Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

[cal04]

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[IndianaGreen]

1. The biggest terrorist on this planet is our own government

Who will protect us from those "protecting" us?

[msongs]

2. there you go again, criticizing obama...the soon to be new head of government nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

3. That wasn't saying she was wrong..

do you object to what is said, or that it is being said?

[atimetocome]

24. He will have the power to reverse this---if he wants to.

[bagrman]

42. Apparently your under the assumption that the figureheads we put in are in charge. History says nyet

[atimetocome]

60. well, there is history to prove that presidents of

all stripes do NOT give up power easily. Once they have the power they tend to keep it.

[shadowknows69]

48. Someone in the press needs to ask him if he wants to

[atimetocome]

58. Yes, I would love to know where he stands on this issue.

[Zhade]

4. #5

This violates the Constitution.

[slay]

5. This should scare the shit out of EVERYONE

And I don't mean - ooooh be scared, I mean make sure our voices are heard that this is WRONG before it is too late. I would hope Obama would put a stop to this, but my guess is he won't. The fact that they can do this - under the BULLSHIT guise of ""terrorism" is frightening and illegal. Nuclear terrorist attack. Yeah sure, whatever. They will be here to keep the rich safe from everyone else when everyting goes to shit. "20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States! Just sit there and think about that for a minute.

[Hardrada]

8. When Caesar's legions entered Rome it was not altogether

a good thing for the ruling classes.

[4lbs]

11. 20,000 uniformed troops inside the U.S.

You mean like how in peacetime, there are ~250,000 uniformed troops inside the United States at places like Fort Bragg and Camp Pendelton?

By the way, wasn't the Mumbai terrorist situation resolved by the joint application of their local police with Indian Army troops?

[humbled_opinion]

27. NO

Maybe you need to get informed. This is a most dangerous precedent. A legal construct to make it simple to bring war to the streets of America. Scary indeed.

[Phred42]

43. Exactly Correct!

[slay]

65. You are NOT free when armed soldiers roam the streets

no matter what the talking heads on tv try to get us to believe. Taking up the "Mumbai" model would be a HUGE step backwards for this country, one from which it would take decades to recover, if ever.

[crikkett]

50. Yes let's think about it: that would be ONE soldier for every FIFTEEN THOUSAND Americans

who still have the right to bear arms.

And this would be to cover the ENTIRE US. It takes 5 hrs to fly from one end of the country to another, and 4 days to drive.

It's not just wrong but inadequate.

(edited for math)

[slay]

They can concentrate in certain areas at a time - doesn't matter the ratio

when thousands of troops show up in the streets. Honestly I'm shocked that people actually think this is OK! Wow.

[crikkett]

54. I didn't say it was OK, I said it was wrong AND inadequate.

[slay]

64. Ah, gotcha

Sorry - think I misunderstood your previous post, but yeah it does seem both creepy and lame. Pretty interesting that we'll be leaving Iraq in 2011, and that's when these 20,000 troops will be deployed inside the US. And it's still a long ways from 2011 - the number of troops allocated to this so called "mission" could increase drastically by then. We can only hope it goes the other way and that this is not allowed to occur at all.

[JDPriestly]

59. You just do not start something like this.

It is basic to our democratic structure that local governments elected locally provide for the well-being and safety of Americans at the local levels.

Restore all National Guard units to state control and these troops will not be needed. Governors elected by their states should control the National Guard within the state in which they were elected. The governors can decide whether to request help from the National Guards of other states.

It was part of the Bush move toward fascism to take federal control of National Guard troops and send the members overseas. Let's restore the National Guard as the statewide emergency policing force in each state.

We do not need the American military to police within our borders.

And by the way, more than just about any other thing, the Founding Fathers completely opposed having a standing army. Yet we have had a standing army in violation of the principles our country was founded on for many, many years. Just read your Constitution, please. And then read the speeches and letters of Jefferson for example.

The right to bear arms does not mean much in this day and age. Most people do not own weapons regardless of the propaganda of the NRA. Reconstituting meaningful state National Guards would provide qualified policing in case of nuclear or terrorist incident or anything else.

We do not need Air Force pilots dropping bombs on America, and as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is what they do best and seem to like to do most. Their solution for everything seems to be to drop bombs -- and sometimes they drop them on totally innocent wedding parties or groups of people. That is appropriate in war, but not in peacetime America. Keep the police forces under local control and things like that will not happen.

No. Policing Americans with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines is absolutely wrong. Sounds like yet another giant step toward fascism.

And, of course, Obama's keeping Gates on as Secretary of this move makes his administration look suspiciously like just a puppet of the military/industrial complex. Hopefully that is not true. Hopefully Obama will avoid the appearance of fascism at all cost. And if anything would produce the appearance of fascism it is protecting the homeland with troops trained to fight wars.

[crikkett]

80. "Just read your Constitution, please."

Please don't condescend.

[JDPriestly]

82. Please. It's called federalism. It's basic to our system of government.

A governor can request the assistance of the president and ask for troops to be sent in, but the president should not and under our Constitution does not have the authority to just send troops into a state. The police powers within the states are still in the hands of the local people in the state to at least that extent.

[katty]

68. this is the real deal--scary stuff

[Pastiche423]

6. 6 recommends?

[slay]

7. I've K&R'd. I'm surprised there are not more.

Surely our fellow DUer's can't think this is good thing?

[Pastiche423]

13. A year ago, I would have thought it was some freepers

But lately the warmongering Dems have come out of the woodwork - in force.

This is not the same board it was four years ago.

[humbled_opinion]

30. I agree to a certain extent...

Sometimes I fear that the NeoCons have found a new home, they have adapted and become neoliberals. When war and expansionism is the objective we all lose, Bush's iron fist diplomacy will be covererd with Obama's velvet glove but it will hit just as hard.

[Jim Sagle]

39. Gee, who couldve predicted THAT?

[atimetocome]

23. I do not think this is a good thing at all. Not at all.

[rucky]

17. It's important to know.

Stuff like this usually gets a day of press, then into the memory hole it goes.

[Quantess]

9. Why now? Why so late in the Bush regime?

edit spelling

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. To protect against the terrorist attack that Bush is planning?

Concoct a "state of emergency" in late December or early January. Have sufficient troops on hand throughout the country to help "keep the peace." Bush's "foresight" in stopping the "terrorist attack" before it gets out of hand goes very far in wiping away the stench of failure and scandal currently attached to the Republican Party.

Or maybe it is to prevent rioting when the inauguration is prevented "until the nation is once again secure."

[LSK]

40. last second fucking with us

[arcadian]

46. Because the uncertainty of the transition is a good cover.

n/t

[OneBlueSky]

10. two quick points, and then off to bed . . .

first, isn't this illegal? . . . something about posse comitatas? . . . (my apologies if I spelled that incorrectly; too tired to look it up) . . .

and second, anyone else notice the switch to "domestic security" from "homeland security"? . . . I for one hope this is not an isolated incident . . .

that is all . . .

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. Posse comitatus is "gone" because of Bush:

Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law: 2007 National Defense Authorization Act overturns Posse Comitatus Act

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

Sec. 1042 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law, passed in 1878, that prohibits the use of the regular military within the U.S. borders. The original passage of the Posse Comitatus Act was a very reactionary move that sealed the betrayal of Black people after the Civil War and brought the period of Reconstruction to an end. It decreed that federal troops could no longer be used inside the former Confederate states to enforce the new legal rights of Black people. Black people were turned over to the armed police and Klansmen serving the southern plantation owners, and the long period of Jim Crow began
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

I looked it up when the first domestic army stuff came up. Lo and behold, here was another item
that had sneaked its way in. Can't Congress read??

[clear eye]

15. And we saw how that authority was used this summer in St. Paul

on peaceable groups protesting the war to the Republican National Convention.

[shoeshock]

33. Pentagon Training 20,000 Troops to Work Inside U.S. By 2011

Here is another take on the same story from the site you mentioned above:


"This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law," said Mike German, ACLU national security policy counsel and former FBI Agent. "Our Founding Fathers understood the threat that a standing army could pose to American liberty. While future generations recognized the need for a strong military to defend against increasingly capable foreign threats, they also passed statutory protections to ensure that the Army could not be turned against the American people. The erosion of these protections should concern every American."

http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/8855/2008-12...

[crikkett]

51. Thank your lucky stars that the incoming President is a Constitutional Lawyer and Law Professor. n/t

[Festivito]

12. The title tries to make it sound good. It's not good.

What is this? Troops get detail? Are they getting character lines running down their suits. That sounds benign.

No question that committing centralized ordered troops might be a problem? The title makes it sound like a no-brainer that it increases security, not that it decreases security.

It decreases security.

[RollWithIt]

16. Devil's Advocate.... if we had 20,000 quick responders available for Katrina...

Just saying.

[JJ]

19. We did

Used to be the National Guard, under the command of state governors. Unfortunately too many Guard units deployed to Iraq.

