20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States

[GSM:Xtreme]

20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States

"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 Washington Post reported on December 1. "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."

This doesn't seem to trouble many of my classmates. Sad yes, but what can you expect from a group who thinks their government puts their people first. Also, did anyone see it on the news? I happened upon it on a youtube video. OJ's sentencing is more important I suppose.

[Jack]

I blogged about this back in October with a quote from the Times-Standard:

A recent report in The Army Times — “Army Unit to Deploy in October for Domestic Operations” discussed a new military unit that is now stationed in the United States of America. The report stated that the 1st Brigade Combat Team would be deployed within the country and would work with civil authorities to “put down civil unrest.” On the surface this may seem benign, but this mission marks the first time an active military unit has assigned to NorthCom, the joint command established in 2002 to control federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate with civil authorities. The commander of this unit, Col. Roger Cloutier, also said that his troops will be trained to use nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them. This is another first; the first time a nonlethal package has been fielded the Army, according to Cloutier. Why does that make me uneasy? The package includes equipment to raise a hasty road block, spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and beanbag bullets. The Army’s new “dwell-time” mission will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support teams. It doesn’t stop there. There will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. According to an Army Times interview, Col. Louis Vogler, one of the chiefs of NorthCom future operations, said, “Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission.” Very little has been said to the general public about this whole affair. I’d wager most Americans aren’t aware of this new strike force within our country. Are we closer to internal collapse than any of us realize? Why does the federal government feel the need for such a unit within our borders?

Jeber’s » Post Topic » Are we preparing for martial law?

If these reports aren't troubling enough there's also this one:

An appropriations bill signed by President Bush last week allows the controversial National Applications Office to begin operating a stringently limited version of a program that would turn military spy satellites on the US, sharing imagery with other federal, state, and local government agencies. The government’s own watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, has warned in an unpublished report that the more expansive program in the offing lacks adequate safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. For now, the law restricts the NAO to “activities substantially similar” to those carried out by the Civil Applications Committee, an interagency coordinating body formed in 1976 to give civilian agencies access to military satellites for scientific and disaster preparedness purposes, such as “monitoring volcanic activity, environmental and geological changes, hurricanes, and floods.” But as a draft charter for the Office makes clear, officials at the Department of Homeland Security hope to branch out from these traditional applications, providing assistance and information to domestic law enforcement agencies. That doesn’t sit well with some members of Congess, who in a sharply worded letter earlier this year expressed concerns that the NAO “raises major issues under the Posse Comitatus Act” barring the military from performing law enforcement duties, and worried the program could be used to “gather domestic intelligence outside the rigorous protections of the law—and, ultimately, to share this intelligence with local law enforcement outside of constitutional parameters.” Among the questions raised about the proposed program is whether it runs afoul of the Reconstruction Era statute that makes it a crime to use the armed forces to “execute the laws” within US borders. Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, believes the new initiative to be “a prima facie violation of the Posse Comitatus Act—this is about using a military asset to do domestic law enforcement.” If law enforcement or immigration agencies need spy satellites, he argues, they should ask Congress to buy them some, rather than using the powerful eyes in the sky operated by the National Reconaissance Office for foreign-intelligence agencies not bound by domestic privacy constraints. “The military should never be used against the citizenry,” he argues. “Even if we’re talking about shooting pictures of people instead of shooting people, the principle remains the same.”

Jeber’s » Post Topic » New surveillance program will turn military satellites on US

If your classmates are unconcerned about these sorts of things then I fear for the future of our republic. Their apathy is tantamount to tacit approval for acts that may very well violate U.S. law. I'm sure the OJ story is juicier (sorry), but it hardly impacts the future of our nation like these stories do.

[Electric Hermit]

Looks like the empire turning on itself. I have commented on this process elsewhere. Just as an empire must constantly redefine its territorial borders - extending them in an effort to neutralise a real or perceived external threat - so also it must constantly redefine the "border" between friend and foe, encompassing ever more of its citizens in the latter category.

[Zeebadee]

My question is, what's so surprising about this?? Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to declare war and allowed the president to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, SCOTUS has remained silent in the face of a president that condones torture, abolishes habeas corpus, rules by executive order and signing statements, and routinely violates the protections guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights.

The decline of any civilization will always cause the elite power holders to use every means to maintain their position and status. Our current crop of "public servants" (snicker) are going to do everything in their power towards those ends.

[Nono]

That Army Times is one informative news sources.

And they've been eager to get going for years:
Troops Begin Combat Operations in New Orleans

[viper]

Ahh what wonderful things our fine government must be planning with this. Can anyone say martial law? Well have plenty of ammo boys, with national ID cards, likely gun bans, the repeated attacks upon our constitution by the US government and the UN and now this you might just need it.

