Domestic Operational Law Handbook for Judge Advocates 2010

The Domestic Operational Law (DOPLAW) Handbook for Judge Advocates is a product of the Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO). First published in April of 2001, it was the first of its kind. Designed as a resource for operational lawyers involved in domestic support operations, its publication was indeed timely. After the events of September 11, 2001, and more recently, Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Ike in 2008, the Handbook continued to meet a growing need for an understanding of the legal issues inherent in such operations. As with the original publication of the Handbook, this update would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of countless active, reserve, and National Guard judge advocates who participate in these unique operations on an ongoing basis.

The contents of this Handbook are based on statutes, Executive Orders and Directives, national policy, DoD Directives, joint publications, service regulations and field manuals, and lessons learned by judge advocates. The Handbook is not a substitute for complete references. Indeed, as this update goes to publication, changes in these references are being discussed and in some cases, in the process of completion. Judge Advocates advising in this area of the law should monitor developments in this area closely as the landscape continues to evolve. Further, upon release, the new FM 3-28, Civil Support Operations, should be added to the bookshelf of Judge Advocates and operators alike that may be called to support operations in the Homeland. It provides an excellent overview of the subject and should be read in its entirety.



• 10 U.S.C. § 331-335 – The Restoration Act (Formerly known as “The Insurrection Act”)
• 10 U.S.C. § 2667 – Leases: Non-Excess Property of Military Departments
• 18 U.S.C. § 231 – Civil Disorders
• 18 U.S.C. § 1382 – Entering Military, Naval, or Coast Guard Property
• 18 U.S.C. § 1385 – The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-2680 – The Federal Tort Claims Act
• 31 U.S.C. § 1535 – Agency Agreements
• Executive Order 12656 – Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities
• EO 13527 – Establishing Federal Capability for the Timely Provision of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack (Dec. 30, 2009)
• DoDD 3025.12 – Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances, 4 Feb 94
• DoDD 3025.15 – Military Assistance to Civil Authorities,18 Jan 97
• DoDD 5111.13 – Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, 16 Jan 09
• DoDD 5525.5 – DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, 15 Jan 86
• CJCSI 3121.01B, Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules For the Use of Force for U.S. Forces (S), 13 JUN 2005
• CJCSI 3110.07C, Guidance Concerning Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense and Employment of RIOT Control Agents and Herbicides (S), 22 NOV 2006
• Joint Pub 3-28 – Civil Support (14 Sep. 2007)
• Army Regulation 700-131 – Loan and Lease of Army Materiel (23 Aug. 2004)
• National Guard Regulation 500-1/ANGI 10-8101 – National Guard Domestic Operations (13 Jun. 2008)
• FM 3-07 – Stability Operations and Support Operations (6 Oct. 2008)
• FM 3-19.15 – Civil Disturbances (18 Apr. 2005)

A. Introduction

Within civilian communities in the United States, the local government and the state have the primary responsibility for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order. Generally, federal forces are employed in support of state and local authorities to enforce civil law and order only when circumstances arise that overwhelm the resources of state and local authorities. This basic policy reflects the Founding Fathers’ hesitancy to raise a standing army and their desire to render the military subordinate to civilian authority. The basic policy is rooted in the Constitution and laws of the United States, and allows for exception only under extreme, emergency conditions.

The Constitution guarantees to the states that the Federal government will aid in suppressing civil disturbances (Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO)) and empowers Congress to create laws that provide Federal forces for that purpose.5 Other emergency conditions, which are outside the constitutionally and congressionally prescribed conditions, may also allow for CDO.

B. The Posse Comitatus Act

The primary statute restricting military support to civilian law enforcement is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). The PCA states:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The PCA was enacted in 1878, primarily as a result of the military presence in the South during Reconstruction following the Civil War. This military presence increased during the bitter presidential election of 1876, when the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, defeated the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, by one electoral vote. Many historians attribute Hayes’ victory to President Grant’s decision to send federal troops for use by U.S. Marshals at polling places in the states of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. Possibly as a result of President Grant’s actions, Hayes won the electoral votes of these hotly contested states. The use of the military in this manner by a President led Congress to enact the PCA in 1878.