[rakeeb]

31. We did, and staying under states control was a big factor

in the poor coordination at Katrina. Before the end of the first week after landfall, we had more Guardsmen deployed to the Gulf Coast for relief efforts than we had in Iraq that same month. By the end of the second week we had more than twice as many Guardsmen deployed to the Gulf Coast than we had in Iraq.

Not trying to call you out, just bugs me that we spent so much time and effort in New Orleans and folks who weren't there always want to say we were never there.

[crikkett]

53. staying under states control was a factor b/c the * Admin wouldn't cooperate

they tried to pull some crap on the Gov. and held Katrina victims hostage to do it.

That was shameful.

[rakeeb]

75. they put the whole guard command and control issue to

Gen Honore and the governor, and it went back and forth between them and NGB about putting troops on Title 10 with a unified command or left under Title 32 with all the states footing the bill initially and getting reimbursed by NGB later that month. The Governor had no idea what to do either way, eventually Honore said it would be quicker to leave us all under 50 governors, which may have contributed to the total lack of communication, but didn't slow the deployments or evactuations from what I saw; we had ten minutes to unload our C-130 before it turned and filled up with evacuees to go to Houston. That kind of turn around was going on all day every day for the first week.

[msatty99]

18. New world order type stuff

funny how all these things kinda play into the 'new world order' martial law scenario

[santamargarita]

20. First, it's illegal and second, it's a setup for a coup

~

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. Alas, it is no longer illegal; see post #14 n/t

[acmavm]

21. So, does this mean we no longer need the National Guard????

This was a real cute way to get troops stationed here in the States ready to move at a minute's notice.

[MilesColtrane]

22. Sounds like their primary purpose is not fighting terrorists, but...

..."crowd control" in the event of an attack.

Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.

Maybe they're operating under the assumption that National Guardsmen would be more reluctant to fire on their fellow citizens?

[JDPriestly]

61. Look, they would not have to station troops within the U.S.

to get emergency planes from naval ships off our coasts to evacuate people. Stationing troops in the U.S. for police purposes is unnecessary.

Look, I have lived in small countries in which I woke up to the sound of military tanks rolling down the street in front of my house or somewhere not so far away. We do not need or want that in America. That stuff was a part of life in countries like the Soviet Union or the nations that were close to the Soviet Union.

I was in Munich the day the Soviet tanks entered Prague in 1968. We do not need that here. This is a terrible idea. All you have to do is get a person with strong ideological leanings in one direction or the other or someone with a Hitler complex or even a weak leader who acquiesces to strong military advisers -- and you no longer have any rights at all.

No, no, no. This may be well meant, but it is a horrible idea. The worst I've heard yet.

[MilesColtrane]

70. Look, you seem to have me confused with someone who supports this idea.

Some clues in my post: "crowd control" is in parentheses, and my speculation that Bush is making this move because regular Army may be more willing to shoot American citizens.

[lunatica]

28. Not that this story smells or anything...

I guess putting the tin foil cap away was a premature celebration

[passy]

29. They will there to do the RNC's bidding

I came across this today http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/revealingrncdocumentle...

"The American Civil Liberties Union recently came across a revealing RNC Homeland Security Document. This official document was uncovered by the website Wikileaks, which according to its website "We help you safely get the truth out". This document outlines the planning leading up to the Republican National Convention and how security forces would be working together during the RNC. Many federal, state and local organizations were mentioned in this document, a number of which the ACLU did not know were involved. A number of these agencies are military based, which may directly conflict with Federal law that prohibits the military from engaging in domestic intelligence gathering."

[yy4me]

32. Getting the troops ready so that when the "event" comes, ****

will have troops in place to declare Martial Law.

I read about this 2 or 3 weeks ago, not much was made of it then. Now? I think every citizen should be on guard for unusual government activities. Call me what you will but my personal opinion is that this is dangerous. Especially since **** had such a short way to go until the end of his disastrous term in office. One last Hurrah and then "for national security" not allow the inauguration of Obama.
Complete takeover of the country.

Gawd, what a mess things are.

[tinrobot]

34. Isn't that what the National Guard is for?

Maybe we need to bring the National Guard troops home first.

[Peggy Day]

35. If you call your representative, they don't even know what Posse Comitatus is

I am so tired of all the different things they don't know about. Now, my representative's assistant wanted the bill number of the original bill where this was allowed (Defense Authorization Act of 2007-and later with a signing statement when someone tried to fix it)and said he couldn't pass it on without it.
Sometimes I have to reign myself in rather than discussing all the current problems with this administration.

[Arctic Dave]

36. Why not fund and train our first responders instead of the military.

How does having people stand around with guns helps get people out of collapsed buildings or provide medical help to trauma patients.

