“Hybrid” Domestic/Military Police Force Proposed in RAND Analysis

A Stabilizing Police Force (SPF) “mission,” also referred to as “stability operations,” has been cited as having become “an inescapable reality” of U.S. foreign policy within a 2009 RAND Arroyo Center report (embedded below).

However, the predominant thrust of the RAND Arroyo Center report consists in a startling recommendation: For the sake of cost-effectiveness, to maximize “return on investment,” the SPF military would be utilized during periods of non-deployment in a “hybrid” capacity with U.S. Marshals (USMS) to supplement domestic law enforcement within the United States, such engagement contributing to their overall preparedness for foreign “law-enforcement” assignments.

The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law-enforcement capacity while in the United States. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel would do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective.

Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations. In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act [which forbids the US Army from being used in law enforcement in the United States] would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions. The issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions is moot (our only “contracting” option does not consider a standing contract force, but rather one hired as needed) and would probably be insurmountable if it was not. Furthermore, as noted in our DOTMLPF discussion, working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel. MPs can do this on military installations, but contract personnel would not so act at all.

Given that it is unlikely that MPs would be permitted to perform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the USMS, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study. Placing the SPF in the USMS would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option. Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency and many of the required skills, though it would need to increase its capacity significantly. Furthermore,the Department of Justice stands at the center of the rule-of-law effort, with lead roles in policing, judiciary, and corrections efforts.

I’m not sure whether to thank RAND for acknowledging Posse Comitatus as a Constitutional protection (read, obstacle) or to issue my strongest epithets at RAND for its having devoted nearly an entire, 200+ paged report to what can only be regarded as a highly TREASONOUS proposition on its face, let alone for proposing the further weakening of the enforcement of constitutional protections. U.S. marshals are appointed. Unlike county Sheriffs, marshals do not swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Their pledge is to obey their superiors, but no written document is required of marshals to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

The new Executive Order forming a Counsel of Governors that Obama signed on January 11th, in light of the RAND Arroyo analysis, takes on a more ominous significance as potentially preparing the way for the acceptance by (strong-arming of?) state governors of such a “hybrid” functioning of an SPF and the USMS.

When considering that Obama has not only NOT kept campaign-era promises to dismantle Bush Administration Police-State domestic surveillance measures but on the contrary has called for the unattenuated perpetuation of key provisions with the renewal of the Patriot Act and has further signed into law the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act; and when further considering the multiple incidences of leaked policy of the Department of Homeland Security, irrespective of any consequent retraction, calling for the profiling by local law enforcement officials of Liberty-loving, patriotic Americans who insist upon exercising their 1st Amendment right to express dissent; and still further when considering the blatantly unconstitutional, ghastly abusive crackdown on lawful and peaceful protest during the G-20 meeting in September 2009 on the streets of Pittsburgh, to include assaults on bystanders and on onlooking college students even within the supposed safe confines of campus building halls and overpasses, and where the conveniently-contracted “police force” deployed military sonic weapons (LRAD – “Long Range Accoustical Device”) on U.S. soil on non-combative civilians for the first time and indiscriminately while demanding that ALL people remain indoors …, I think you’ll understand my perspective when I ask …

Is a ‘hybrid’ law-enforcement police force intended as a back-door, Trojan Horse plot, to achieve a gradual acclimating of the populace to the incremental evisceration of Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties for the purpose of commandeering the U.S. into a socialist form of government?

Should we just .. “wait and see,” like the 1930’s German populace did in the face of Nazi initial sweetness and light?

RAND Arroyo Center
Full Document below:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Civil Liberties and Rights, Constitutional Violations, new world order, police state and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “Hybrid” Domestic/Military Police Force Proposed in RAND Analysis

  1. Ross Wolf says:

    Could local, state and federal Fusion Centers provide information about law bidding Americans to a Secret Police State?

    Since 2001 U.S. Government has established a large number Fusion Centers across the country that rely on local informants and databases to collect information that might prevent terrorism, then share that information with different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. But more recently Fusion Centers shifted from their stated mission to pursing all crimes and hazards; and expanded to collecting and sharing confidential information about Americans who have nothing to do with Terrorism or Crime with government agencies and select private companies. Fusion Centers to circumvent Citizens’ Fourth Amendment Rights, take advantage of ambiguous lines of authority to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection. Now that a Rand/Army Report appears to have called for a hybrid military/law enforcement unit, a Federal “Stabilization Force” that could potentially be used domestically and Obama before elected, stated he wanted a “Civilian National Security Force” which he never clarified, it should be expected Fusion Centers would provide information about Americans to both proposed security forces.

    In retrospect, Hitler created a “Civilian National Security Force”, the Gestapo the contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei for “Secret State Police.” In 1934 the Gestapo was placed under SS leader Heinrich Himmler the Chief of German Police. Then in 1939 all German Police agencies were put under the control of the “Reich Main Security Office” the equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security. Does this Nazi merging of German local law enforcement including its federal Secret Police under its Main Security Office” sound familiar, when you consider Rand proposals to the U.S. Army appear to include a rapid deployment “Stabilization Force” that has the potential of being sent into any State against the wishes of its Citizens? States need to have the power to refuse entry to Federal Shock Troops.

    Obama appears intended to subvert Constitutional and State Rights? For example President Obama’s recent Executive Order EO 12425 put INTERPOL above the United States Constitution, beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement. Obama’s Executive Order authorized INTERPOL to act within the United States without being subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure laws. It would appear INTERPOL can now tap American phones without a warrant. And that U.S. Police can use INTERPOL to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to arrest Americans and or forfeit their assets simply by bringing INTERPOL into a criminal or civil investigation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s