20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States

[Diogenes]

Anyone hear about Pandora's Box?

The US does not need troops on the streets for any reason...you can just as easily recruit and train a civilian corp to handle any eventuality....or...increase police presence...increase and ' monitor ' existing core's like FEMA.

There is no necessity to have any military on the street.

[TrashBagBandit]

Here is another example of troop usage for security duties on US soil. Although it is half the troops of the original article and some are being used for "ceremonial work" I figured it would be relevent to the issue.

Some 11,000 US troops are to work security during the Obama inauguration - Yahoo! Canada News

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon No, because regular troops are more highly trained and regimented.

So you assume the NG can NOT be "more trained and regimented".

I think its a good assumption that 20,000 troops stationed for domestic purposes would be specifically trained to fullfill those purposes.

Again, and for the last time, if you need more NG troops, you enlist them. If you need them to be better trained, you TRAIN them, and you don't need regular Army performing the duties the NG was already charged with performing.
I don't understand why you can't appreciate that simple fact.

We don't NEED federal troops under the control of the Pentagon and the White House to do the job we ALREADY have a force in place.

Cant imagine how the simple presence of troops would in any way effect the governors choice. Those choices are impacted through congressional legislation.

I can see that. I'm quite sure you can't imagine governors having a problem with losing the power to command troops in their own state.

It's obvious this discussion has run its course and has gone into repetition. I've made my points on this subject and have no desire to repeat them. You can agree or disagree, but I'm done with it.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: TrashBagBandit Here is another example of troop usage for security duties on US soil. Although it is half the troops of the original article and some are being used for "ceremonial work" I figured it would be relevent to the issue. Some 11,000 US troops are to work security during the Obama inauguration - Yahoo! Canada News

In this particular case, the story implies this deployment is for a specific reason and purpose. The 20,000 seem to be being placed here on a permanent basis.

[ironeagle]

Personally I would be interested in knowing how the government plans to challene the authority of the state run National Gaurds with "National Government Gaurds" or whatever they be called. You know this is why the states have the National gaurd to protect the state form other states and the fed so what will these guys do? What should the state's do to prepair for a possible disagreement on their state's soil?

[TrashBagBandit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 So you assume the NG can NOT be "more trained and regimented".Again, and for the last time, if you need more NG troops, you enlist them. If you need them to be better trained, you TRAIN them, and you don't need regular Army performing the duties the NG was already charged with performing. I don't understand why you can't appreciate that simple fact.

Quote by: Scribbler1 We don't NEED federal troops under the control of the Pentagon and the White House to do the job we ALREADY have a force in place.I can see that. I'm quite sure you can't imagine governors having a problem with losing the power to command troops in their own state.

As far as enlisting more NG, you don't pull human beings out of thin air. I can almost gaurantee that the lack of armed forces or depleted forces is not for lack of trying on the governments part. If they could enlist more troops they would.

When it comes to lines being crossed and what is and isn't necessary. We crossed a line when we federalised the NG and then shipped them off to Iraq. To me this is a direct cause of that. When you deplete the forces you have to fill the gap. I will admit I am not privy to the logistics of how many NG we have over there nor do I know how much it would cost to send the 20,000 soldiers there and pull 20,000 NG back home. I don't agree with using the troops in the US nor do I agree with the NG in Iraq, but like I said I think this is more of a band-aid per say rather than a conspiracy in the direction of martial law.

How different are the NG from the other branchs of the military now that they too are federalised? Are all NG units in the US now in direct violation to the posse comitatus act?

[dixon]

Quote by: ironeagle You know this is why the states have the National gaurd to protect the state form other states and the fed so what will these guys do?

No its not.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: TrashBagBandit As far as enlisting more NG, you don't pull human beings out of thin air. I can almost gaurantee that the lack of armed forces or depleted forces is not for lack of trying on the governments part. If they could enlist more troops they would.

While I think it's a given that when unemployment goes up you will see a lot more people enlisting, and they ARE pumping up the bennies package.
Now, if the NG could evade the control of a corrupt president they might see more numbers as well.

