A National “Stability” Police Force?

Will This Be Obama’s Civilian Defense Force?




The Rand Corporation was asked by the US Army to prepare a report recommending whether or not the US Needed a National Stability Police force; basically a call for American “Brown Shirts.” Rand’s answer was a resounding yes.

Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission. Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.
The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap. Allies did this effectively in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were successful in establishing security. In other cases, the United States may not be able to count on allied support. The United States should not depend on allies to supply these capabilities, because doing so would limit U.S. freedom of action on the international stage. Consequently, the United States should seriously consider building a high-end police capacity.

The report recommends that these police would not only have a role in foreign lands but also in the United States:

The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law –– enforcement capacity while in the United States. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective.

Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations.

In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act [ which forbids the US Army from being used in law enforcement in the United States] would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions. The issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions is moot (our only “contracting” option does not consider a standing contract force, but rather one hired as needed) and would probably be insurmountable if it was not. Furthermore, as noted in our DOTMLPF discussion, working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel. MPs can do this on military installations, but contract personnel would not so act at all.

The report goes on to say that this Stability Police Force should be placed under the US Marshal Service because that will make it easier for it to have domestic US responsibilities.

Given that it is unlikely that MPs would be permitted to perform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the USMS, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study. Placing the SPF in the USMS would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option. Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency and many of the required skills, though it would need to increase its capacity significantly. Furthermore,the Department of Justice stands at the center of the rule-of-law effort, with lead roles in policing, judiciary, and corrections efforts.

I wonder what kind of Domestic Role the Stability Police can have. Controlling Tea Parties? “Fixing” Fox News? A national police under the control of this or any president will do nothing less than signal the end of freedom in the United States. Any movement toward this force must be voted down.

The 213 Page Report can be seen at the following URL:


H/T yidwithlid.blogspot.com

22 responses to “A National “Stability” Police Force?

  1. This statement was most concerning…”rebuilding political and economic systems.” Why would this be a problem when we have a constitution? Who heads the Rand Corporation? When did the US Army request this report? Who instigated this initially and why? The changes with Interpol, and the new EO that was just signed, how do they all blend together? Add to this Rahm’s mandatory 3 year service. What kind of catastrophe would put this into action? Marshall Law? With the two worst US crises, Katrina and 9-11…we didn’t need another “Stability” Police Force. Does anyone have a date when Obama tossed out his idea for his Civilian Security Force?

    Obama Civilian Security Force

  2. What is wrong with the military, sheriffs and police forces we already have ? I find them for the most part to be clean cut, polite, aware, kind and they love our country. I find them to be level headed, law abiding, helpful and have leadership qualities. What more would we need then that and why ? What part of this am I missing ?

  3. Bridgetteb,
    I read about this @ freerepublic about an hour ago. You can down load the rand report from this link –


  4. A Children’s Story –

    Plot summary –

    The story takes place in an unnamed American grade school classroom, in the aftermath of a war with an unnamed country. It is implied that America has been defeated and occupied.

    The story opens with the previous teacher leaving the classroom, having been removed from her position and replaced with an agent of the foreign power. The new teacher has been trained in propaganda techniques, and is responsible for re-educating the children to be supportive of their occupiers. During the course of the story, the children are persuaded to abandon their religion and national loyalty. Framing the story is the fact that, while the children have ritually recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, none know what it actually means. The teacher is relentlessly positive about the change, offering the children candy, songs and praise. When asked if America won or lost the war, she responds only that “we won”, implying that everyone would benefit from the conquest.

    Only one student is initially hostile to the new teacher, a child named Johnny, whose father had been arrested and placed in a re-education camp. At first, he defends his father, but when he is rewarded by the teacher with a position of authority in the class, he quickly accepts the new regime and commits himself to not accepting “wrong thoughts”.

    The story takes place over a twenty-five minute span.

    The Movie
    A Children’s Story –


  5. The Third Wave –


    By Ron Jones

    We were studying Nazi Germany and in the middle of a lecture I was interrupted by the question. How could the German populace claim ignorance of the slaughter of the Jewish people. How could the townspeople, railroad conductors, teachers, doctors, claim they knew nothing about concentration camps and human carnage. How can people who were neighbors and maybe even friends of the Jewish citizen say they weren’t there when it happened. it was a good question. I didn’t know the answer.

    In as such as there were several months still to go in the school year and I was already at World War II, I decided to take a week and explore the question.


  6. I’m still trying to find a date as to when RAND was commissioned to do the report and who authorized it to be done. It was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute but “who” authorized it ?

    From the LRC Blog

    RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”
    Posted by William Grigg on December 10, 2009 05:08 PM

    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.

    snip –
    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.


    • Leza,

      Thanks for investigating this. The UN has the vision of Foreign peace keepers? To work in conjunction with a country’s internal security forces i.e., police? They would patrol American streets! This is right out of science fiction plots and movies.

      JFK was the president in 1961- 63. He followed Dwight D. Eisenhower.

      • Bridgetteb,
        Your welcome, I have been trying to find the Freedom From War document RAND claims the Government produced in 1961. So far I haven’t found anything. If I do I will post it. Looking through the JFK Library I haven’t found any statements/documents from JFK that he would have wanted UN “peace keepers”.