[gristy]

37. I don't believe for a second that these troops will be led by state and local officials.

Don't believe it for a second. From the article:

"help state and local officials"
"supporting local and state officials nationwide"
"civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners"

That said, I am resigned to this taking place.

Perhaps one of our intrepid MSM reporters could ask someone "Please describe the chain of command for these federal troops".

[JDPriestly]

62. We saw how that worked in Katrina.

Bring home the National Guards and keep them in the states in which they belong. Only in emergencies and only on invitation from the governor of a different state should they ever cross the state border in their capacity as members of the National Guard.

[Libertas1776]

38. Oi Vey...

WTF! Are we living in Nazi Germany or something?
I hate every time I go into the city (NYC) and there are soldiers everywhere, at the train station, the subway, the streets...
I am afraid one day they are gonna come up to me and start shouting Raus! Raus! Show me your papers! Where are your papers!

The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[LSK]

41. I have absolutely no reason to expect this to survive Obama's 1st year

[JDPriestly]

63. But this idea must have passed Gates' review.

With Gates as Secretary of Defense, maybe Obama will be persuaded that this is the next logical step to protect Americans.

[masshole]

44. "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control"

From September - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Updated link to Army Times page:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090... /

[Sal Minella]

47. This is what your second link gets now. Somebody noticed extra traffic, apparently.

================================

That page has gone AWOL!

404 Error: File not found

It appears that the page you requested cannot be located at this time.

Please check to make sure that everything in the URL was spelled correctly. Otherwise, use the site search above to find the information you need.

================================

[Subdivisions]

56. There must be a slash ( / ) at the end of the URL address.

Like this...

See this problem with this link many times...

[InternalDialogue]

57. That updated link seems to work only internally.

It comes as an internal link from this story:

ACLU questions homeland role of active unit

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_aclu_nor...

[SOS]

77. They know that the economic collapse of the US will lead to riots.

The collapse is in it's earliest phase now.
Once we hit Great Depression levels, the people will get violent.

Like the Draft Riots of 1863, they will need to call in the Army to protect the property of the wealthy.

[cliffordu]

45. Hey!!! We could privatize this!!

Blackwater is going to need some work. I understand they've been helping the DEA out with the scourge of Medical Marijuana down in California....

In case ya need it:

[shadowknows69]

49. Quiet you!!!

Don't give them any ideas.

[cliffordu]

55. Really. We're in deep shit here.

Are they getting ready for food riots? Water riots??

This preparation for no good cause.


I dunno. My tinfoil hat is very tight.

[shadowknows69]

69. I buy my tinfoil by the gross, wholesale now.

[Mari333]

52. ahhh NOW I see why people want to buy guns

forgive me for not recognizing that before.

[Sanctified]

66. Hmmmmm 20,000 troops, economy on it's way to a Depression...

no correlation if you ask me, none what so ever.

[natrat]

67. such a clusterfuck cuz if there is rioting in the streets,and there will be

you might want some military presence. Sadly i think this will be the least of our problems. Don't it always seem to go ya don't know what you got til its gone

[Capn Sunshine]

71. About damn time!

They're going to station them along the Mason-Dixon line, right?

[MasonJar]

72. In a word, "NO"! Get the word out to Obama and Congress. This is dangerous

and probably unConstitutional.

[bobthedrummer]

73. Maybe they will be assigned as extras for "24" by their corrupted chain of command...

[defendandprotect]

74. We need strong civilian action to put MIC out of business.....

These are simply corporations enriching themselves thru wars

and exerting their control over public via "national security"...

We have to TARGET Congressional members who are "Hawks" --

and that includes Murtha --!!

And GATES ..

And Hillary if she continues support for war --

As well as Obama, Pelosi, Reid if the do not STOP funding these wars --

[bluecoat_fan]

76. To protect the Soylant Green? nt

[lovuian]

78. You Tube is all over this

if they want a civil war they just might get what they ask for

[smoogatz]

79. What worries me

is that the Bush people apparently feel that a nuclear attack inside the U.S. is inevitable. Got that? Inevitable. As in, no point even in trying to defend against it. That's the only reason they'd do this, knowing how much we need additional troops in Afghanistan, etc. If there is a nuclear attack in a major U.S. city, I'm guessing that a significant, quickly deployable military force will actually be a very good thing, indeed.

[Sabriel]

81. I thought the military was overstretched as it is

Where are these 20,000 people coming from, anyway?

If you ask me, the whole idea IS a "domestic catastrophe"!