Martial Law - Insurrection Act - WHAT does it mean? FACT: USA has been under a STATE of EMERGENCY since 1933. Rodney King was a PSYOPS - Hatred between Black and White created by Elites. Many LA Cops & Sherriff are GANG Members.

Can we expect a decent society if the state is allowed to kill its own people?  -Coretta Scott King 

 

Clip Played:  Trump Faces Off with Newsom As Marines Head to L.A. | The Daily Show (youtube.com)

Music:   Don McLean - American Pie (Lyric Video) (youtube.com)

Do you have a psychopath in your life?  The best way to find out is read my book.  BOOK *FREE* Download – Psychopath In Your Life4 

Support is Appreciated: Support the Show – Psychopath In Your Life 

URGENT Advice For Immigrants Navigating ICE's Increased Enforcement (youtube.com)

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Martial law - Wikipedia

Workers fail to show up to factories and warehouses amid fears surrounding ICE raids (youtube.com)

A history lesson for Americans. You’re still British. – Patriots for Truth (patriots4truth.org)

LA Protests: Local Police Brutalize Protesters During ICE Raids (theintercept.com)

rodney2.pdf (mileswmathis.com)  Miles Mathis/Rodney King

George Holliday who filmed LAPD beating Rodney King says video 'needed to be used' | Daily Mail Online

Is Miles Mathis Real? Is the "Phoenician Navy" behind everything? | stolenhistory.net - Rediscovered History of the World

Genealogy of Miles Mathis Reveals Hidden Freemasonic Bloodline With Direct Relation to First Ohio Governor Tiffin, Charlemagne, Charles Martel – Fauxlex (wordpress.com)

Martial law - Wikipedia

MK7 Gang Stalking and Schizophrenia RUN by USA Churches & CIA* the USA has declared citizens terrorists WITH Schizophrenia.  Made up disease with serious side effects and death. (psychopathinyourlife.com)

Zersetzung was used by STASI (E.German Police) on East Germany to go after citizens.  Gang stalking and murdering anyone in their path= NOW Official USA Policy.  USA Sanctioned murder plot against ANYONE who disagrees.     (psychopathinyourlife.com)

Timeline of U.S. National Emergency Powers: 1933–Present 

1933–1976: Era of Open-Ended Emergency Powers 

March 6, 1933 – President Franklin D. Roosevelt declares a national emergency to address the banking crisis using the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.  

• Allowed expanded military production and federal controls. 
• Remained in effect until 1978. 

March 23, 1970 – President Richard Nixon declares a national emergency during the postal workers' strike. 

• Authorized use of the National Guard to deliver mail. 

August 15, 1971 – Nixon declares another emergency to implement wage and price controls in response to inflation. 

1973–1975 – Congressional investigations (Church & Pike Committees) uncover executive and intelligence abuses. 

September 14, 1976 – Congress passes the National Emergencies Act (NEA): 

• Terminates all existing emergency declarations in 1978. 

• Requires presidents to cite specific statutory powers. 

• Emergencies must be renewed annually. 

• Congress can terminate by joint resolution.

1979–Present: Continuous Emergency Powers Under NEA 

November 14, 1979 – President Jimmy Carter declares national emergency over the Iran Hostage Crisis. 

• Still in effect as of 2025, renewed annually. 

January 17, 1995 – President Bill Clinton declares emergency over foreign terrorist threats, leading to sanctions and new anti-terror finance powers. 

September 14, 2001 – President George W. Bush declares emergency after 9/11 attacks. 

• Activates broad military and intelligence powers. 

• Still in effect (used for military operations, surveillance, and detention policies). 

February 15, 2019 – President Donald Trump declares emergency to build border wall. 

• Diverted military construction funds. 

• Subject to legal challenges. 

January 31, 2020 – COVID-19 public health emergency (by HHS) and March 13, 2020 national emergency (by Trump). 

• Enabled Defense Production Act use and FEMA response. 

• Ended in 2023. 