  7. From RAND’s website –

    National Security

    RAND conducts a broad array of national security research for the U.S. Department of Defense. RAND also carries out an extensive research program in homeland security, homeland defense, and terrorism-related research for the U.S. Government, as well as selected research for key allied governments and ministries of defense. Through its long-term investment in federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), the U.S. government has built a network of institutions with unique analytical and technical capabilities.

    National security research is conducted by the following RAND FFRDCs: RAND Project AIR FORCE, sponsored by the U.S. Air Force; RAND Arroyo Center, sponsored by the U.S. Army; RAND National Defense Research Institute, sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

    DOD – Obama ? Gates ? Lynn ?

  8. What would put the emergency coucil og governors into

    H1N1 didn’t work so my guess is the NWO will explode
    a nuclear device in the USA. It may be an Iranian one
    or it may just be blamed on Iran.

    Why do you think Obsama is kicking up all the fuss over
    the exploding underpants guy from Yemen?

    To take the heat off Iran.

    OK, where will the device explode.

    This much is for certain – New York City.

    Why there?

    Always is.

  9. Just released today 1/13/2010 to the JFK Libary –

    A Conversation with Howard Dean
    Moderated by Joe Klein
    John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation
    March 26, 2003

    JOE KLEIN: Specifically in the Islamic world, and even more specifically in the Arab world, do you think that our policy in Iraq has hurt us with them, or helped us? And if it’s hurt us, how do we go about specifically repairing that?
    HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think there’s a two-way street here. Our relationships with much of the Arab world are crippled by our dependence on foreign oil. We have really got to do something about oil conservation in this country other than just drill in Anwar. And the reason for that is, for example, we have a very ambivalent and difficult relationship with the Saudis. The Saudis are ostensibly our friends. They probably don’t like Saddam very much. They have said things in the Arab world that purely, clearly catered to so-called Arab Street. But they are also financing madrasas, fundamental Islamic schools which teach small children in the Islamic world, all over
    the Islamic world, to hate Americans, Christians, and Jews. That is the next generation of suicide bombers. We need to openly speak about that because anybody who teaches hate anywhere, whether it’s in America’s borders or out of America’s borders, is doing something that’s inimicable to what America stands for.

    JOE KLEIN: Let’s go on to what you were talking about before, your health plan. You talked about providing support for small businesses. How would you do that? Would you do it through an employer mandate? Would you do it through tax credits?

    HOWARD DEAN: No. My healthcare plan is based on what can pass. I’m a complete pragmatist about healthcare. I’ve been doing this for 20 years. My observations, I think, were true. The Carter plan and the Clinton plan both failed because it got so complicated that Americans didn’t understand it. One of the things I’ve come to understand, after all the time I’ve spent in government, is that Americans are conservative with a small c. That is, Americans don’t like too much change too fast, as a group. And what Harry and Louise did– and most of you are old enough to remember Harry and Louise from 10 years ago– was to appeal to the fear that Americans were going to lose something that they had if we did anything for the 20% of the people that didn’t have health insurance.

    OMG!! Toooo much to post, you have got to read this!!


    • I finally had the chance to finish reading the statements by Howard Dean. This was March 26, 2003 when he was considering running for the presidency. He attacks Bush, republican’s, call’s southerner’s “red necks”, talks about Obama’s oop’s, Hillary’s oop’s, Pelosi’s oop’s, Reid’s oop’s, “his” health care plan. Mostly the same rhetoric they used with Obama.

      “If” Yawn….You have nothing better to do other than get “P’ off I guess it’s worth the read.

  10. uh-og, we is in trouble

    Banning Conspriacy Theories? Desperate times call for desperate measures
    by DefendUSx January 14, 2010 00:08

    Pick and choose what conspriacy theories you want to ban, yeah, that’s the ticket!

    In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

    Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

    In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

    “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

    In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

    Here is some Sunstein recommends banning:

    “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”

    “The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

    “The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.”

    “The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.”

    — “Important movements ..wow, you’d think if it was important, that wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory .. this should be reworded”

    “That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”

    “The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.”

    Read more at WND.com

    • The Earth is round…
      Was that conspiracy theory too back then ?
      Kinda works out to be R&D in the long run..
      Kind of binding for science and writers maybe ?
      Strange DaveM, very strange isn’t it ?

  11. good grief, it was all caused by thesmoking man
    didn’t he watch x-files?

    hasn’t he heard of the 1st amendment?

  12. Hey, didn’t you know that the Constitution was outdated? Those Founding Fathers ideas are so passe according to this administration!

    Has Sustein updated his 2008 conspiracy files to include Obama’s Ineligibility to be President? Or has he added the Birthers who want the truth? Fraud is only in the eyes of the duped? Previously it was Global Cooling, and they changed it to Global Warming, and now it is Climate Change…and all the cover-ups of the letters between scientists to cover their scam are conspiracies too. Right Sustein..book burning like the Nazi’s did might be his next recommendation. What a waste of an apparent brilliant mind that entered the psychotic realm …and has gone off the deep end. Another great idea .. tax anyone for thinking. And this was one of the Czars that was approved by the Senate! Great vetting…I guess he was passed through by the same democrats that want healthcare. Great minds think alike.