The intent of the PCA was to limit direct military involvement with civilian law enforcement, absent Congressional or Constitutional authorization, in the enforcement of the laws of the United States. The PCA is a criminal statute and violators are subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The PCA does not, however, prohibit all military involvement with civilian law enforcement. A considerable amount of military participation with civilian law enforcement is permissible, either as indirect support or under one of the numerous PCA exceptions.


ODF and LRP Co-Sponsor Patriot Act Lobby Day (Stop it in its tracks!)

Dear Operation Defuse,

It’s happening again. Congress is preparing to quietly reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act with barely any public debate. Our leaders think you’re not paying attention, so—despite opposition from liberals and libertarians alike—they’re going to continue letting the government intrude on your privacy and violate your fundamental constitutional rights.

Show them you are paying attention. Join us in Washington next Thursday, January 27.

This is our chance to let policy makers in DC know that Americans of all walks of life are concerned about wiretapping law-abiding people, infiltrating peaceful activist groups, subjecting air travelers to virtual strip searches, and more. This is our opportunity to bring attention to the abuses that the PATRIOT Act allows, and the government’s violations of even its minimal requirements.

Next Thursday, bring your concerns to your members of Congress—in person.

If you are not able to come to Washington, you can still participate:

  • Set up meetings at the district offices of your senators and representative. We can help.
  • Whether or not you’re able to join us in DC, please take a moment to add your voice to our letter calling for change at the FBI. Nearly 1,500 concerned Americans have signed so far, and we’ll deliver the letter to Congress when we visit next week—so there’s still time to sign on.

We’re looking forward to seeing you in Washington on January 27.

With our deepest thanks for your commitment to our nation’s most fundamental values,

Shahid Buttar
Executive Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

8 Bridge Street, Suite A, Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116

Militarizing the North American Highway System

The term “North American Union” was created in response to two things:

  1. The Council on Foreign Relations’ report entitled “Building a North American Community.”
  2. The adoption of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

President Barack Obama, left, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, right, and Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, center, at the North American Leader’s Summit at the Cabanas Cultural Center in Guadalajara, Monday, August 10, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Both items center on how America is to correspond with Mexico and Canada in order to “improve cooperative efforts among the three countries in areas related to economic prosperity and the protection of the environment, the food supply, and public health.”  There has yet to be a signed treaty or document, signifying the final step in becoming what is dubbed “The North American Union.”  However due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) put into law in 1994, Congress is working against the people and sovereignty of our States and Nation through the funding of non-profit organizations.

First is the non-profit organization known as North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO).  “Since 1994, North America’s Corridor Coalition members have been leaders at the forefront of uniting public AND private sectors to address critical national and international trade, transportation, security and environmental issues. Spanning almost 2,500 hundred miles through the central United States, eastern and central Canada, and deep into Mexico, the NASCO trade corridor is a multi-modal transportation network that connects 71 million people and supports a large part of $1 trillion dollars in total commerce between the three nations.”

NASCO’s goal is to improve the existing highways, freight lines, and canals in order to stretch transportation from the very base of Mexico, through the Heartland of the United States (Kansas City), and branching across Canada. “NASCO is devoted to uniting public AND private sectors to address critical national and international trade, transportation, security and environmental issues.”  Dennis Moore, Emanuel Cleaver, Sam Graves, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Pete Sessions, Kenny Marchant, Henry Bonilla, Henry Cuellar, Tom Latham, Kay Granger, and Michael Burgess were the NASCO SuperCorridor Caucus for Capitol Hill in 2006 as presented in this Security and Prosperity Partnership PowerPoint Presentation.

Through improving our current infrastructure, NASCO is working with Lockheed-Martin to implement a freight tracking system claimed to add security of containers coming into the United States.  Due to the claim of improving safety, NAFTRACS (information provided later) was allowed federal grants.


CUSTOMER BASE: As a global security and information technology company, the majority of Lockheed Martin’s business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. federal government agencies. In fact, Lockheed Martin is the largest provider of IT services, systems integration, and training to the U.S. Government. The remaining portion of Lockheed Martin’s business is comprised of international government and some commercial sales of our products, services and platforms.

