Latest US Army manual allows lethal force on unarmed civilians

[RubiconDecision]

What do you think about using lethal force against unarmed civilians in the event of civil unrest? Apparently a change has occurred based upon the new pdf from the US Army. Note the language: target leaders or troublemakers. Thoughts? Such actions would violate various Bill of Rights laws, not to mention federal and state laws derived from them.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/U...ances-2014.pdf
https://publicintelligence.net/usarm...-disturbances/

ATP 3-39.33 provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS). United States (U.S.) forces deploy in support of unified action, overseas contingency operations, and humanitarian assistance worldwide. During these operations, U.S. forces are often faced with unruly and violent crowds who have the intent of disrupting peace and the ability of U.S. forces to maintain peace. Worldwide instability coupled with U.S. military participation in unified-action, peacekeeping, and related operations require that U.S. forces have access to the most current doctrine and techniques that are necessary to quell riots and restore public order.

[hellheaven1987]

Let the police do it; it is their job afterall.

[Ciabhán]

How does a potential use of lethal force by the Army against targets outside the US violate the Bill of Rights? The Army will not be deployed against domestic targets so command level doctrine for the Army doesn't apply.

The National Guard already has responded with lethal force against targets in the US. Everyone already knows that's a possibility. If the commander on the ground judges that not taking out a target could endanger his personnel and/or other people in the area he is obligated to give that order.

Police do it. The National Guard doing it violates nothing as they are deployed under state authority and act in a law enforcement capacity when used domestically. The Coast Guard is also an exception as a law enforcement and regulatory agency rather than a combatant agency of the DoD.

Deploying the Army to do it would violate posse comitatus. If the Army is ever deployed domestically against citizens the laws of the nation have already been so violated that the Bill of Rights probably was used to wipe an arse.

In short this is nothing new and nothing even worth mention.

[Farnan]

Yea, the ATP says nothing like that. It is a SAMPLE Graduated Response Matrix, meaning it advocates level of response necessary to the situation. It does not say you can use force on unarmed US civilians, just a sample a commander may develop, probably for a deployed element.

Further down in the chapter it says only use lethal force if absolutely necessary. This ATP applies to deployed and CONUS units so it has to allow for situation deployed units may face. The ATP goes on to say peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right in the US. Also states the Military must follow the civilian rules.

By the way the Active Duty US military is extremely limited to what it can do in the US.

Ciabhan: The Active Duty Army can, and has, been used in extremely limited cases in the US. Examples are the Little Rock Nine and Katrina. However, doing so requires a lot to happen and there are very strict rules.

By the way the ATP is online with unlimited distribution clause so: http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR...atp3_39x33.pdf

[Ciabhán]

Extremely limited is an understatement.

Maybe post a link to the entire document rather than excerpts that support an agenda.

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR...atp3_39x33.pdf

The DoD provides this openly to anyone who can be bothered to read it. Not hiding much.

Ciabhan: The Active Duty Army can, and has, been used in extremely limited cases in the US. Examples are the Little Rock Nine and Katrina. However, doing so requires a lot to happen and there are very strict rules.

Using the Enforcement Acts is a HUGE move and that was prior to the 1981 rewriting of Posse Comitatus. Katrina was also a major exception after the governor requested military assistance. The Louisiana National Guard weren't able to provide enough of the necessary assistance.
Things like the 2009 up in Alabama highlight that. The garrison commander of Fort Rucker allowed MPs from the base to assist LOCAL police during a major murder spree. The governor hadn't asked and the president hadn't authorised it. It was a direct violation of posse comitatus and some people's careers stopped dead because of it. At no point were any of those deployments authorised to ENGAGE citizens.

[Farnan]

Extremely limited is an understatement.

Maybe post a link to the entire document rather than excerpts that support an agenda.

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR...atp3_39x33.pdf

The DoD provides this openly to anyone who can be bothered to read it. Not hiding much.



Using the Enforcement Acts is a HUGE move and that was prior to the 1981 rewriting of Posse Comitatus. Katrina was also a major exception after the governor requested military assistance. The Louisiana National Guard weren't able to provide enough of the necessary assistance.
Things like the 2009 up in Alabama highlight that. The garrison commander of Fort Rucker allowed MPs from the base to assist LOCAL police during a major murder spree. The governor hadn't asked and the president hadn't authorised it. It was a direct violation of posse comitatus and some people's careers stopped dead because of it. At no point were any of those deployments authorised to ENGAGE citizens.

