“Garden Plot:” The Army’s Emergency Plan to Restore “Law and Order” to America;(still can

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/972c97da7353.jpg[/atsimg]

Here’s one that might make you dust off your tinfoil hat. It’s the US Army’s 1968 “Civil Disturbance Plan,” codenamed Garden Plot. The plan –first posted by governmentattic.org– explains how the Army planned to “employ Federal forces to assist local authorities in the restoration and maintenance of law and order in the 50 states

Of course, for the “restoration of law and order” to be legal, the president must decree it. Planning ahead, the Army drafted Annex Five (pg. 59): a five-section executive order that authorized the Secretary of Defense to “take all appropriate steps” to quell the restive population… All the president needed to do to allow the military to operate domestically was sign the dotted line.

The Garden Plot plan –drafted after the Watts, Newark, and Detroit riots– captures the acrimonious times when the document was drawn up. The section outlining the Army’s perception of the “situation” in America certainly insinuates an establishment that was afraid the disenfranchised. The Plot warns against “racial unrest,” as well as “anti-draft” and “anti-Vietnam” elements.

Link to document: nsarchive.files.wordpress.com...

What the Army considered “indicators of potential violence (pg. 37)” are also telling (if jarring):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41b0dc468872.jpg[/atsimg]

Garden Plot is a much larger and more broadly orchestrated operation than a governor “merely” calling in the Federal Guard (which happened 92 times from 1 July 1969-30 June 1970). And because historic Garden Plot activity was classified and current activity likely remains so, it is difficult to discern exactly how many times Garden Plot was evoked.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2af2297aed0f.png[/atsimg]

Source: nsarchive.wordpress.com...-1924
Additional info: www.uhuh.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Man, this one gives me the Willies!!!! My whole life I have thought that the Military couldn't be used in Law Enforcement etc, other than National Gaurd-sent by a Gov.

This whole plan, which was last used around the everts of 9-11-of course. But, read what the plan is about and you can see that ANY of us can become an enemy of the State and dealt with violently.

I don't know. Seems to me like they plan and plan... and that will make someone want to use it.

I think we need to get Congress on this plan to make it unlawful for any Federal Troops/military to be involved unless extreme cases present themselves. Like terrorist striking the Twin Towers. Not for civil uprisings. Man.

It will be one hell of a sad day in America when the Federal military is used against it's citizens.... like Syria.

So we just have this ammended to only be invoked in cases of terrorism...yep. Im pretty sure the govt. Would just call the people terrorists. Wait...they already did! Janet Napolitano decreed that white male military vets were considered a possible threat to US security....oh and they are probably racists too! WHat better way to repay your vets than label them racist terrorists. Thanks alot Ms Napolitano...i bet barry barak soerto hussein had a huge smile on his face when that report was released. All hail obama the great divider and ignorer of the constitution.

I'm pretty sure there is a plan for every type of scenario you could think of.

Doesn't mean it will ever happen.

reply to post by kro32


It's already been used.

A boatload of times.=, previously.

What makes it interesting is the current mood of the country and world towards the Govt's.

Could our own troops fire on us?

reply to post by anon72


These types of posts drive me nuts. The reason why is it assumes that every single person in government (at ALL levels), every single member of ALL branches of the Military, every single person with every single federal agency, the entire police forces of the State, County and city, every single member of the national guard and reserve forces, are all in cahoots.

This mindset is based on paranoia and lack of trust, esentially, with everyone who is not your immediate family.

To assume that the military and police are going to just blindly follow orders is not only insulting, it shows an extreme lack of knowledge to even suggest it.

Please... put things in context instead of painting a picture that would make the redeuctation camp scene out of Red Dawn look tame.

reply to post by anon72


I recently asked my ex husband , a viet nam vet Marine if the troops would actually shoot a citizen who rioted in the streets. His answer to me was "an oath keeper wouldnt." So I have hope.

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by anon72

 

I recently asked my ex husband , a viet nam vet Marine if the troops would actually shoot a citizen who rioted in the streets. His answer to me was "an oath keeper wouldnt." So I have hope.

But he would shoot a vietnamese, in vietnam?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

 

.

To assume that the military and police are going to just blindly follow orders is not only insulting, it shows an extreme lack of knowledge to even suggest it.

Whose orders? If orders came to put down a protest riot, what percentage would/would not follow orders. What percentage will take it to the limits and beyond?

Seems apparent that extreme measures could be authorized. Of course, that can't happen here (the USA).

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Authorized sure... but your own response speaks volumes. You dont know who would or would not follow orders so to speak. The simple fact you have to ask that questions tells me the conspiracy is not on solid footing.

Who would or would not follow would throw a wrench in the gears would it not?

the assumption by peope is the orders would be followed blindly and without questions.

Hell the Us military allows its members to disobey an order if its unlawful.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

Authorized sure... but your own response speaks volumes. You dont know who would or would not follow orders so to speak. The simple fact you have to ask that questions tells me the conspiracy is not on solid footing.

Who would or would not follow would throw a wrench in the gears would it not?

the assumption by peope is the orders would be followed blindly and without questions.

Hell the Us military allows its members to disobey an order if its unlawful.

What is and what is not lawful would be difficult to determine at times. Jjust what authority authority has, law enforcement, military acting in law enforcement capacity, etc., that ultimately may be something for the courts to determine case by case. The military is not often subtle and is not a delicate surgical tool. Law enforcement's reins these days have been let out a little too.

