Obama Orders Military-Police Department Joint Exercises in Los Angeles, Other Cities.

PrintFriendly and PDF

by Ralph Lopez


Photo: Truthout.org

Weeks after Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed suit against President Obama in Federal District Court for egregiously violating the U.S. Constitution by signing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the US military has been conducting joint exercises with city police departments.  An LAPD press release states:

The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great (sic) Los Angeles area.  This will be routine training conducted by military personnel, designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.

NDAA, as the bill signed into law by Obama on New years Eve has come to be called, allows the indefinite military detentions of US citizens without charge or trial.  

CBS blithely noted last Tuesday:

If you notice a heavy military presence around downtown Los Angeles this week, don’t be alarmed — it’s only a drill.

The military deployed a Black Hawk, a helicopter that has served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and four OH-6 helicopters.  According to Truthout.org, at one point they flew just above the US Bank building downtown.

Hedges in an interview with Democracy Now speculated that, since the national security establishment, NSA, FBI and other agencies charged with protecting the country against terrorists actually lobbied against the NDAA, the true impetus for it was the fear among corporate elites of an expanding Occupy Wall Street movement this summer.

Hedges said:

“And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army.”

This month Occupy DC continued to press Congress with the message of getting the influence of money out of politics. Reuters reported on Jan. 17th:

“Demonstrators from the Occupy movement rallied at the Capitol and congressional office buildings on Tuesday to protest against the influence of money on lawmakers….Occupy protesters from around the country who gathered on the Capitol’s rain-soaked lawn carried signs saying, “Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out,” “Congress for sale” and “Banksters of America.””

The influence of money on the political process has been well-researched and documented by citizen watchdog organizations such as MAPLight.org.  In a report relating to the TARP bank bailouts MAPlight.org found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the “Troubled Assets Relief Program,” received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no.  

As Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces Obama must sign off on all deployments and exercises.  This would seem to apply especially to deployments as politically sensitive as those in direct violation of the spirit of Posse Comitatus, the post-Civil War law intended to bar the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.  This is a role for which the National Guard was designed in case of emergencies.


Blackhawk standard armaments, two M240H machine guns.

In his lawsuit against Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, Hedges charges in Count I of the official complaint:

The Homeland Battlefield Bill, §1031(C)(1) authorizes the indefinite detention, imprisonment and incarceration of U.S. citizens and other “covered persons” in the United States, including persons such as Plaintiff, without trial or judicial recourse in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.

Full text of Hedges Complaint as Scribd document HERE.

The congressional drive to pass provisions which allow for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial was accompanied by wording in the bill which Congressman Justin Amash called “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

This Friday, Feb. 3, is the Nationwide NDAA Congressional Protest.  The event’s Facebook page states:

Americans across the country will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540). You will find your protest location by looking to see how your congressmen voted. Look below – under house and senate. There is also a link so you can find the address to your congressman’s local office where your protest will take place.

A number of recall campaigns have begun against congressmen and senators who voted in favor of NDAA, as well as other state-level actions which challenge and seek to nullify the detention of Americans provisions.  In Virginia, legislators in the House of Delegates have filed House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

(Roll call votes: Senate (86 “yes” – 13 “no”)….House (283 “yes” – 136 “no”))


OH-6 “Little Bird” armaments

BBC report on NDAA:

Related posts and blogs:

Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans.

Recall the Traitors at blogspot.com
PROFESSOR J. TURLEY ON THE NDAA (VIDEO)

NDAA language analysis:

Section 1021

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

COMMENT: “Substantial support” of an “associated force” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities. Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience. Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it: “specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces'” — whatever that means. Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don’t know.”

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

COMMENT: “Existing law” is Fourth Circuit in Jose Padilla.

Section 1022 “(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS”:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

COMMENT: Even if US citizens are not “required” to be detained by the military in terrorism cases, it is still “allowed.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS 

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS!
We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you.
Do your part while you can.
•••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you think this article is important, share it: