Confirmation of plans for operations inside U.S.

A study by the Rand Corp. within months of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s call for a “national civilian security force” that would be as big and as well-funded as the half-trillion dollar U.S. military confirms that there are several ways to create the suggested “Stability Police Force” so that it legally could operate inside the U.S. borders.

One of the top recommendations in the report was that the capacity and management operations of the U.S. Marshals Service be beefed up and handed the assignment.

“Given that it is unlikely that MPs [Military Police] would be permitted to perform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the Marshals Service, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study.”

What’s really happening here? Read about your country in “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”

The study was released in 2009, only months after Obama made his presidential campaign call for a civilian force as big and as costly as the U.S. military.

In a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set. We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

WND reported when a copy of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama’s specific references to the new force.

A video of his statements is posted here:

The opening of the Rand report was focused on providing “Stability Police Force” services outside of the U.S. borders. A company spokesman told WND that the report focused exclusively on the idea of a structure that could move into war-torn or riot-damaged cities or nations overseas and restore order.

However, a reading of the text of the report makes it clear that similar concerns about the behavior of U.S. residents were being evaluated, too.

It noted that the plans for the $1 billion a year effort would have to be structured carefully so as not to infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act ban on U.S. military operations inside the U.S.

“The discussions … made clear that the MP option would likely not be available for domestic policing. This makes this option [fulltime and reserve, as the hybrid option would not be viable due to the fact that military personnel could not be embedded in civilian domestic law enforcement agencies…] much more expensive.”

The report discussed the possibility of creating a new agency inside the Department of Defense but noted, “It is unlikely that a military agency would be permitted to perform domestic policing functions … Because of this, the new agency would likely perform SPF functions better than the MP option due to a better ability to create a policing culture, but worse than the Marshals Service option due to the fact that it could not do policing tasks day-to-day.”

The report said the U.S. Secret Service also could be an option: “Much like the Marshals Service, the Secret Service focuses on law enforcement missions within the United States. When not deployed abroad, an SPF housed in the Secret Service could perform a wide range of domestic functions without running into legal barriers.”

A company official was unable to explain the study’s references to policing in the United States.

The Colorado Springs event wasn’t the only time Obama preached of his requirement for a “civilian security” force.

Radio talk show Mark Levin discussed it in a broadcast:

He cited Obama’s statement at a dedication ceremony for a facility at the National Defense University.

There, Obama said, “American must also balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We cannot continue to push the burden onto our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability. That’s why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and to developing our civilian national security capabilities.”

What? Levin said.

“What does that mean? … Is he crazy? … He needs a civilian national security force … just as powerful … as our military?”

“The military has tanks, advanced weapons. What does he mean? … I know what his ideology is. That’s why I’m getting nervous…. Will the shirts be brown? Will they be clicking their heels as they walk?”

The Rand report also cited the Special Operations Group, which is headquartered at Camp Beauregard, La.

“It consists of about 100 deputies who respond to emergencies such as natural disasters, civil disturbances, and terrorist incidents and restores order during riots and mob violence. The SOG conducts missions in fugitive apprehension, high-profile prisoner movements, witness security operations, national emergencies and civil disorders. SOG deputies receive specialized tactical training, including crowd control and quelling civil disorder.”

The report continued, “During the 2000 World Trade Organization protests in the nation’s capitol, SOG teams played a key role in crowd control. They also took responsibility for protecting dignitatires going to and from the conference.”

Further, during protests in Puerto Rico, “The SOG was asked by the Navy on six separate occasions to quell disturbances. In calling upon the Marshals Service, the Navy was able to avoid concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act that might have arisen had it undertaken an armed mission in Puerto Rico.”

The report said specifically that should such a force be created under the military police division, “relief from the Posse Comitatus Act would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions.”

As the presidential campaign advanced in 2008, another video appeared online that for many crystallized their concerns over such a “corps.” It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama:

Rand officials said the study looked at the need for “a U.S. Stability Police Force, the major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed.”

The federally funded research was done specifically for the U.S. Army.

The study also said, “Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission.”

“Analysis of stability operations over the past two decades indicates that an SPF should have two major objectives.” the report said. “The first is to help establish a secure environment in which people and goods can circulate safely, and licit political and economic activity can take place free from intimidation.

“The second is to help build a high-end indigenous policing capacity so that the host government can establish security on its own.”

WND reported a year ago that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”

“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specified.

It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.

Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civilian service … as the president may prescribe.”

WND also reported earlier when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars.

Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people.

That bill included a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.”

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate [at the time] is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.