When it comes to lines being crossed and what is and isn't necessary. We crossed a line when we federalised the NG and then shipped them off to Iraq. To me this is a direct cause of that. When you deplete the forces you have to fill the gap.

That's the thing. I have no source on this, but I believe when Bush started using the NG there WERE the other branches with sufficient numbers available to offset much of the Guard deployment. But I don't have the numbers at hand right now.

How different are the NG from the other branchs of the military now that they too are federalised? Are all NG units in the US now in direct violation to the posse comitatus act?

I believe once they are sent home they revert to state control.
As for Posse Comitatus, because they ARE state controlled, namely by the governor, they are not federal troops and not in violation.
How the president has the power to grab them the need arises, I don't know. I suppose it comes with the state of emergency he declared three days after 9/11.

Oddly enough, Bush declared an emergency for Obama's inauguration too.

[dixon]

Quote by: Scribbler1 As for Posse Comitatus, because they ARE state controlled, namely by the governor, they are not federal troops and not in violation. How the president has the power to grab them the need arises, I don't know. .

From the act

....except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress...

"How" he has the power is the Congress passes legislation that gives him the power.

[Scribbler1]

Right. I don't recall ever seeing any legal challenge to his right to do that.

Is this a permanent right of the POTUS or is it based on specific situations?

[ironeagle]

Quote by: dixon No its not.

Actually yes it is the first purpose of the national gaurd is to protect the state. My dad was a LT. Colonel of the national gaurd, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

[dixon]

Quote by: ironeagle Actually yes it is the first purpose of the national gaurd is to protect the state. My dad was a LT. Colonel of the national gaurd, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

My dispute was to who it is the NG protects the state from.... of course.

[ironeagle]

What do you mean?

[dixon]

Quote by: ironeagle What do you mean?

Quote by: ironeagle You know this is why the states have the National gaurd to protect the state form other states and the fed

No its not.

[Bright Garlick]

Thank god for freedom and justice for all. I'm glad I don't live in AmeriKa ! But my thoughts and feelings go out to all those kind hearted Americans, who have to suffer this all so subtle oppression.

[dixon]

Quote by: Bright Garlick Thank god for freedom and justice for all. I'm glad I don't live in AmeriKa ! But my thoughts and feelings go out to all those kind hearted Americans, who have to suffer this all so subtle oppression.

What subtle oppression would that be? I suspect Australia has always had your own military 'deployed' in Australia. In fact if Im not mistaken as we speak you have ADF acting in a law inforcement role in Aboriginal areas. Lot of time you non US folks hear Americans going ape sheet over something like this, not realizing that in your own countries it wouldnt even be an issue because your government more clearly has the authority.

[The Black Ghost]

Yeah, all i can say is conspiracy theories always die. As soon as nothing happens for...years and years and years...people start to lose heart in the bandwagon of conspiracy theories.

[Scribbler1]

Tell that to the people who still think we never went to the moon.

[PlanetXisscary]

I don't mean to "stir" the pot, but if it's ONLY 20,000 troops then who are these people patrolling the Great Lakes - specifically Lake Erie? You people should see this! I'd take pictures, but I'm not real sure of the consequences. I mean there are dozens of vans and SUVs in and out everyday, and some don't even have license plates. Freaky teaky. I've only seen 4, to date, Border Patrol vehicles, so that blows that theory away. And what's more, why do we need border patrol on the Great Lakes anyway? If anything we need tourist patrol in the summers. That seems to make more sense! lol
I can understand if the government, or whomever, says that "our" protection is key, but at the same time shouldn't we at least know who we're being protected against? It seems like someone comes up with a different reason to go militarily nuts everyday starting with 9/11. Now that morning was by far the worst day in our history and we can all probably agree to that, but then we went to Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, borders have been made "more secure" to keep out...??, and now the deployment of troops on U.S. soil? hmmmm....I thought the whole point of fighting the war over there was so we didn't have to fight it here.

[dixon]

Quote by: PlanetXisscary dozens of vans and SUVs in and out everyday, and some don't even have license plates. .

Vans and SUVs!!!! The horror of it all.