January 20, 2025 – President Trump (second term) declares multiple new emergencies: 

• Border/Immigration enforcement 

• Energy infrastructure 

• Global trade and tariff crises 

• Deployment of troops to U.S. cities amid unrest 

Summary 

• 1933–1976: Emergency powers used with few limits; remained active for decades. 
• 1976 NEA: Overhauled system with transparency, term limits, and checks. 
• 1979–present: U.S. has had at least one national emergency in effect at all times. 
• Over 40 active national emergencies as of 2025, mostly for foreign sanctions, terrorism, and immigration. 

Martial law is the temporary imposition of direct military control over normal civilian functions of government, usually in response to a national emergency, war, rebellion, or natural disaster.

It suspends ordinary law and often includes curfews, restrictions on movement, suspension of civil liberties, and military tribunals. 

WHAT IS MARTIAL LAW? 

Key Features: 

• Military takes control over some or all aspects of government. 
• Civil liberties may be suspended (e.g., freedom of speech, habeas corpus). 
• Civilian courts may be replaced with military tribunals. 
• Curfews, checkpoints, and warrantless arrests are often enforced. 

ORIGINS & HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

Ancient Roots: 

• The idea dates back to Roman times ("Justitium") when civil law was suspended during emergencies. 

English Tradition: 

• Influenced by English common law, where martial law could be declared in response to invasion or rebellion, but was viewed with suspicion due to the threat to civil liberties. 

U.S. Legal Foundations: 

• Not explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution. 
• Presidents and state governors have claimed the right to declare it in extreme situations. 
• Article I, Section 9 allows suspension of habeas corpus during rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it. 

 

MARTIAL LAW IN U.S. HISTORY 

Year	Event	Details
1812	War of 1812	General Andrew Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans.
1861–1865	Civil War	Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; declared martial law in some areas.
1892	Coeur d'Alene labor strike	Idaho National Guard imposed martial law during mining unrest.
1934	Hawaii labor unrest	Governor declared martial law over dock strikes.
1941–1944	WWII (Hawaii)	Full martial law imposed after Pearl Harbor attack. Civil courts were suspended.
1954	Brown v. Board aftermath	Arkansas governor used National Guard to block integration—Eisenhower federalized the Guard and deployed the military.
1968	Civil unrest	Chicago and D.C. saw de facto martial law during riots after MLK’s assassination.
2005	Hurricane Katrina	Considered but not declared. The Posse Comitatus Act restricted federal troops' domestic use.

 

LEGAL LIMITS TODAY 

Posse Comitatus Act (1878) 

• Limits the federal military’s ability to enforce domestic law unless expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. 

• Does not apply to National Guard under state command—governors can use them freely. 

Key Court Case: 

• Ex parte Milligan (1866): Supreme Court ruled martial law cannot be imposed where civilian courts are operating. 
• Set a precedent that civilian authority must remain supreme unless there's no other choice. 

MODERN USAGE & FEARS 

De Facto Martial Law (not official, but functionally similar) 

• During natural disasters or civil unrest, governors may call in the National Guard to: 
• Impose curfews 
• Restrict movement 
• Use force to restore order 

Martial Law Not Declared in These Cases: 

• COVID-19 pandemic: Lockdowns and restrictions were civil authority actions, not military law. 
• 2020 George Floyd protests: National Guard was deployed, but martial law was not declared. 
• Jan 6, 2021 (Capitol riot): Some called for martial law, but it was not invoked. 

CONCERNS TODAY 

• Misinformation often surrounds martial law, especially on social media. 
• Some fear its use in: 
• Election disputes 
• Mass unrest 
• Pandemic enforcement 
• No modern legal pathway allows a president to declare nationwide martial law without Congressional support or extreme circumstances. 

SUMMARY 

Martial Law	Civilian Emergency
Military in control	Police in control
Civil rights suspended	Rights usually intact
Military courts	Civil courts
Rare and extreme	More common

Major Times the National Guard Was Deployed for Civil Unrest in the U.S. 