    Oh, by the way my dog was reading about Sustein. She now says she needs a lawyer…she says I have no right to change her food just because it causes gas. I told her to make the call and we’ll be on our way to the vet to put her out of her “misery.” Who will be the first trial lawyers to make the case and speak for the animals? Contact Sustein..he has a list already prepared by the same Apollo group that invented the Stimulus bill.

  13. Executive Order 13524

    When Habeas Corpus, means your liberty

    (Jan. 4, 2010) — In a pattern of assault on liberties perpetrated by Barack Hussein Obama, an executive order has been issued which effectively eliminates the centuries-old instrument of liberty, habeas corpus, from our charters of freedom.

    By this act, Executive Order 13524, enacted by presidential writ, the singular bulwark protecting people from tyranny, which requires due process, and places the burden of proof pertaining to legal search and seizure, detention and prosecution squarely on the federal and state governments has been circumvented.

    By executive order from the White House, the heinous act of amending a sentence in President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 original Executive Order 12425, has resulted in removing a vital safeguard against tyranny and police state.

    The result of this executive order 13524 allows for arrest, detention, search and seizure and a slew of other acts of authoritarian and arbitrary action against persons at any time and any place for any reason without just cause or burden of proof. A most suspicious aspect portrayed as reason for executive order 13524 is to permit a foreign police organization to function and operate within US sovereign borders and territory, free of oversight and justification. It is in the most simple terms a complete breakdown and usurpation of natural and constitutional law.

    Reposting this from Pandora’s Box

  14. New council to advise on ‘military activities’ in U.S.
    Executive order creates team of governors to address ‘homeland defense’
    Posted: January 12, 2010

    President Obama by executive order has established a new “Council of Governors” designated to advise on the “synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States.”

    The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work “to protect our nation against all types of hazards.” It comes just weeks after the president issue a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL’s privileges in the U.S.

    The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review “such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”

    However, there was no definition of what would be included in the group’s authority. Can the council recommend “military activities” and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

    The previous order regarding INTERPOL caused concern for some in the U.S. because it exempts the international police force from such oversight as the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S.

    At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton said the order will lead to further erosions of American sovereignty.

    “In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.

    “When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.

    “For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.

    The new governors panel, which the White House said was called for in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, will include 10 governors picked by the president as well as the Coast Guard commandant and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

    The White House announcement said the council “will provide an invaluable senior administration forum for exchanging views with state and local officials on strengthening our national resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our nation today and in the future.”

    Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama “has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically.”

    Obama also, Malcolm said, “chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline.”

    Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, “One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn’t hurt anything, and might actually look good.”

    At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, “Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.”

    Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the “first step towards martial law in America” because it sets up the “use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department.”

    Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about “hazards” but then addresses only military hazards.

    “The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical,” the forum participant said.


    • Obama Extends Power over Governors
      January 13, 2010

      As Kurt Nimmo wrote in his article Obama Expands Federal Power Over the States with Executive Order, “The order, signed on January 11 2010, further diminishes the sovereignty of the states and builds on a framework for possible martial law. The executive order was completely ignored by the corporate media.”


  15. Here’s an Oy Gee Moment, sponsored by POTUS, straight out of Ayn Rand
    Jan 16, 2010 02:20 PM

    Here we see the Power of the States Usurped by Committee, for the benefit of the Federal Govt…

    THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
    For Immediate Release January 11, 2010

    Full Text of EO at URL


  16. The Fifth Column
    Obama Extends Diplomatic Immunity to Interpol by Executive Order 12425 Dec. 22, 2009 Snips

    President Obama has issued an amendment to Executive Order 12425, designating the international law enforcement agency Interpol as a “public international organization,” thus extending diplomatic immunity to the law enforcement group.

    The amendment to the Executive Order — which does not need to be put to the senatorial test of “advise and consent” ….

    The text of Section 2(c), which now applies to Interpol states:

    “(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

    Because of this move by the Obama Administration any and all Interpol offices in the United States cannot be searched due to its status as a diplomatically protected organization. It’s offices are considered sovereign and its files are not subject to legal request, be it by subpoena or discovery.

    The website ObamaFile.com notes, “If any branch of government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the US court system, just hand them over to Interpol until the smoke clears.” It added that Interpol can maintain files on US citizens.

    Diplomatic immunity, usually reserved for those who work at diplomatic missions throughout the United States, exempts persons and offices directly connected to foreign governments from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement. It exempts said entities from US taxes and extends this protection to immunity from FOIA requests.

    The amendment to Executive Order 12425, signed by Obama on December 17, 2009, declared Interpol records immune from search and seizure, “The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

    By virtue of this declaration, any information that Interpol may have on political operatives or elected officials in the US — including SEIU president Andy Stern, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and President Obama himself — would be immune from any attempts to bring the information to light.

    Editor’s Note: How convenient

Leave a Reply to Renee Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s