----- Original Message -----
From: "American Patriot Friends Network" <apfn@...>
To: "American Patriot Friends Network" <apfn@...>
Cc: <info@...>
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject: U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME


From: "Joe Burton" <rmbrwaco@...> rmbrwaco@...

For those who may still think this is not real, see below !
joe 6pk Amer I CAN
5 August 2000.

Thanks to Frank Morales.

An edited version of this article currently appears in CovertAction
Quarterly, #69 Spring/Summer 2000.

CovertAction Quarterly
http://www.covertaction.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

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 renown, 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:

New York Times, "Pentagon Misused Millions in Funds, House Panel Says",
July 22, 1999, pg. A-1. See also, on the subject of "unacknowledged
Special Access Programs" wherein "the USAF's $7.4 billion budget for
classified procurement is more than a third of the service's total budget",
Bill Sweetman, "In search of the Pentagon's billion dollar hidden budgets -
how the US keeps its R&D spending under wraps", International Defense
Review, Jane's Defense Weekly, January 2000
www.janes.com/defence/editors/pentagon.html James W. Button, Black
Violence, The Political Impact of the 1960 s Riots, Princeton University
Press, 1078, pg. 116.

Button, pg.121. Also, see, Cyrus R.Vance, Final Report of Cyrus R.Vance,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Concerning the Detroit
Riots, July 23 Through August 2, 1967.

Michael Lipsky and David J. Olson, Commission Politics: The Processing of
Racial Crisis in America, Transaction Books, 1971, pg. 161. The Executive
Order is reprinted in US Riot Commission Report, Bantam Books, 1968, pgs.
534-535.
Lipsky and Olson, pg. 163, citing pg. 198 of a transcription of Lyndon
B. Johnson, "Statement by the President", July 29, 1967.
Button, pg. 107.
Lipsky and Olson, pg. 165.
Anthony Downs, Opening Up the Suburbs: An Urban Strategy for America, Yale
University Press, 1973, pg. 176.
Downs, a leading "housing expert", believed that the key to effective urban
based counter-insurgency was the notion of "spatial deconcentration", or
the "adequate outmigration of the poor" from the cities. Downs wrote
Chapters 16 and 17 of the Kerner Report which deal with "housing". He is
the leading exponent of "deliberate dispersal policies" designed to
"disperse the urban poor more effectively". The origins of "homelessness"
(state repression) lie here.
Lipsky and Olson, pg. 168.
Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Washington,
DC, March 1, 1968, pgs. 279-281.
Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lubow, "Bringing the War Home", New Times
Magazine, 1975, pg. 20.
Ridenhour and Lubow, pg. 20.
Button, pg. 133.
Ridenhour and Lubow, pg. 18.
Donald Goldberg and Indy Badhwar, "Blueprint for Tyranny", Penthouse
Magazine, August 1985, pg.72.

Goldberg and Badhwar, pg.72.

Joan M. Jensen, Army Surveillance in America, 1775-1980, Yale University
Press, 1991, pgs. 257-258. This excellent historical account actually
does what it says, tracing American "internal security measures" right back
to the "founders".

United States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot,
Headquarters, United States Air Force, June 1,
1984. (roughly 200 pages, not paginated)

T. Alden Williams, "The Army in Civil Disturbance: A Profound Dilemma?",
pg. 161, in ed. Robin Higham, Bayonets in the Streets, University of
Kansas Press, 1969.

Federation of American Scientists, Military Analysis Network, "Garden
Plot", Nov. 1998.

US Air Force News Service, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, "Air Force 50th
Anniversary: April History", March 25,
1997, pg. 2. In fact, Garden Plot may have been operative prior and
during the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. William F. Pepper,
attorney for the late James Earl Ray, as well as the King family in their
current attempts to get to the bottom of the murder, claims (Orders To
Kill, Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1995, pg. 424) that the orders to kill
King, which were delivered to special forces operatives in Memphis were
tied to Garden Plot. Pepper states that the orders to kill King "appeared
to come from the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were issued under
the umbrella of the anti-black terrorist operation Garden Plot which was a
part of the overall U.S. Command antiriot operation CINCSTRIKE which was
activated with the outbreak of any major riot."

Department of Defense Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil
Disturbances (MACDIS), February 4, 1994.
Note: DoDD 3025.12 is one quarter of 4 correlated directives that deal with
civil disturbance. The others include DoDD 3025.1, Military Support to
Civil Authorities (Jan. 93), DoDD 3025.15, Military Assistance for Civil
Authorities (Feb.97), and DoDD 3025.1-M, Manual for Civil Emergencies (June
94).

Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation With Civilian Law
Enforcement Officials, January 15,
1986.

United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances, Headquarters,
Department of the Army, Washington, DC, November 25, 1985.
============================================================================

THIS MESSAGE POSTED APFN MESSAGE BOARD:
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995

The due process clause of the Constitution, however, demands reasonable
specificity in criminal prohibitions to enable a citizen to conform to
the law. As the Supreme Court amplified in Connally vs. General Construction
Co. (1926): "A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act
in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first
essential of due process of law."
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-200081171719.htm

Secret U.S Military Preparing for WAR?: News
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995

Re: JFK Jr.: Videotape Reveals Foul Play
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995

"The Law"!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/thelaw.htm

ACTION
America's most pressing problem is law rather than politics.
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995&MyNum=965067
248&P=No&TL=965067248

CASE LAW:
"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty
to
speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading...
We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our
message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this
is
routine it should be corrected immediately"
U.S. v. Tweel 550 F2d 297, 299-300.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/itsthelaw.htm

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
".... a network of net-worker's...."
http://www.apfn.org/