Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, was right about federal gov't attacking Bundy Ranch

[Deborah K]

During the Bundy Ranch saga, in April and May of 2014, a dispute erupted between Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oathkeepers, and various militia regarding a warning that Rhodes had received from intel that the federal government was planning to attack the ranch and the protestors. Rhodes strongly suggested that this intel be taken seriously and he implemented plans to do so, which included informing everyone, and encouraging women and children who were part of the protest to leave the area. A feud broke out, and sides were chosen among those at the ranch, and in the freedom movement.

It turns out – Rhodes was correct.

On June 2, 2014, Fox and Friends show host, Steve Doocy, interviewed Bill Gertz regarding a secret 2010 Pentagon memo which is now being revealed.
The show starts off with a clip from May 23, 2013 of Obama stating the following:

“…I don’t believe it would be Constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen with a drone, or with a shotgun without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil…..”

Doocy then goes on to say: Okay, well a troubling new report is now revealing a secret memo from 2010 outlining the administrations potential use of military force against Americans in the United States of America. Joining us now is the man who broke the story Bill Gertz, he is the National Security columnist for the Washington Times, good morning Bill. Who told you about this?

Gertz: A defense source brought this to my attention, and was fairly concerned about it and said this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to, at some point, use force against American citizens in the future.

Doocy: Did they give any instances when that would be appropriate because that is currently forbidden we thought.

Gertz: Right, the posse commitatus act prevents the military from being used in law enforcement but this memo was outlined in December, signed in December of 2010, and it outlines the conditions when military forces could be used to quell civil unrest and that …. I guess to say that there is growing concern among many Americans about the consolidation of power would be an understatement.

They go on to discuss how every department is becoming militarized, for example, the ag department has its own SWAT team, as well as highlighting certain phrases in the memo regarding the “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” directive no. 3025.18
Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary
to protect the federal property or functions.

Gertz then makes this comment:

"I was told by a U.S. official that there was consideration in using military force under this directive in the recent standoff in Nevada with rancher Cliven Bundy, who was in dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing, but apparently cooler heads prevailed and they decided not to call out the military in that case."


Doocy: You mean they were considering taking him out with a drone?

Gertz: No, I think they were going to use military forces to somehow deal with the protests that had risen up over that.

Doocy: Well I’m glad someone talked them out of that, that would have been crazy.

I have asked Fox News and The Washington Free Beacon to post a clip of the interview and am hoping that one is forthcoming.
In the meantime, it should be known that Stewart Rhode’s sources regarding the federal government were indeed credible. He was correct in his assessment that the federal government was intending to violate posse commitatus and attack Bundy and the protestors. Hopefully, this new information will vindicate him and his, up to now, impeccable reputation.

I'm adding this vid at the point the intel was known.

 

[jllundqu]

There's a big difference between 'bringing in the military to deal with protests' and 'they are going to drone bomb the protesters and cover it up'

Not that I'm OK with the military being involved in ANY friggin way, but lets be real here.

Just sayin o_0

 

[Deborah K]

There's a big difference between 'bringing in the military to deal with protests' and 'they are going to drone bomb the protesters and cover it up'

Not that I'm OK with the military being involved in ANY friggin way, but lets be real here.

Just sayin o_0

That's sort of beside the point of the OP, but even so, who's to say for sure WHAT their plans were? That was Gertz's opinion, not necessarily fact. The possibility of droning them might not be something his contact was willing to divulge. Fact is, Rhodes was right all along. It very well could have ended up as another Waco scenario.

 

[CPUd]

If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Good for Stewart.

I would guess his source is probably the same source that Gertz is quoting.

What manner or shape of military intervention was left unsaid, but it's always safe to assume the worst when dealing with the FedCoats.

"We" had better get our shit together in the future.

 

[Anti Federalist]

If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

They were CONSIDERING military action.

From everything that I recall about that nasty little dustup after the fact, that was all that was being said.

 

[Deborah K]

If his source was right, wouldn't the ranch have been attacked by drones?

That was conjecture on Gertz's part. He's a columnist, I wouldn't be surprised if his source didn't want to divulge that info, or if Gertz even asked point blank.

 

[Deborah K]

Good for Stewart.

I would guess his source is probably the same source that Gertz is quoting.

What manner or shape of military intervention was left unsaid, but it's always safe to assume the worst when dealing with the FedCoats.

"We" had better get our shit together in the future.

Yes. "We" had.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. "We" had.

That whole pile of nonsense after the fact was truly an exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Deborah K]

That whole pile of nonsense after the fact was truly an exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yeah, I lost a little faith in the militia after that.

 

[pcosmar]

That memo concerning Military for use domestically specifically forbids the use of Armed Drones (though not unarmed drones).

It has been posted elsewhere here.

 

[Deborah K]

That memo concerning Military for use domestically specifically forbids the use of Armed Drones (though not unarmed drones).

It has been posted elsewhere here.

Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

 

[libertyjam]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ecurity-chief-okd-drone-strikes-on-americans/

[h=2]Be Afraid: New Homeland Security Chief OK’d Drone Strikes on Americans[/h]
Daniel McAdams
If the ubiquitous voice of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in the metro (or Walmart, etc) demanding that you say something if you see something wasn’t frightening enough, if TSA’s cancer rays and gropings were not outrageous enough, if Homeland Security military vehicles on US soil were not disgusting enough, Obama has a real treat in store for you.

His pick to lead the currently headless DHS is called Jeh Johnson. He was, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon’s top lawyer. In that capacity he and a team of Pentagon experts concluded that the president did indeed have the right to use drones to kill American citizens without charge or trial. Thanks to Johnson’s determination, at least three American citizens have been killed without trial by their government.

Now he will be in charge of the “homeland.”

 

[donnay]

Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

I never for a second doubted Rhodes. Nevertheless, I am glad this came out.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have asked Fox News and The Washington Free Beacon to post a clip of the interview and am hoping that one is forthcoming.

Why Washington Free Beacon?

 

[Deborah K]

Why Washington Free Beacon?

Because they've put several Bill Gertz interviews on their You Tube Channel.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Washington Free Beacon is one of the newer neoconservative outlets. Seems they are trying to build some street cred.

The Washington Free Beacon describes itself as "a nonprofit online newspaper." Published by the Center for American Freedom (CAF), a right-wing advocacy group chaired by media pundit and political strategist Michael Goldfarb, the Beacon has close ties to the neoconservative flagship journal the Weekly Standard. The Standard's contributing editor Matthew Continetti serves as the Beacon's editor and chief, while Standard editor Bill Kristol sits on CAF's board. - See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/washington_free_beacon

 

[Deborah K]

Washington Free Beacon is one of the newer neoconservative outlets. Seems they are trying to build some street cred.

I don't really care. I just want a clip of that interview. And when I researched Bill Gertz, I discovered that the Beacon has posted several interviews of him on their tube channel.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] Matthew Continetti serves as the Beacon's editor and chief [...]

One can only hope that Continetti is a better "editor and chief" than whoever has the job at IPS Right Web ...

 

[VegasPatriot]

Gertz claims to have broke that story.

At any rate, Rhodes is vindicated.

Indeed, he is vindicated (I notice some have ignored this point). Too bad for all the dirt flinging; sad to say - that will never change.