ORGANIZATION: Lockheed Martin’s operating units are organized into broad business areas.

Aeronautics, with approximately $12.2 billion in 2009 sales, includes tactical aircraft, airlift, and aeronautical research and development lines of business.

Electronic Systems, with approximately $12.2 billion in 2009 sales, includes missiles and fire control, naval systems, platform integration, simulation and training and energy programs lines of business.

Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), with approximately $12.1 billion in 2009 sales, includes C4I, federal services, government and commercial IT solutions.

Space Systems, with approximately $8.6 billion in 2009 sales, includes space launch, commercial satellites, government satellites, and strategic missiles lines of business.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion, a backlog of $78 billion, and cash flow from operations of $3.2 billion.

Back to NASCO:

The Goal of NASCO is to provide adequate tracking devices along the highway system for international companies to place RFID chips on all items being transported within the corridor so international communities and businesses are aware of the exact location of items at all times. The following is from this link:

Transportation Efficiency and Security

NASCO’s experience in researching and developing leading edge information technology and software applications is significant. Over the years, the nonprofit has partnered and worked with some of the most outstanding companies operating in the industry across North America.


In April 2009, NASCO concluded a two-year study on a pilot project called NAFTRACS (North American Facilitation of Transportation, Trade, Reduced Congestion and Security), a research and development program to test advanced freight tracking technologies along the 2,480-mile (3,991 kilometers) corridor and their benefits to both the public and private sectors.

A NASCO effort secured two Congressional R&D grants, totaling about $1.8 million, overseen by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to fund the pilot. The pilot project Team consisted of project manager Lockheed Martin Co. and two additional technology partners – OnAsset Intelligence of Irving, Texas and GeoDecisions of Pennsylvania, a provider of worldwide logistics support to the U.S. Defense Department.

Major trucking companies and shippers took part in the pilot program and the international cargo tracking and tracing project was completed and submitted to the U.S. DOT in the summer of 2009.

The program was viewed as providing a highly valuable model and example of a hybrid public-private cargo tracking system that would benefit multiple U.S. states, Mexico and Canada through near real-time reporting of cargo movements through the heartland of North America.


Immediately following NAFTRACS, the U.S. DOT and FHWA partnered with NASCO to collaborate again on an information technology-driven development program that could greatly increase safety and security at key major metropolitan areas along the NASCO Corridor.

The Cross-Town Improvement Program (C-TIP) is an effort by the FHWA to work with industry to reduce unnecessary short-haul truck trips across urban areas.

The C-TIP project does this by collecting and disseminating information on short-haul congestion, expanding the capacity of existing transportation infrastructure, and reducing negative fuel emissions from freight movements. NASCO is working with C-TIP to promote the program in other urban areas along its corridor.

In the C-TIP pilot project in Kansas City, by surfacing information from trucking, rail, warehousing and distribution operations, shippers and others, the FHWA and the project aim to cut unnecessary, cross-town, short-haul truck trips by as much as 40 percent, which would reduce carbon emissions by the same percent in the metro region of Kansas City, MO.

While NASCO is not receiving federal funding for its efforts related to C-TIP, it is actively promoting the C-TIP concept as “a best practice” for study and possible adoption by other major, urban transport hubs along the NASCO Corridor.


The North American Inland Port Network (NAIPN) is a committee of NASCO that exists to advocate for the interests of Inland Ports (or intermodal transportation facilities) along the NASCO Corridor in the three nations of North America. It is considered the leading inland port trade association in North America.

NAIPN was founded in 2003 by NASCO members in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to unite growing numbers of Inland Ports along the tri-national NASCO Corridor and to provide a business development forum for the inland ports.

NAIPN supports NASCO’s mission to strengthen and secure the multi-modal trade and transportation corridor system and to identify and disseminate best practices affecting these juggernauts of economic development, investment and job creation within North America. NAIPN acts to expand job creation and raise public awareness of inland ports’ integral role in economic development and trade.