[Rortykiller]

Its funny how threads like this just keep away some posters, afraid they couldn't even defend this criminal endeavor in a debate

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Rortykiller Its funny how threads like this just keep away some posters, afraid they couldn't even defend this criminal endeavor in a debate

I noticed.

[Robert Marsh II]

December 7th 2008

We are supposed to be able to defend ourselves, our families, homes, lands, and the Constitution, but how can we, if they take our guns away???

In modern times, an updated solution could be to hold our weapons in a local community militia, but how can we insure immediate emergency access?

The statistical odds of a large-scale terrorist attack are increasing daily:

Homeland Security National Terror Alert - Homeland Security News » Obama Warned Of Huge al Qeada Threat

Report Sees Nuclear Arms, Scarce Resources as Seeds of Global Instability by 2025 - washingtonpost.com

The current legality of this U.S. military deployment within the United States (CONUS), solely depends upon government intent, existing Constitutional Amendments, and/or what these military combat units are actually committed to do; once mobilized under an Execution Order, of a Presidential Executive Order for National Emergency.

A state of 'National Emergency' must be declared first, before any execution orders are issued!

In approx. 44 days and counting down, President-elect Barack Obama will not only command these units, but he will (Jan 20) also be given the nuclear 'football' attache case, complete with identification and authentication codes to release nuclear weapons.

Codes for Armageddon: A new president to hold nuclear launch 'football' -- baltimoresun.com

Obama to CBS: Security, economy are priorities - White House transition- msnbc.com

When I review the information contained on this comment, I tend to deduce that the U.S. military troop deployment is for the purpose of national survival!

In my opinion, this is a preemptive national security measure, to be utilized during an economic emergency, terrorist attack, or 'any' other natural or man-made disaster!

Now is the exact time to put the 'bulldog' in the front yard!!!

[Jack]

We are supposed to be able to defend ourselves, our families, homes, lands, and the Constitution, but how can we, if they take our guns away???

You won't be able to even if they don't. I can't conceive of the average American with their personal firearm prevailing against the U.S. military.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II In my opinion, this is a preemptive national security measure, to be utilized during an economic emergency, terrorist attack, or 'any' other natural or man-made disaster!

Or at the whim of the executive. Given that the executive has the power to create the circumstances in which it would have extraordinary powers.

The ruling elite always seeks to accrue power to itself. Arguably the most damaging long-term consequence of 9/11 will be the dismantling of curbs on executive power.

And this by no means applies only to the US. It is happening daily in the UK also. And doubtless in other countries as well.

[Robert Marsh II]

To: Jack & Electric Hermit;

I agree under your aforementioned conditions!

Now is the time to tell Barack Obama how you feel about this troop deployment:

Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team | momentvision

President-elect Barack Obama daily policy updates and announcements:

Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Jack You won't be able to even if they don't. I can't conceive of the average American with their personal firearm prevailing against the U.S. military.

That sounds like the logic they used regarding our presence in Iraq.

While I personally doubt it, the possibility exists that with sufficient provocation you could see a whole LOT of "freedom fighters" in this country. And this kind of thing could very well be what ignites that fire, depending on what they do with those troops.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II To: Jack & Electric Hermit; I agree under your aforementioned conditions! Now is the time to tell Barack Obama how you feel about this troop deployment: Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team | momentvision President-elect Barack Obama daily policy updates and announcements: Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

Not my place. I am not an American citizen. which does not mean I should be unconcerned. As I say, the same growth in executive power is happening in the UK. And, especially in the UK, what happens in the US can often end up being a model for our own government.

[HelioPrime]

Sooooooooo...

Is the fear here:

A) The military will take begin martial law enforcement in cities and communities?

B) The military will be used to oppress a hostile takeover by key government players that throws out democracy and the courts?

C) Some other tin hat fantasy?

Isn't it possible this is just what it is: Training additional troops to use in the duties the guards have been used in for years: Disaster relief, unrest protection, ensuring civil order, etc...

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: HelioPrime Sooooooooo... Is the fear here: A) The military will take begin martial law enforcement in cities and communities? B) The military will be used to oppress a hostile takeover by key government players that throws out democracy and the courts? C) Some other tin hat fantasy? Isn't it possible this is just what it is: Training additional troops to use in the duties the guards have been used in for years: Disaster relief, unrest protection, ensuring civil order, etc...

As far as "A" goes, I assume you don't know what "Posse Comitatus" is. Essentially, that prohibits US troops from acting as policemen.
If we need more cops, let's hire more cops. It's as simple as that. Federal troops don't belong inside the country as law enforcement.
"B", the armed forces are under the control of the president. If he were to use them under the guise of enforcing the FEMA, for example, he could do that all on his own.
Again, we HAVE the police and the FBI. We don't need troops.

