"Fear Mongers" and the Stabilization Police Force
This is rich: Word that president Obama is telling GOP leader "Stop trying to frighten the American people". But it's as good a starting point as any this morning, since the American people, by my reckoning, have plenty to be frightened about, even though it's hidden and obfuscated by the advertiser-owned MainStreamMedia.
For one thing, the entire global financial system, most admit, is still walking on eggshells and could crack at any time. Then we have Climategate to deal with and despite the hoopla in Copenhagen, the best (ok, devastating) analysis I've read of the jiggered data in contained in Willis Eschenbach's analysis "The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero".
But here's something more worrisome than Climategate or Swine Flu out in the wings. Every so often I get an email that spells out a possible US future in crystal-clear terms - the discussion of which is not fear mongering at all: It's revealing actual planning... but for what? A new kind of police authority is in the works for America.
The document I've been studying is a Rand report called "A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities."
"Discussion of Options
The present chapter omits any discussion of cost, which appears in Chapter Seven. Of the options presented, our analysis suggests that the hybrid Marshals Service option is preferable. With the ability of civilian agencies to significantly enhance their tactical suitability by placing SPF members in those police agencies that excel in their skill area, the Marshals Service could significantly increase its tactical suitability by leveraging placements to the point where it would dominate the other options, with the exception of the variable “Experience in Building Indigenous Capacity.” However, even with respect to this variable, any SPF would build this capability over time. An MP SPF could not achieve the same benefit, without relief from the Posse Comitatus Act. Soldiers could not serve in civilian policing capacity to the same extent, and so could not maximize an MP SPF’s tactical suitability rating through the experience to be gained by the hybrid option. If relief from Posse Comitatus were forthcoming, then the MPs could benefit from the advantages offered by this staffing option as well."
"Relief from the Posse Comitatus Act"? Stabilization Police Force? Stabilizing what? How?
"Recent legislative events On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[3]
Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:
The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[4]
In 2008, these changes were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act
There's a fair amount of discussion in the Rand paper of things like financial disincentives for failing to deploy against fellow citizens and so forth. Chilling stuff to read.
No, there's no detention camps operating yet that I'm aware of, but when they do, it's important to note the discussion of a special "Stabilization Police Force" here in the USA which could be applied against enemies of the State, whatever that definition might include.
In a chicken & egg sense, which comes first? The talk of a paradigm-changing 'revolution' or excessive State response to dissent? Does it all somehow track back to those Constitution-free zones around the national political conventions because they have become so institutionalized that dissent is no longer honored? I can't say; but the opposites of consensus is dangerous to complex societies; those societies where the marginal rate of return on additional hard work falls below zero which one could argue is in danger of happening planet-wide.
---
To what degree is talk of revolutionary change a precursor to its realization or iron-fisted repression? History only provides data; not simple formulas. But the divisions within America between left and right seem to be widening and logically, the more divided a country is, the easier its conquest by those who would argue persuasively for the replacement of its Constitution as somehow 'outdated' and not applicable to what will surely be packaged and sold by the MSM as 'extraordinary times' which will require a 'fresh look'. Kinda like the 'Change' sloganeering.
---
---
Toss into the mix a national leader winning a Nobel Prize while simultaneously committing 30,000 more soldiers to the Afghanistan fray and all I can say to those who charge 'fear mongering' is this: If you're not at least a little fearful based on the under-reported developments going on just under the surface, you don't fully comprehend nor appreciate the scope of the problems and State & PTB responses we're facing as a Nation and as world of humans ......
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