🔹 Before the Rodney King Riots (1992): 

Year	Event	Details
1957	Little Rock, Arkansas	Eisenhower federalized the National Guard to enforce school desegregation against the governor's resistance.
1965	Watts Riots, Los Angeles	National Guard deployed after 6 days of unrest following a traffic stop and accusations of police brutality.
1967	Detroit Riot	Largest civil disturbance of the decade; Guard and Army deployed. 43 dead.
1968	MLK Assassination Riots	After Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, riots broke out in 125 cities. Guard deployed widely.
1970	Kent State University	Guard fired on anti-Vietnam protesters, killing 4 students.

 

🔹 Rodney King Riots (1992): 

• California National Guard deployed ~4,000 troops initially.
• Eventually, over 10,000 troops including U.S. Army and Marines were involved under Operation Garden Plot.

🔹 After 1992: 

Year	Event	Details
1999	WTO Protests (Seattle)	Guard called in during anti-globalization protests.
2005	Hurricane Katrina (New Orleans)	National Guard deployed to assist with evacuation, rescue, and law enforcement.
2014	Ferguson, Missouri	Deployed after Michael Brown's shooting sparked protests and unrest.
2020	George Floyd Protests	Guard deployed in over 30 states due to widespread protests and riots.
2021	U.S. Capitol Riot (Jan 6)	Guard deployed to secure D.C. and support law enforcement. Over 25,000 troops guarded the 2021 inauguration.

Posse Comitatus Act – Overview 

Enacted: 

• June 18, 1878 

Full Name: 

• 18 U.S. Code § 1385 – Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus 

Main Purpose: 

To prevent the federal government from using the U.S. Army or Air Force to enforce domestic laws without Congressional or constitutional authorization. 

 Key Points: 

Topic	Details
Who’s restricted?	Primarily the Army and Air Force; by policy, also includes the Navy and Marine Corps.
Who’s not restricted?	National Guard under state authority, Coast Guard, federal law enforcement (FBI, ATF, DEA, etc.)
What’s banned?	Military personnel cannot arrest civilians, conduct searches, seizures, or surveillance for law enforcement purposes inside the U.S.
Exceptions?	Yes — in cases like:

• National Guard under state command (Title 32) 
• Insurrection Act of 1807 
• Disaster relief & emergencies (Stafford Act) 
• Military support roles (logistics, intel, transport) without direct law enforcement action | 

Why It Matters: 

• It protects civil liberties and prevents military occupation of civilian spaces. 
• It’s a check against authoritarianism or the use of military force against U.S. citizens. 
• Often comes up in debates over military at the border, protest response, and martial law scenarios. 

 

Historical Use of Military Despite Posse Comitatus 

Year	Event	How It Was Allowed
1957	Little Rock school desegregation	Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act
1992	LA Riots after Rodney King verdict	National Guard under state control + federal troops by Insurrection Act
2005	Hurricane Katrina	Military provided aid, not law enforcement
2020	George Floyd protests	National Guard activated by states; debate over Trump’s consideration of the Insurrection Act

"Posse Comitatus" — What the Term Means 

• Latin for "power of the county" 
• Historically meant the sheriff could summon citizens (a "posse") to enforce the law 
• The act was passed after Reconstruction to stop the use of federal troops in the South 

The Rodney King PsyOPS - Inciting Racial Violence Intentionally

March 3, or 3/3 

LAPD = 12+1+16+4 = 33 

Police = 7+6+3+9+3+5 = 33 (P=16=7;O=15=6;L=12=3) 

Race War = 9+1+3+5+5+1+9 = 33 

RK = 911 (R=18=9;K=11) 

Following the acquittal of the LAPD, riots ensued in Los Angeles in April of 1992, being the worst in terms of death toll and destruction since the riots of the 1960s. 

