,000. The
maximum to be supported is 12,000 for any objective area other than Washington,
DC and 18,000 for Washington, DC." The "objective areas" are
"those specified by the Presidential Proclamation and Executive Order in
which the Secretary of Defense has been directed to restore law and
order", and as "further defined by the Letter of Instruction issued
to Task Force Commanders by the Chief of Staff, US Army."
In order to avoid the unseemly implications of
"martial law", "requirements for the commitment of Federal
military forces will not result in the declaration of a National
Emergency". In this regard, the "Public Affairs Objectives"
include the development of "procedures for the public release of appropriate
information regarding civil disturbance control operations." Media and
other queries "concerning employment of control forces may be locally
answered by an interim statement that the: Department of Defense policy is not
to comment on plans concerning the possible employment of military units and
resources to carry out assigned missions."
Concerning
"Force Requirements", the plan states that, "US Army and Marine
Corps units designated for civil disturbance operations will be trained,
equipped and maintained in readiness for rapid deployment, (with) ten brigades,
prepared for rapid deployment anywhere in CONUS. A Quick Reaction Force (QRF)
will be considered to be on a 24 hour alert status and capable of attaining a
CIDCON 4 status in 12 hours " Upon receipt of orders, "the Task Force
Commander assumes operational control of the military ground forces assigned
for employment in the objective area", including "specials operations
assets." In case the soldiers are unfamiliar with "urban
terrain", the "Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center provides map
services in support of civil disturbance planning and operations."
The "Summary of the Counterintelligence and
Security Situation" states that "spontaneous civil disturbances which
involve large numbers of persons and/or which continue for a considerable
period of time, may exceed the capacity of local civil law enforcement agencies
to suppress. Although this type of activity can arise without warning as a
result of sudden, unanticipated popular unrest (past riots in such cities as
Miami, Detroit and Los Angeles serve as examples) it may also result from more
prolonged dissidence." USAF Garden Plot advises that "if military
forces are called upon to restore order, they must expect to have only limited
information available regarding the perpetrators, their motives, capabilities,
and intentions. On the other hand, such events which occur as part of a
prolonged series of dissident acts will usually permit the advance collection
of that type of information "
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC), "provides training programs and doctrine for civil disturbance
operations to military services." The US Army Force Command (FORSCOM),
"organizes, trains, and maintains in readiness Army forces for civil
disturbance operations", while the Director of Military Support (DOMS),
"conducts, on a no-notice basis, exercises which direct headquarters of
uniformed services, appropriate CONUS command, and other DOD components, having
GARDEN PLOT responsibilities to assume a simulated increased preparedness for
specified forces." In addition, the DOMS, "maintains an
around-the-clock civil disturbance command center to monitor incipient and
on-going disturbances."
The document, the United States Air Force s
"implementing plan" for the US Army s Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2,
Garden Plot, goes on to detail every aspect of military "suppression"
of "rebellion against the authority of the United States", including
who pays, who bills and how to secure "loans" to cover the costs
"attributable to GARDEN PLOT." Ominously,
under "Resources Employed Without Presidential Directive", the
document states that when the "immediate employment of military resources
is required in cases of sudden and unexpected civil disturbances or other
emergencies endangering life or federal property, or disrupting the normal
processes of Government, expenses incurred will be financed as a mission
responsibility of the DOD component employing the military resources."
PENTAGON DIRECTIVES
Department of Defense Directive 3025.12, Military
Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS) became effective on February 4, 1994
when signed by then Defense Secretary William Perry. It states that, "the
President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to suppress
insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and
circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government and the
Department of Defense for civil disturbances are important, do to the potential
severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the
population." Further, "the Secretary of the Army, as DoD Executive
Agent, shall provide guidance to the other DoD Components, through DoD
3025.12-R, the DoD Civil Disturbance Plan (GARDEN PLOT), or both, in accordance
with this Directive".
DoDD 3025.12 makes it clear that "MACDIS
operations are unprogrammed emergency requirements for the Department of
Defense", and that in order to "ensure essential control and sound
management of all military forces employed in MACDIS operations, centralized
direction from the DoD Executive Agent (the Army) shall guide planning by the
DoD component." Thus, "MACDIS missions shall be decentralized through
the DoD Planning Agents or other Joint Task Force Commanders only when
specifically directed by the DoD Executive Agent."
