cj#1118> Master Plan for Military Suppression / USA


Richard Moore

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:22:36 +1000
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: David <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Sending this in case you have not seen it....
Mime-Version: 1.0


By Frank Morales, •••@••.•••

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

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

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."

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

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
Forces 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

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

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)


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,

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.

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

25. Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation With
Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, January 15, 1986.


26. United States Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, November 25,

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

* * *

750 La Playa # 730
San Francisco, California 94121
To subscribe: •••@••.•••
To unsubscribe: •••@••.•••
Inquiries: •••@••.•••

On PeaceNet visit AFIB on pol.right.antifa
Via the Web --> 
Archive --> 

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: •••@••.•••; Web: 

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: 

Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance 
email: •••@••.••• 
CDR website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org
content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/
featured article: 

                A community will evolve only when
                the people control their means of communication.
                        -- Frantz Fanon

Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT 
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.