Sixties = 1+9+6+2+9+5+1 = 33 

On the date of April 16, 1993, the LAPD was finally acquitted of all wrongdoing by federal courts; emphasis on federal. 

4/16/1993 = 4+1+6+1+9+9+3 = 33 

Federal = 6+5+4+5+9+1+3 = 33 

Police = 7+6+3+9+3+5 = 33 

LAPD = 12+1+16+4 = 33 

Throughout history, the numbers 42 and 59 have been coded on black Americans.  In the case of Rodney King, his name Gematria is 59, and his birthday is 4/2, much like 42. 

Rodney = 9+6+4+5+5+7 = 36 

King = 2+9+5+7 = 23 

Rodney King = 59 

Born April 2, or 4/2 

Five = 6+9+22+5 = 42 

Nine = 14+9+14+5 = 42 

Nigger = 5+9+7+7+5+9 = 42      free to find truth: 33 42 59 | The Rodney King PsyOPS - Inciting Racial Violence Intentionally

Fusion centers in the United States are intelligence-sharing hubs that coordinate federal, state, tribal, local, and private-sector information.

They were established to improve information sharing after the 9/11 attacks, focusing on homeland security, terrorism, and crime prevention. 

What Are Fusion Centers? 

Fusion centers are state-owned and operated entities that serve as central points for gathering, analyzing, and sharing threat-related information between: 

• Federal government (especially DHS and FBI) 
• State and local law enforcement 
• Tribal and territorial governments 
• Private sector 
• Intelligence community 

They aim to detect and respond to threats ranging from terrorism and gang violence to cybersecurity breaches and public health threats. 

What Law Created Fusion Centers? 

Fusion centers were not established by a single federal law, but rather evolved through executive actions, post-9/11 security reforms, and federal funding streams: 

• Patriot Act (2001): Expanded federal surveillance and information-sharing powers. 
• Homeland Security Act (2002): Created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which began supporting state-level intelligence centers. 
• 9/11 Commission Report (2004): Recommended improved inter-agency and intergovernmental information sharing. 
• Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004): Strengthened mechanisms for sharing terrorism-related information across all levels. 

Fusion centers grew rapidly in the mid-2000s with support from the DHS and DOJ (especially through Homeland Security Grant Programs). 

How Many Fusion Centers Are There? 

As of 2024, there are: 

80 Recognized Fusion Centers 

• These are formally designated by DHS and operate in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and several major urban areas. 
• Some large states (e.g., California, Texas) have multiple regional fusion centers. 

Who Oversees Them? 

Fusion centers are state-run, but coordination and guidance come from multiple entities: 

State & Local Government: 

• Operated by state law enforcement or emergency management agencies 
• State governors typically designate or support their creation 
• Local law enforcement contributes analysts and personnel 

Federal Government: 

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis): 
• Provides oversight, funding, training, and information systems 
• Has Intelligence Officers (IOs) embedded in many fusion centers 
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): 
• Often works in tandem with fusion centers and Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) 

What Do Fusion Centers Do? 

They focus on "all-hazards, all-crimes" approaches, including: 

• Terrorism threat assessments 
• Criminal intelligence gathering (gangs, cartels, trafficking) 
• Monitoring of protests or dissident activity (controversial) 
• Cybersecurity threat analysis 
• Public health emergency coordination 
• Infrastructure protection 

Controversies & Criticism 

Fusion centers have faced heavy scrutiny: 

• Privacy violations: Surveillance of protestors, journalists, and activists 
• Lack of oversight: Limited transparency, civil liberties concerns 
• Mission creep: Expansion beyond terrorism to monitor everyday crime or political activity 
• Effectiveness questioned: Senate report in 2012 said centers produced “shoddy” intelligence 

Key Programs and Tools They Use 

• Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Program 
• N-DEx (National Data Exchange) 
• HSIN (Homeland Security Information Network) 
• E-Guardian (FBI threat sharing platform) 

Example Fusion Centers 

Fusion Center	Location	Operating Agency
NYSIC	New York	NY State Police
STIC	Illinois	Illinois State Police
NCRIC	San Francisco Bay Area	Regional (multi-county)
LA JRIC	Los Angeles	Multi-agency joint effort
TLOs (Terrorism Liaison Officers)	Nationwide	Used to plug in local police/fire

 

Timeline: Growth of Fusion Centers in the U.S. (2001–2024) 

2001 

• September 11 Attacks prompt a massive overhaul of national security infrastructure. 
• Identified failure: poor information sharing between federal, state, and local agencies. 