According to the directive, the "Army and Air
National Guard forces have primary responsibility for providing military
assistance to state and local governments in civil disturbances."
Accordingly, "the Army National Guard State Area Commands (STARCs) shall
plan for contingency use of non-Federalized National Guard forces for civil
disturbance operations." The directive further outlines policy,
guidelines, and legal justification for "military assistance for civil
disturbances", including policy regarding domestic law enforcement,
designating the Army as "the principle point of contact between the
Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) for planning
and executing MACDIS." (24)
The militarization of domestic "law
enforcement" is founded, in part, upon Department of Defense Directive
5525.5, DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, dated
January 15, 1986, five years after Congressional "drug warriors"
passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act.
Referencing the 1971 version of DODD 3025.12 (above), the directive states
that, "it is DoD policy to cooperate with civilian law enforcement
officials to the extent practical consistent with the needs of national
security and military preparedness." In addition, "the Military
Departments and Defense Agencies may provide training to Federal, State, and
local civilian law enforcement officials."
Apparently, military Judge Advocates (lawyers) have
no problem with the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, (18 U.S.C.1385) which states
that: "Whoever, except in cases and
under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse
comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than two years or both." Nor is there much
concern shown for "the historic tradition of limiting direct military
involvement in civilian law enforcement activities." For even though the
Act is cited within the directive as "the primary restriction on military
participation in civilian law enforcement activities", it is rendered null
and void in deference to "actions that are taken for the primary purpose
of furthering a military or foreign affairs function." In fact,
"under guidance established by the Secretaries of the Military Departments
and the Directors of the Defense Agencies concerned, the planning and execution
of compatible military training and operations may take into account the needs
of civilian law enforcement officials for information when the collection of
the information is an incidental aspect of training performed for a military
purpose." (25)
ARMY FIELD MANUAL
United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil
Disturbances, dated November 1985, is designed to provide hands-on
"guidance for the commander and his staff in preparing for and providing
assistance to civil authorities in civil disturbance control operations."
The Army manual opens by noting that, "the DA Civil Disturbance Plan,
known as Garden Plot, provides guidance to all DOD components in planning civil
disturbance missions." Its' thirteen chapters cover, in depth, every
aspect of military "tasks and techniques employed to control civil
disturbances and neutralize special threats." Subjects include the nature
of civil disturbances, participants ("the crowd"), federal
intervention, information planning ("intelligence"), control force
operations, crowd control operations, threat analysis ("criminal
activists"), about which "law enforcement sources can provide useful
information", riot control agents, extreme force options, apprehension,
detention, and training.
According to the Army manual, "civil
disturbances in any form are prejudicial to public law and order." They
"arise from acts of civil disobedience", and "occur most often
when participants in mass acts of civil disobedience become antagonistic toward
authority, and authorities must struggle to wrest the initiative from an unruly
crowd." They are caused by "political grievances" and
"urban economic conflicts", or maybe even by "agents of foreign
nations", but mostly, "urban conflicts and community unrest arise
from highly emotional social and economic issues." And in a statement that resonates with the "benign neglect"
of some years ago, the manual points out that disturbances may arise because
"economically deprived inner-city residents may perceive themselves
treated unjustly or ignored by the people in power."
Utilizing Garden Plot language, the manual states
that "the president can employ armed federal troops to suppress
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful assemblies, and conspiracy if such
acts deprive the people of their constitutional rights and a state s civil authorities
cannot or will not provide adequate protection." Never mind the Congress
or Constitution, "federal intervention in civil disturbances begins with
the issuance of a presidential proclamation to the citizens engaged in the
disturbance." In other words, the President reads "the riot act"
and "a control force" is sent in to "isolate the disturbance
area." The goal is to "isolate the people creating the disturbance
from those who have not yet become actively involved."
According to FM 19-15, the Army can gather
intelligence on civilians if their "activities can be linked directly to a
distinct threat of a civil disturbance that may involve federal forces."
This is especially important, given that "during civil disturbances many
people engage in unlawful behavior." Therefore, "when at all
possible, civil law enforcement agents are integrated with the military control
force team making apprehensions", and "if police are not available,
military personnel may search people incident to an apprehension." Useful
measures for "isolating an area include barriers, patrols, pass and ID
systems, and control of public utilities." Also, "imposing a curfew
is a highly effective control measure in many civil disturbances." Army
"saturation patrols", "integrated with civil police
patrols", blanket the area, creating "the psychological impression of
the control force being everywhere at once."