No disagreement there at all. Just saying there are extremely limited cases. But they basically require every other local, state, tribal, and federal agency to fail and approval of both state officials and the President. Just want to stop people who then come up and complain that some Army elements train on this task as part of a just in case all hits the fan.

[hellheaven1987]

Just want to stop people who then come up and complain that some Army elements train on this task as part of a just in case all hits the fan.

In that case why not just create an armed police force that uses military training?

[Farnan]

In that case why not just create an armed police force that uses military training?

Why?

The training they are receiving is no different than any other riot police training. It's just the military has a lot of easily deployable bodies that are already there. And again any Active Duty force would only be used in the most extreme of circumstances (think Katrina). There is no need for some kind of armed police (just so you know all US police are armed). No one is trying to take police roles.

[Ciabhán]

In that case why not just create an armed police force that uses military training?

Uh... SWAT, ESU, FBI, DEA, Marshals service, ATF, National Guard, Secret Service, Coast Guard. Etc.

Half the ing law enforcement services in the US are paramilitary units. Does it matter if the fella doing the shooting is in a ninja suit with FBI on the back or in Army issued BDU's? Not really. But the law says it does.

[Col. Tartleton]

Uh... SWAT, ESU, FBI, DEA, Marshals service, ATF, National Guard, Secret Service, Coast Guard. Etc.

Half the ing law enforcement services in the US are paramilitary units. Does it matter if the fella doing the shooting is in a ninja suit with FBI on the back or in Army issued BDU's? Not really. But the law says it does.

Exactly. A worrying minority of police, even local cops now, are increasingly being equipped with military gear because "Terrorism."

Like on John Oliver he was talking about how the police in the town of Keene, NH (your average college town in New Hampshire which I've been known to party at) wanted mine resistant armored vehicles in case the pumpkin festival got attacked by terrorists. They're completely delusional.

Why the hell would they use Marines or National Guard when the Townies have M4s and IBA and all that goodness?

[Kamos]

This doesn't change anything. Lethal force is, was and always will be a possibility with the proper authorization or command. This merely outlines the procedure for the application of lethal force with a clear focus on dispersing crowds via minimum casualties. Furthermore this is a guide for internal and international operations and the military very rarely does any kind of crowd control internally with the exception of the National Guard.
This is about as meaningful as military zombie plans or plans to invade western allies like the UK.

[Farnan]

If you want to look at an overview of the rules regarding US Military in the US, along with its potential roles you can read this:

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR...df/adp3_28.pdf

[Seether]

Nice fail RD

[Ciabhán]

Somewhere back in the mid 90s I had the amazingly fun job of traveling along as part of the security detail moving equipment from one base to another across multiple state lines. Lots of other agencies were involved(we were 'advisors' assigned by JSOC) so we were rather an extra set of bodies but even so we had to have a senior deputy US Marshal ride along to make sure we didn't shoot anyone, because we'd been authorised to do so under arms. I still wonder to this day what exactly he'd have done had we decided to shoot anyone. We had more people and bigger weapons. Poor bastard caught a assignment if you ask me.

[Farnan]

Just read up on the law and it requires Congressional Approval for the military to act in any direct law enforcement capability in the US including riot control.

[hellheaven1987]

Is National Guard counted as police now?

[Farnan]

Is National Guard counted as police now?

They can be deputized by their governors so yes.

[Knight of Heaven]

Is National Guard counted as police now?

In my country they are.
They are National republican guard, and thet are a paramilitary police force. Modern day they act mostly in the interior of the country or more isolated regions.
Traditionaly they were the actual police since the implementation of the republic in 1910, but in modern times expetidions of men are often sent to missions, on Kosovo, or Timor, or even Iraq.
My guess The american national Guard it mght be somewhat similar. If my tiny country has it, im guessing US have it. In fact im sure they have a few organizations similar.
It realy isnt uncomon.

[Ciabhán]

The National Guard when deployed domestically, as I've already stated above, are done so under the authority of the STATE governor and regulatory offices. They are effectively deputised by the state they serve in, when deployed in that state.

When Federalised they are considered part of the command structure of the Army and almost always used OCONUS. Almost as rarely, requiring use of the Enforcement Acts, as the Army is deployed within the US are the National Guard Federalised and used in the US as part of military.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Army also emphasizes that escalation of force to control populations is very much a political decision, and higher command is very sensitive to all possible implications and unintended consequences, as opposed to most American police forces.