2002 

• Homeland Security Act of 2002 creates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
• Initial efforts begin to create state-level intelligence sharing centers, informally and without a central model. 

2003–2004 

• States like Georgia, New York, and California establish early fusion centers with federal encouragement. 
• The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) is issued by DOJ to improve sharing across agencies. 
• DHS begins offering technical assistance and guidance. 

2004 

• Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) passed. 
• Mandates integration of state, local, and tribal officials into the Intelligence Community. 
• First formal push toward fusion center standardization begins. 

2005 

• DHS and DOJ start identifying and recognizing fusion centers across the U.S. 
• The first batch of centers (about 40) is formally recognized. 

2006 

• DHS creates the Fusion Center Initiative to support the nationwide network. 
• Federal grant funding (UASI, SHSP) is increased to support state fusion centers. 

2007 

• DHS releases the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, outlining minimum requirements. 
• Fusion centers are encouraged to take an “all-crimes, all-hazards” approach—not just terrorism. 

2008 

• Fusion Center Guidelines are published (DOJ & DHS collaboration). 
• Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Protection Framework is added as a requirement. 
• Fusion center number increases to 58 recognized centers. 

2009–2010 

• Number of recognized centers grows to 72. 
• Fusion centers begin integrating cybersecurity, gang violence, human trafficking, and disaster response into their missions. 

2011 

• Senate Homeland Security Committee releases concerns about oversight and coordination. 

2012 

• U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) publishes a damning report: 
• Fusion centers produce “irrelevant, useless, or inappropriate” intelligence. 
• Widespread issues of wasted funding, civil liberties violations, and poor federal oversight. 
• DHS disputes the report's conclusions.

2014–2016 

• Fusion centers expand social media monitoring and begin collaborating with private tech companies. 
• DHS begins embedding Intelligence Officers (IOs) within major fusion centers. 

2017–2019 

• Fusion centers involved in monitoring civil unrest, school threats, and opioid trafficking. 
• Integration with FBI’s eGuardian and Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) system strengthened. 

2020 

• Fusion centers monitor COVID-19-related threats, protests (e.g., George Floyd), and public health intelligence. 
• Rise in scrutiny due to allegations of protester surveillance during BLM demonstrations.

2021–2022 

• Focus expands to domestic violent extremism (DVE) and election security. 
• DHS renews emphasis on public-private partnerships with telecom, cyber, and banking sectors. 

2023 

• 80 fusion centers now officially recognized by DHS across the U.S. 
• Increased concern over AI tools, predictive policing, and data privacy within fusion centers. 
• Some states audit or restructure their centers for transparency.

2024 

• Fusion centers receive expanded federal cybersecurity funding. 
• Continued criticism from privacy groups, journalists, and civil liberties watchdogs. 
• Legislative proposals arise in some states to limit fusion center access to protest activity data. 

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD): Deputy Gangs and Cliques

Deputy Gangs Overview

• Whistleblowers, journalists, and civil rights groups have documented secretive cliques within LASD for decades.
• These groups have been called “deputy gangs”, operating out of specific stations.
• Some notable gangs:
• The Executioners (Compton station)
• The Banditos (East L.A. station)
• The Grim Reapers, Cavemen, Jump Out Boys, and others

Key Findings and Reports

• 2021: A report by UCLA’s Luskin Center and civil rights attorneys' documents over 18 active deputy gangs dating back to at least the 1970s.
• 2019–2022: Multiple lawsuits allege deputies beat, hazed, and retaliated against other deputies who refused to join these cliques.
• 2023: California State Legislature passes AB 958, defining law enforcement gangs and prohibiting participation in them.

