Re: Nevada rancher V US Government

**bb1** Tue May 27, 2014 4:43 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-usa-afghanistan-obama-idUSKBN0E71WQ20140527

Obama to announce plans to seek to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday to seek to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the end of this year, a senior administration official said.

Under the scenario envisioned by Obama, the 9,800 troops would be used for training of Afghan forces and counter-terrorism operations.

The 9,800 would be reduced by half by the end of 2015, and by the end of 2016, the U.S. presence would be cut to a normal embassy presence as has been done in Iraq, the official said.

Now we know what he was really doing there at the weekend. No wonder Karzai wouldn't meet him.

**bb1** Thu May 29, 2014 4:08 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/?page=all#pagebreak

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

I have NO doubt that Obama was prepared to use the military against Bundy until all those patriot militia turned up, and the live feeds were going out to the whole world.