In days gone by our town's constable on patrol handled situation with a more personal touch. That is not today's reality in our cities, more and more our law enforcement officers are ex-military with some combat duty and their dealings with matters often reflect this. Where is the line now?

It is not uncommon now for a subject to get tazed during a routine stop for not doing his two-step fast enough to please the officer. These instances include non-threatening persons such as the 70 year-old lady tazed during a highway stop for being argumentative. Perhaps you were speaking of a larger wrench?

The United States is still for the people, my own personal experience is that the majority of people don't really care anymore as long as you don't take away their:

1)Facebook
2)Unemployement Checks
3)Cars
4)K-Mart, Walmart, Cheap Food ect...
5)Google
6)Online Porn
7)Vogue Lifestyle
8)Trolling

Fox

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

In days gone by our town's constable on patrol handled situation with a more personal touch.

In "days gone by," we had less urban sprawl, less advanced and less available means of transportation, smaller towns with less population and less of a transient population to deal with. In "day's gone by," a town's constable or small local police or sheriff's department was sufficient to maintain crime and bring criminals to justice with ease.

In "days gone by," all of the residents of a small town knew each other. That makes it very easy when a resident was to witness "Billy Bob's" son, who is the local troublemaker, commit a crime. That resident could then either take the issue up with "Billy Bob" who would discipline his son or, if not satisfied, could go to the local sheriff or constable and report the crime knowing exactly who was responsible.

The problem is we no longer live in "days gone by." Now a days urban sprawl has made many small towns a suburb of a larger city. Going from small town to suburb brings with it a larger population, public transportation, more and larger roads, a transient population and public housing. When a small town becomes a suburb, the population is not likely to know each other anylonger. Larger population tends to bring the crime rate up. Combine that with methods of transportation that allow a criminal from one part of town to move efficiently and rapidly to another part of town, commit a crime anonymously and then move efficiently and rapidly out of that part of town and you have crime that a local sheriff or constable is no longer effiective at dealing with.

Experience has shown that to deal with the more suburban type environment that we live in today, it requires a larger police force that has to employ different tactics when trying to curtail crime. The ability for one to commit crimes anonymously makes the police department focus more on tactics such as deterrance through "omnipresence," or the appearance of being everywhere at the same time. Also tactics such as using an intelligence section to keep track of certain crime trends and focus patrols accordingly or tactics on the patrol level such as a patrol officer stopping someone who is acting suspiciously and identifying them.

All of this combined requires more personnel and different tactics in policing that a constable, sheriff or small department simply can not offer.

All of this severly limits, but not removes, a single police officer's ability to get to know everyone in the area and fine tailor their methods of policing to every member of that population. In fact, in this environment, the police probably only know, by first name, the people who are giving them a constant problem and they have to deal with on a consistent basis and do not know the good family that lives right down the street that they never have to deal with.

That is not today's reality in our cities, more and more our law enforcement officers are ex-military with some combat duty and their dealings with matters often reflect this. Where is the line now?

Well, I do not know where you are getting your numbers from that reflect that most police officers in today's society are former military.

But, I would say that former members of the military are good candidates for service in the police department because, usually, members of the military are disciplined, well trained and know how to follow orders or policy. This discipline has, usually, kept them out of trouble making a background investigation easy and without issue which is required for employment with a police department. Their training makes them prime candidates for their physical fitness. Their ability to follow orders and policy makes them prime candidates because what a police officer can and can not do is dictated through the police department's policies and state and local law.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

That is not today's reality in our cities, more and more our law enforcement officers are ex-military with some combat duty and their dealings with matters often reflect this. Where is the line now?

Well, I do not know where you are getting your numbers from that reflect that most police officers in today's society are former military.

But, I would say that former members of the military are good candidates for service in the police department because, usually, members of the military are disciplined, well trained and know how to follow orders or policy.

Nor am I sure where you pulled "most" out of my reply to skew those numbers. Way to make your point.

True, these are different times. I didn't think it necessary to elaborate on the population growth, urban sprawl, etc., but thanks for making all that more clear. Perhaps the reasons you offer are in part why it is now acceptable to "taze" granny when she won't shut up. I was interested to know where the citizens feel we should draw the line today. Thanks for your input on that.

My opinion, this is an imperfect world with no perfect solutions. There will always be problems. I would rather deal with the problems stemming from the people having too much liberty than those brought about by them not having enough.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

Nor am I sure where you pulled "most" out of my reply to skew those numbers. Way to make your point.

I stand corrected and apologize for my misunderstanding. It was unintentional on my part.

True, these are different times. I didn't think it necessary to elaborate on the population growth, urban sprawl, etc., but thanks for making all that more clear.

Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I did not offer that long winded explaination in an attempt to be smart or make it appear that you do not understand what I stated. I merely provided it so that any other reader could get a clear picture and full understanding of what we are discussing.

Perhaps the reasons you offer are in part why it is now acceptable to "taze" granny when she won't shut up.

I would not provide, nor is there any, reason to use a tazer on an elderly woman because she simply wont shut up. I think in an instance like this, without any other exigent circumstances, it is either blatant excessive force or too liberal (not meaning the political stance) of a policy on the use of tazers by the police department.

My opinion, this is an imperfect world with no perfect solutions. There will always be problems. I would rather deal with the problems stemming from the people having too much liberty than those brought about by them not having enough.

Could not agree more.