______________________________
ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN
News * Analysis * Research * Action
______________________________
RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT
- July 7, 2000 -
____________________________________________________________________
U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME
____________________________________________________________________
By Frank Morales, frm@panix.com
AFIB Editor's Note: An edited version of this article currently appears in
CovertAction Quarterly, Number 69, Spring/Summer 2000; it appears in Antifa
Info-Bulletin with the author's permission. For CAQ subscription
information see below.
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 reknown, 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:
1. 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,
http://www.janes.com/defence/editors/pentagon.html
2. James W. Button, Black Violence, The Political Impact of the 1960's
Riots, Princeton University Press, 1978, pg. 116.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Lipsky and Olson, pg.163, citing pg.198 of a transcription of Lyndon B.
Johnson, "Statement by the President", July 29, 1967.
6. Button, pg. 107.
7. Lipsky and Olson, pg.165.
8. 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.
9. Lipsky and Olson, pg.168.
10. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders,
Washington, DC, March 1, 1968, pgs.279-281.
11. Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lubow, "Bringing the War Home", New Times
Magazine, 1975, pg. 20.
12. Ridenhour and Lubow, pg. 20.
13. Ridenhour and Lubow, pg. 20.
14. Button, pg. 133.
15. Button, pg. 133.
16. Ridenhour and Lubow, pg.18.
17. Donald Goldberg and Indy Badhwar, "Blueprint for Tyranny", Penthouse
Magazine, August 1985, pg. 72.
18. Goldberg and Badhwar, pg. 72.
19. 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".
20. United States Air Force Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Garden Plot,
Headquarters, United States Air Force, June 1, 1984. (roughly 200 pages,
not paginated)
21. 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.
22. Federation of American Scientists, Military Analysis Network, "Garden
Plot", Nov. 1998.
23. 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."
24. Department of Defense Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil
Disturbances (MACDIS), February 4,1994.
(http://web7.whs.osd.mil/text/d302512p.txt) 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).
25. Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation With Civilian
Law Enforcement Officials, January 15, 1986.
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/referenc/briefngs/wmd/DODD5525.5DoDCooperationwithCivili
anLawEnforcementOfficials.htm
26. United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, November 25, 1985.
Copyright 2000 Frank Morales. All rights reserved.
CovertAction Quarterly
1500 Massachusetts Avenue NW #732
Washington, D.C. 20005
Subscribe to CovertAction Quarterly: (4 issues/year) U.S. currency only.
U.S.: $22 one year, $38 two years
Canada/Mexico: $25 one year, $44 two years
Other Areas: $35 one year, $63 two years
$25/year additional charge for institutions; $17/year discounted price for
U.S. prisoners
* * *
ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN (AFIB)
750 La Playa # 730
San Francisco, California 94121
To subscribe: afib-subscribe@igc.topica.com
To unsubscribe: afib-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
Inquiries: tburghardt@igc.org
On PeaceNet visit AFIB on pol.right.antifa
Via the Web --> http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff/afib.html
Archive --> http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff/afib-bulletins.html
ANTI-FASCIST FORUM (AFF)
Antifa Info-Bulletin is a member of the Anti-Fascist Forum network. AFF is
an info-group which collects and disseminates information, research and
analysis on fascist activity and anti-fascist resistance. More info:
E-mail: aff@burn.ucsd.edu; Web: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff
Order our journal, ANTIFA FORUM, cutting-edge anti-fascist research and
analysis! 4 issues, $20. Write AFF, P.O. Box 6326, Station A, Toronto,
Ontario, M5W 1P7 Canada
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
(
geocities.com/CapitolHill)