The Army field manual points out that when
"control forces" resort to "forceful measures" they can
turn to a host of weaponry, including "the M234, which is a nondeadly
force measure, to the machine gun, which is the most deadly force
measure." The manual states that "machine guns, 7.62 millimeter and
below, may accompany units on civil disturbance missions." In addition,
the "control forces" can utilize the M234 launcher, which is "a
riot control weapon" mounted on an M16 rifle which "fires a
projectile that causes pain on impact." In addition, "the riot
shotgun is an extremely versatile weapon. Its appearance and capability have a
strong psychological effect on rioters."
MARTIAL RULE
The concept of martial rule, as distinct from
martial law, is not written, and therefore is an eminently more workable
arrangement for "law enforcement forces". That s because, as FM 19-15
points out, "martial rule is based on public necessity. Public necessity
in this sense means public safety." According to the manual, U.S. state
authorities "may take such action within their own jurisdictions."
And yet, "whether or not martial rule has been proclaimed, commanders must
weigh each proposed action against the threat to public order and safety. If
the need for martial rule arises, the military commander at the scene must so
inform the Army Chief of Staff and await instructions. If martial rule is imposed,
the civilian population must be informed of the restrictions and rules of
conduct that the military can enforce." Realizing the power of free speech, the manual suggests that
"during a civil disturbance, it may be advisable to prevent people from
assembling. Civil law can make it unlawful for people to meet to plan an act of
violence, rioting, or civil disturbance. Prohibitions on assembly may forbid
gatherings at any place and time." And don t forget, "making hostile
or inflammatory speeches advocating the overthrow of the lawful government and
threats against public officials, if it endangered public safety, could violate
such law."
During civil disturbance operations,
"authorities must be prepared to detain large numbers of people",
forcing them into existing, though expanded "detention facilities."
Cautioning that "if there are more detainees than civil detention
facilities can handle, civil authorities may ask the control forces to set up
and operate temporary facilities." Pending the approval of the Army Chief
of Staff, the military can detain and jail citizens en masse. "The
temporary facilities are set up on the nearest military installation or on
suitable property under federal control." These "temporary
facilities" are "supervised and controlled by MP officers and NCOs
trained and experienced in Army correctional operations. Guards and support
personnel under direct supervision and control of MP officers and NCOs need not
be trained or experienced in Army correctional operations. But they must be
specifically instructed and closely supervised in the proper use of
force."
According to the Army, the detention facilities are
situated near to the "disturbance area", but far enough away
"not to be endangered by riotous acts." Given the large numbers of
potential detainees, the logistics (holding, searching, processing areas) of
such an undertaking, new construction of such facilities "may be needed to
provide the segregation for ensuring effective control and
administration." It must be designed and "organized for a smooth flow
of traffic", while a medical "treatment area" would be utilized
as a "separate holding area for injured detainees." After a
"detainee is logged in and searched", "a file is initiated",
and a "case number" identifies the prisoner. In addition,
"facility personnel also may use hospital ID tags. Using indelible ink,
they write the case number and attach the tag to the detainees wrist. Different
colors may be used to identify different offender classifications " Finally,
if and when it should occur, "release procedures must be coordinated with
civil authorities and appropriate legal counsel." If the "detainee" should produce a writ of habeas corpus
issued by a state court, thereby demanding ones day in court, the Army will
"respectfully reply that the prisoner is being held by authority of the
United States."
Training under FM 19-15/Garden Plot must be
"continuous" and must "develop personnel who are able to perform
distasteful and dangerous duties with discipline and objectivity."
Dangerous to the local citizenry given that "every member of the control
force must be trained to use his weapon and special equipment (including) riot
batons, riot control agent dispersers and CS grenades, grenade launchers,
shotguns, sniper rifles, cameras, portable videotape recorders, portable public
address systems, night illumination devices, firefighting apparatus, grappling
hooks, ladders, ropes, bulldozers, Army aircraft, armored personnel carriers,
and roadblock and barricade materials." Sounding a lot like recent Urban
Warrior war-games, the manual makes note that although unit training must
address "the sensitivity and high visibility of civil disturbance
operations", the "unit training must be realistic." In this
regard, "the unit commander should try to include local government
officials in field training exercises. The officials can be either witnesses or
participants. But care must be taken to prevent adverse psychological effects
on the local populace, especially if tension is high."(26)
Sources:
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.