Official Statements

• Sheriff Alex Villanueva (2018–2022) was criticized for denying or downplaying gang activity.
• Current Sheriff Robert Luna has pledged reform and internal investigations.

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD): CRASH & Rampart Scandal

CRASH Units (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums)

• Initiated in the 1980s to fight gang violence but later accused of behaving like a gang themselves.

Rampart Scandal (1999–2001)

• A massive corruption case involving the Rampart Division's CRASH unit:
• Officers planted evidence, committed perjury, engaged in theft, shootings, and gang activity.
• Over 100 convictions were overturned.
• Officer Rafael Pérez became the key whistleblower after being caught stealing cocaine.
• LAPD paid over $70 million in civil settlements.

Reforms Post-Rampart

• Led to major reforms, including:
• Federal consent decree with the Department of Justice (2001–2013)
• Internal audits, new oversight procedures
• Restructuring of anti-gang units

💬 Current Concerns & Monitoring

• Ongoing lawsuits and watchdog reports suggest that both agencies still have entrenched cultures that enable abuse and protect rogue officers.
• Groups like the ACLU, Knock LA, and Stop LAPD Spying Coalition continue to document:
• Surveillance of activists
• Racial profiling
• Militarization and abuse of gang databases

Fusion Center Connections

• Both LAPD and LASD are tied into Southern California's fusion center:
• LA JRIC (Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center)
• Provides intelligence-sharing, surveillance tools, and terrorism-related briefings
• Critics argue this facilitates excessive monitoring of minority communities and political dissent

LASD: Lawsuits & Whistleblowers

1. Captain Angela Walton (2024)

• Brought a whistleblower suit alleging retaliation by LASD under Sheriff Villanueva for her efforts to address a deputy kneeling on a handcuffed inmate’s head lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net+9witnessla.com+9en.wikipedia.org+9.
• In court (Jan 2024), Villanueva testified “deputy gangs don’t exist,” while Walton and others testified otherwise witnessla.com.

1. Sgt. Vanessa Chow (2022)

• Accused LASD leaders of retaliating against her husband’s investigation into the “Banditos” clique’s violent hazing.
• Court records show orders to avoid asking about deputy cliques; several deputies faced firing, but no criminal charges due to perceived “insufficient evidence” abc7.com.

1. Lt. Joseph Garrido & Others (2022–present)

• Multiple current/former officers, including Lt. Garrido, Commander Castellano, and retired Chief Haselrig, filed retaliation lawsuits against Sheriff Villanueva en.wikipedia.org+9cbsnews.com+9knock-la.com+9.

1. “Executioners” Lawsuit (2021 RAND/Compton)

• Whistleblower from Compton station alleges “Executioners” clique excludes African Americans/women and engages in planting evidence and violence eff.org+4file.lacounty.gov+4en.wikipedia.org+4.
• A deputy testified a murder (Andres Guardado) was part of joining that gang en.wikipedia.org.

1. Lynwood Vikings (1990s–2011)

• Dept. sanctioned lawsuits over this deputy clique; $9 million in fines and multiple civil suits, including one that freed a man wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years en.wikipedia.org+6en.wikipedia.org+6witnessla.com+6.

LAPD: Lawsuits & Testimonies

1. Rampart CRASH Scandal (1990s–2000s)

• Over 70 officers implicated in planting evidence, perjury, shootings; ~106 convictions overturned.
• Resulted in more than 140 civil suits and a $125 million settlement fund en.wikipedia.org.
• Whistleblowers such as Rafael Pérez and Detective Russell Poole accused the department of encouraging misconduct and covering it up en.wikipedia.org+1knock-la.com+1.