Through this Johnson County, Kansas Website: studies, layouts, and planning are detailed in restructuring the I-435/I-35/K-10 interchange.  This is the Heart of the Super Corridor.  Construction begins in 2012 [an interesting year to begin such tasks, I would add].

Unrelated to NASCO and to also further the North American Police State; Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians must worry about the international non-profit organization known as Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).  CVSA is comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal motor carrier safety officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico (AKA Police Officers).  1980 marked the beginning of this organization through informal meetings. Over the years CVSA has gained prominence from the United States, Canada, and Mexico as becoming one of the main inspectors of commercial vehicles and busses. CVSA is both privately and, since 1994, federally funded. CVSA is currently pushing Congress to change laws and increase funding.

The Kansas Highway Patrol is the State of Kansas host agency for CVSA. Located at 1220 S. Enterprise Street, Olathe, KS 66061, Troop A is responsible for Johnson, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, and Miami counties. Furthermore, CVSA’s Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Department (COHMED) National Chairman, Rex Railsback, is also stationed at this location.  I would not have known about this organization if it weren’t for seeing the following picture in the back window of a police vehicle at a very populated, local event:

Commercial Vehicle Service Alliance Logo

In conclusion, our country’s sovereignty is under attack due to Congress and private companies funding non-profit organizations with international goals involving Canada, United States, and Mexico.  The “North American Union” is not in existence, however we are quickly marching toward a Fascist Corpocracy.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Questions to Ask Your Local Fusion Center

Fusion Center Questions

1. Under what authority does the Fusion Center operate (state law, local law, federal law?)

2. What type of information does the fusion collect that is of a non-criminal nature?

3. When was the Fusion Center Created?

4. What entities have participated in or are currently participating in information sharing with the fusion center?

5. Who is responsible and what practices are utilized to ensure all federal, state and local laws protecting privacy and civil liberties are enforced?

6. What information, intelligence and/or data are collected at the Fusion Center and how is it stored?

7. Is there a particular issue or area of interest that the fusion center focuses on?

8. What does the Fusion Center do to ensure the accuracy of the data it receives and disseminates?

9. Do all databases associated with the Fusion Center comply with 28 C.F.R. Part 23?

10. What databases/data sets does the Fusion Center have access to, and how does it access them?

11. Do any non-law enforcement entities participate in Fusion Center activities? If so, who and in what ways?

12. Do any private sector entities participate in the Fusion Center activities? If so, who and in what ways?

13. How are private sector entities selected to participate in the Fusion Center? May private sector entities not selected to participate in Fusion Centers receive the same information that is made available to those private entities that are selected? How would they get access to this information?

14. Do these non-law enforcement entities have access to law enforcement information or databases through their participation in the Fusion Centers? If they are co-located with law enforcement personnel what safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access?

15. What staff comprises the Louisiana Fusion Center? How many analysts are staffed, what are their areas of focus, and what agencies do they belong to?

16. Who is responsible for overseeing the non-law enforcement and private sector personnel, and who are these individuals accountable to?
17. Who trains Fusion Center personnel?

18. Do any private companies handle, store or analyze data received from or processed through the Fusion Center? How is that data protected once it is out of government control?

19. Does the National Guard participate in the Fusion Center, and if so, under what authority?

20. Are the National Guardsmen limited in what data they may collect, analyze, or review at the Fusion Centers?

21. Do any active-duty military personnel participate, and if so under what authority and in what ways?

22. How is activity of the National Guardsmen and military personnel monitored to ensure compliance with applicable laws regarding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement?

23. What are the annual costs of the Fusion Center?

24. How do you evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Fusion Center?

25. Has the Fusion Center worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League and if so, in what capacity?

26. What are the titles of the strategic reports, bulletins, BOLO (Be On the Look Out) alerts, etc that Fusion Center has issued since its inception?

27. Is the Fusion Center currently investigating or monitoring any militia related activity?

28. Does the Fusion Center investigate organizers of large events such as rallies and/or protests?

29. Is there a privacy oversight committee or anything similar for the Fusion Center and if so who comprises it?

30. Is there a board of directors or governing body that oversees the Fusion Center?