Saturday, December 12, 2009

RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”

It looks to me like the communitarians need America to have another civil war before they can completely destroy our nation. After all they've done to us I guess it just wasn't enough to make us into proper and obediant slaves. Based on nothing but hope and one short conversation with a Green Beret, I do not think all American law officers or all of our military will obey orders to fire upon unarmed or armed civilians. Maybe the soldiers who will kill their own familes and friends can shoot it out with the ones that won't kill Americans, and leave the civilian population out of it altogther. For a world led by such spiritually evolved and enlightened people, they sure act and plan like their god is Mars... and their ritual is war. If there has to be war, I say let the soldiers fight it... man to man. But evolved global weaklings don't even know what that means, do they?

Thanks to Consuelo for this:

December 10, 2009

RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”

The RAND Corporation, one of the most fecund research arms of the Military-Industrial-Homeland Security Complex, has released a study entitled A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Creating U.S. Capabilities.

The SPFOR (to use the inevitable acronym) would be a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit created within the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for use “in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups” — both abroad, in UN-directed multilateral military operations, and at home, as dictated by the needs of the Regime.

Initially as small as 2–6,000 personnel, the SPFOR’s size “could be increased by augmenting it with additional federal, state, or local police from the United States” as necessary.

The RAND study, which was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, recommended using the Marshals Service rather than the US Army’s Military Police as host for the SPFOR in order to avoid conflicts with the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids (albeit in principle more than in practice) the domestic use of the military as a law enforcement body.

“The USMS hybrid option … provides an important nondeployed mission for the force: augmenting state and local agencies, many of which currently suffer from severe personnel shortages,” states the report without explaining how the SPFOR could at once “augment” those under-manned agencies while at the same time being “augmented” by them if necessary.

That little lapse in logic is one of several indications that the report’s authors weren’t so much addressing a “problem” as making a case for a preordained “solution” — in this case, creating the vanguard of a militarized internal security force.

Building the SPFOR within the Marshals Service “would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option,” summarizes the document. “Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency…. [This model] provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police officers across the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

Back in 1961, the U.S. Government produced a document entitled “Freedom From War” that envisioned the creation of a globe-spanning United Nations “Peace Force” that would work in collaboration with a militarized “internal security” force in each country. Since that time, critics of the UN have anticipated the day when foreign “peacekeepers” would be assigned to police American streets and, if necessary, confiscate privately owned firearms.

While the monstrosity headquartered on the East River is a proper target of our scorn and hostility, the new RAND study underscores the fact that if “peacekeepers” end up patrolling American streets, they probably won’t be foreigners in blue berets, but homegrown jackboots commanded by Washington.

(My thanks to Jack Slater for tipping me about the RAND report.)


Jeremy said...

Hi, interesting site. I see you have at least one link to a gang stalking related site - are you aware of what's happening to targeted individuals?

Many of us are the antithesis of this communitarian ideal. I know that people who don't draw their identity from a group are particularly hated and sought out to destroy; they are disproportionately represented among targeted individuals.

My site is Are you Targeted?, a "survival and orientation guide" for TI's. I explain much of what's going on in an introductory post:

Some other orientation posts:

1 in 20

An army of losers

If this were a dictatorship, the authorities would have told us

Media Mirroring as mind control

I think we're on the same page here.

the tent lady said...

I think we are too Jeremy. I will look this over and add it to my sites. I live in a very rural area and thought we were exempt from this creepy aspect, but we've had a guy out here for a couple years who fits the mo of the gangstalkers to a T.

At first I thought the gang reference was to street gangs like the Crypts or Bloods and was very surpised the term means a gang of people who target and stalk individuals for no apparent reason. Your take is that they may be targeted because they don't join groups, and that sure puts a new twist on this piece! The individual versus communitarian conflict is not only theory, is it?

Thank you SO much for dropping in and sharing your site with my readers. Gangstalking is one of the ways people can be frightened into making decisions based only on fear and intimidation. The more we understand about their tactics the better choices we are able to make. If the ACL ever had a message, that was it.

Jeremy said...

Some call it gang stalking, others call it organized stalking. It really depends on who we're trying to get through to. I prefer Gang Stalking because the term conveys the criminality of the act.

I think it's interesting how you've used scholarly methods to determine that these community oriented policing initiatives are a real problem.

The people who are targeted, and write about it cogently, aren't really talking about community oriented policing (although we're highly aware that it exists), but about the methods these people use to destroy targets. Not much scholarly research is possible in this area, except by way of comparison with historical parallels, and even there the progress is deliberately impeded by the authorities. Anna Funder mentions in Stasiland that the Germans have assigned a few dozen people to reassembling the shredded Stasi documents, and estimates it will take them 300 years to finish the job at current rates - by which time everyone involved will be long gone.

Good luck with your research. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.