As for "C":, I don't automatically ignore all conspiracy theories with the cliche "tinfoil hat" dismissal, as they are often based in fact. One thing to remember is not to put too much faith in our government to work in the best interests of the people when the people no longer to their duty and keep an eye on them. What makes you think that we cannot elect unfit or criminal politicians when all we do is vote by party or whoever has the best slogan and then let them do whatever they like?

One last point. Government rarely does anything fast. If the metaphor "slippery slope" can be rightly applied to anyone, it would be our government. They more often make a relatively small change which doesn't work and them make it worse by "fixing" it, which leads to further changes until you have a major debacle on your hands.
The reaction to stringent regulations on the financial sector is a good example. When they decided the banks were too regulated (a debatable point anyway), in their wisdom they pushed for almost NO regulation, naively assuming they would police themselves, which led to what we have now. Of course, the same people in Congress now claim to be able to "fix" the situation by throwing borrowed money at the very people who caused the meltdown in the first place.

In this case, it's likely that once the troops are stationed in the country on a permanent basis, for whatever the reason, eventually someone will say "You know, since the troops are already here, why not use them for something else?"

But you sounds like you have a lot of faith in our elected representatives, so you might not see it the same way.

[LuketheDuke]

The thought of 20,000 troops here to help incase of a nuclear and/or a terrorist attack is a comfort in someways but stirs my stomach a bit also at the thought of the actual danger of that. Sometimes I think we think we are safe from anything like that because we can watch Mumbai go up in flames in the comfort of our own homes on CNN or Fox News. I also read that the government released a report talking about us declining in the world power seat and becoming more of a middle power. Honestly, fine by me, but at the same time, I want us to be able to protect ourselves from the people out there who do wish to hurt us and our "western-culture"

[grandpa]

Quote by: LuketheDuke The thought of 20,000 troops here to help incase of a nuclear and/or a terrorist attack is a comfort in someways but stirs my stomach a bit also at the thought of the actual danger of that. Sometimes I think we think we are safe from anything like that because we can watch Mumbai go up in flames in the comfort of our own homes on CNN or Fox News.

I wonder where most of them will be stationed. If certain politicians have their way, nuclear power will take off in the coming years. And, as anyone might imagine, the need for security measures at nuclear power plants (whether we agree with their construction or not) is all the more serious nowadays. Of course, there is no actual cause for fear or alarm in this regard if we don't (hypocritically) expand our nuclear capabilities.
I should also note that, even with thousands of troops around the nation, there is no guarantee that, in the event of an attack, they will make it within proximity fast enough to prevent it. Frankly, I think this is a little melodramatic, and it may be a public demonstration that our tax dollars are going somewhere, however successful the efforts at making us feel "safe" are. And the mainstream media --especially a certain Republican-party-oriented network -- can create dramatic, hyper-active, shout-out-loud, sub-standard reports about how an attack is imminent, much to its own delight. There is, after all, a reason Geraldo went from CNBC to FOX.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Scribbler1 But you sounds like you have a lot of faith in our elected representatives, so you might not see it the same way.

Sounds like you live in a state of paranoid fear over an evil government.

The type of fear where you probably see the government as slowly trying to take control of every aspect of people's lives. And people would never know it since they control all forms of media. People who diss the government would disappear...

In all this have you forgotten who makes up the military? Sorry but US troops would not willingly go along with any of the whacked up totalitarian fears people think up.

Jez I miss MB and the other looney gun totting ron paul fans now

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: HelioPrime Sounds like you live in a state of paranoid fear over an evil government.

No. But I do have a healthy amount of concern that the government can easily become something to fear.
In the real world, there are any number of evil and ambitious people who would do anything to have the power of government. Don't pretend you know so little of history that you can't think of a few nasty characters who subjugated their citizens, many of whom were ELECTED to positions where they assumed complete power. Now tell me why exactly why that can never happen here?

The type of fear where you probably see the government as slowly trying to take control of every aspect of people's lives. And people would never know it since they control all forms of media. People who diss the government would disappear...

Again, not that the government is doing that, but that they CAN if the right conditions are met. And you yourself are a perfect example of one of those conditions. You imply you trust our government and dismiss anyone who doesn't. NO government, anywhere, can be trusted that much. ANY organization with power over others cannot be trusted, as human nature dictated, and history proves that people with power eventually want more.

In all this have you forgotten who makes up the military? Sorry but US troops would not willingly go along with any of the whacked up totalitarian fears people think up.

I figure you wouldn't expect the POLICE to fire on people as well, eh? If troops are asked to assume the same roles as police you can figure they will too. It depends on the situation, of course, but the possibility is there.

Jez I miss MB and the other looney gun totting ron paul fans now

A very mature attitude you have there.