1. Whistleblower Overtime Fraud (2025)

• Retired Sgt. Randy Rangel awarded $4.5 million after reporting overtime billing fraud, followed by departmental retaliation latimes.com.
• Other suits from Transit Services alleged gender discrimination and managerial retaliation ($949,000 jury award) latimes.com.

1. Surveillance of Protests (2020–2021)

• LAPD requested Ring camera feeds of Black Lives Matter protests via the “Safe LA Task Force,” sparking privacy concerns eff.org.

 

Timeline Linking Police Misconduct to Fusion Center Monitoring

Year	Event & Connection to Fusion Center Surveillance
1999–2001	Rampart CRASH scandal unfolds; LAPD unions with DOJ under consent decree.
2006	Establishment of LA JRIC (fusion center) staffed jointly by LAPD, LASD, FBI, DHS, etc.
2020	Fusion centers like JRIC actively monitor protests; LAPD uses Ring partnerships—data flows through JRIC systems.
2021	LASD deputy gang whistleblowers appear, coinciding with expanded domestic intelligence collection by fusion centers around civil unrest.
2022–2024	Multiple whistleblowers file suits; LASD faces state AG civil rights probe (Jan 2021). JRIC continues collecting “all-crimes” intel amid serious departmental misconduct.

 

The Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians are a set of 18 voluntary commitments made by countries to strengthen the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping operations, especially to ensure they protect civilians in conflict zones.

Adopted in May 2015 in Kigali, Rwanda, the Kigali Principles aim to: 

• Prevent mass atrocities and civilian casualties. 

• Ensure that UN peacekeepers are trained, equipped, and authorized to use force to protect civilians. 

• Hold troop-contributing countries accountable if they fail to act. 

Key Commitments Include: 

1. Not to hesitate to act to protect civilians under threat. 

1. To ensure that peacekeepers are prepared, trained, and equipped to protect civilians. 

1. To investigate and hold accountable those who fail to protect civilians. 

1. To improve information sharing and communication among peacekeepers. 

1. To support efforts that improve the planning and performance of peacekeeping operations. 

These are voluntary political commitments, not binding international law.  

When Did the United States Sign On? 

• The United States endorsed the Kigali Principles on May 29, 2016, during the Obama administration. 
• The announcement was made on International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, as part of the U.S. effort to reform and strengthen peacekeeping missions. 

Why Do They Matter? 

• They were created in response to failures of past UN missions (e.g., Rwanda 1994 genocide, Srebrenica 1995 massacre), where peacekeepers failed to intervene to protect civilians. 
• The Kigali Principles are intended to avoid such failures by establishing clear standards of proactive engagement. 
• Although the U.S. is not a major troop-contributing country, it provides significant funding, training, and logistics for UN peacekeeping. 

Additional Context 

Topic	Details
Date Adopted	May 28, 2015
Initial Signatories	38 countries, led by Rwanda
🇺🇸 U.S. Endorsement	May 29, 2016 (Obama Administration)
Main Goal	Strengthen the mandate and resolve to protect civilians in UN peacekeeping missions

 

The 18 Kigali Principles 

1. Train all personnel on the protection of civilians (PoC). 
2. Ensure readiness to protect civilians before deployment. 
3. Be prepared to use force to protect civilians under imminent threat. 
4. Not to hesitate in using force when civilians are under threat. 
5. Prevent and respond to sexual violence. 
6. Maintain a strong posture and presence to deter threats. 
7. Support political solutions, not just military. 
8. Actively seek and share information to understand civilian threats. 
9. Have clear rules of engagement and operational guidance for PoC. 
10. Hold personnel accountable for failing to protect civilians. 
11. Communicate clearly with local populations to build trust. 
12. Enhance coordination among peacekeepers and with other actors. 
13. Support peacebuilding and recovery efforts. 
14. Recognize the centrality of PoC to mission success. 
15. Deploy qualified and experienced personnel. 
16. Ensure commanders at all levels understand their responsibilities. 
17. Report accurately on threats and responses related to civilian protection. 
18. Commit politically and financially to improving PoC in peacekeeping. 

Countries That Have Endorsed the Kigali Principles 

(as of the latest available list) 

1. Rwanda (originator) 
2. United States (joined May 29, 2016) 
3. Argentina 
4. Armenia 
5. Australia 
6. Austria 
7. Bangladesh 
8. Belgium 
9. Benin 
10. Botswana 
11. Brazil 
12. Burkina Faso 
13. Canada 
14. Czech Republic 
15. Djibouti 
16. Ethiopia 
17. Finland 
18. France 
19. Germany 
20. Ghana 
21. Guinea 
22. Hungary 
23. Ireland 
24. Italy 
25. Latvia 
26. Liberia 
27. Lithuania 
28. Malawi 
29. Mali 
30. Netherlands 
31. Niger 
32. Nigeria 
33. Norway 
34. Poland 
35. Portugal 
36. Romania 
37. Senegal 
38. Sierra Leone 
39. Slovenia 
40. South Korea 
41. Spain 
42. Sweden 
43. Switzerland 
44. Togo 
45. Uganda 
46. United Kingdom 
47. Uruguay 
48. Zambia 

(The list may be slightly expanded as countries continue to sign on.) 

What It Is (LESO / 1033 Program) 

• Official Name: Managed by the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), a division within the Defense Logistics Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense brookings.edu+9en.wikipedia.org+9rand.org+9.

• Origin: Roots trace back to the 1944 Surplus Property Act, but evolved into the 1208 program in 1990 and formally became the section 1033 program in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act en.wikipedia.org.

What It Provides

• It transfers excess DoD equipment—ranging from office supplies to military-grade gear—to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies at no cost (other than shipping/maintenance) humanrightsfirst.org+5firearmslaw.duke.edu+5sciencedirect.com+5.

• In 2020, around 92% was non-controlled (e.g., flashlights, sleeping bags, generators); the remaining 8% was controlled, meaning sensitive items like night-vision goggles, tactical vehicles, firearms, and drones firearmslaw.duke.edu.

• Since inception, over $5–7 billion worth of equipment has been distributed to roughly 8,000+ agencies across all U.S. states except Hawaii aclu.org+3firearmslaw.duke.edu+3sciencedirect.com+3.

How Acquisitions Work

1. Request & Justification
   Agencies apply via LESO, stating intended use (e.g., counterterrorism, counter-drug, border control) bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov+4rand.org+4en.wikipedia.org+4.
2. Approval & Oversight
   Approvals require civilian oversight (e.g., mayor or county board). State-level supervisors audit inventory.
3. Ownership & Return Policy
   DoD retains ownership; recipients pay storage/shipping. Controlled items must be returned when no longer needed. Unauthorized loss can result in suspension.
4. Prohibited Equipment List
   Since 2015, certain items—like weaponized vehicles, grenades, and large-caliber guns—are banned. Some restrictions were relaxed in 2017, but many remain in place.

Oversight & Criticisms

• Program Audits: GAO and DoD Inspector General audits found losses and mismanagement; roughly 184 agencies were suspended at one point.

• Reforms & Orders:

• 2015 (Obama): Introduced stricter controls and prohibited items under Executive Order 13688.

• 2017 (Trump): Rolled back several restrictions, easing bans on certain gear.

• 2022 (Biden): New EO limited transfers further and emphasized accountability across federal, state, and local policing.

• Concerns: Critics (ACLU, NAACP, academics) argue the program contributes to “militarized policing,” disproportionately impacts communities of color, and increases police violence.

Summary

• The 1033 Program is now LESO—administering transfers of surplus military gear to law enforcement.

• Offers both benign and military-grade equipment, with strict rules and oversight mechanisms.

• Legal controls govern what can be transferred; items must be responsibly used and tracked.

• Though reformed multiple times, it remains controversial and subject to ongoing civil‑liberties and policy debates.

Public Intelligence identifies 64 aerial drone bases in the US