Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crunchtastic

Permanent homeland military ops

Recommended Posts

Because they are all related. They are all happening under this administration. One thing on its own might not be cause for alarm but grouping them all together should certainly make you start to wonder.

No. This action (the one about which this thread was created) lacks practicality as it might relate to implementing marshal law on any kind of scale or regularity as it might be considered a meaningful threat to civil liberties. It is only one brigade (1,500 to 4,000 troops). For a basis of comparison, it took nearly 500,000 troops to suck at keeping the peace in a post-war Iraq, a country with less than a tenth the population and less than a twentieth of the land area of the United States.

I don't pretend to know whether the domestic deployment is going to be effective at accomplishing whatever is their mission, or whether that mission is well-defined or makes sense, but this news just does not warrant conspiracy theorizing. Really, it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I don't understand why anybody isn't at least a little concerned about this. It's the first time an active US combat unit has been assigned to the US.

No it isn't.

The Japanese invaded the Alutian Islands in WW2; we had to invade and retake our own territory in a very bloody battle.

Before that there was the "Bonus Army", probably the most aggregious case of military-led persecution that I can think of in the whole of American history...outside of the Civil War & Reconstruction.

Before that, Gen. Pershing was deployed to Texas (know your own state history, dammit!) to put a stop to cross-border raids by Poncho Villa.

Before that, we had the Indian Wars.

Before that was Reconstruction.

Before that was the Civil War.

Before that was the War of 1812.

Before that was Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion (can't remember in which order).

Before that was the American Revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it isn't.

Go tell the Army. Or at least the Army Times:

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said:

It's the first time an active US combat unit has been assigned to the US.

The Army said:

...this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002...

You should read things more carefully before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should read things more carefully before you post.

I'm pretty sure I read that right. NORTHCOM is the Unified Combatant Command that encompasses the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure I read that right. NORTHCOM is the Unified Combatant Command that encompasses the US.

You said:

It's the first time an active US combat unit has been assigned to the US.

According to the NORTHCOM website, they encompass an area that includes the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico, waters out to 500 nautical miles, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Straights of Florida. NORTHCOM does not include our Caribbean territories, Hawaii, or our Pacific territories.

NORTHCOM includes Canada and Mexico but not certain parts of the US. And it was established in 2002, not 1776.

NORTHCOM is not the US. Therefore your earlier statement was wrong.

Give up.

EDIT: Now can someone (with reading comprehension skills) please explain to me why this is scary?

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, maybe it is scary because the Japanese haven't invaded Key West, Poncho Villa isn't robbing people in LaJoya, and the only Native Americans we are currently fighting are valets at the Mohegan Sun?

You don't have to live in a shed in Montana to think this sets a bad precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, maybe it is scary because the Japanese haven't invaded Key West, Poncho Villa isn't robbing people in LaJoya, and the only Native Americans we are currently fighting are valets at the Mohegan Sun?

You don't have to live in a shed in Montana to think this sets a bad precedent.

But a few pissed off Muslims killed a lot of folks. That seems like reason enough. It is certainly a more pressing concern than border raids.

And I don't see it as a necessarily bad precedent. I'm not even clear that it really is all that much of a precedent-setting event in the first place. Nor do I see it necessarily as a slippery slope.

If it were ten times the number, maybe even closer to a hundred times the number of troops, that would start to genuinely concern me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a few pissed off Muslims killed a lot of folks.

But what can an Army combat brigade do about that?

Were opposed to the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection acts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what can an Army combat brigade do about that?

Were opposed to the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection acts?

Per their website:

USNORTHCOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Per their website:

Yeah, I read their website. Not convincing. Why do you think we need this brigade assigned to NORTHCOM?

I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act. Again, are you opposed to the laws that limit our government's use of military force against its own people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I don't understand why anybody isn't at least a little concerned about this. It's the first time an active US combat unit has been assigned to the US. We trained them to kill foreign soldiers. Why are they here?

Because the "foreign soldiers" are in our country now meme. You and your buddies here tell everyone to "wake up". Practice what you guys are preaching. Crunch, why so much concern, are you afraid that you are on the "Gestapo List" ? Trust me, they aren't looking to lock up you and me, and the rest of our pot smoking brethern. They want the guys with a Muhammed or an Ali or a Sanchez and Rodriguez in their name. If you feel you are in danger of getting caught for something illegal you are doing, then quit doing illegal things. What I find MOST surprising is Red's take on the whole thing, seeing as how he is a BIG part of the system that seems to be part of all of y'all's problems. I am depending on Red to keep all of you and I safe at night. The Army brigade would need someone like Red if search and seizure parties became a daily occurance. Can anyone here show one instance, where this brigade is doing smash and grab raids on LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country?

BTW, macbro, Zeitgeist is NOT real. It is however very entertaining.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the "foreign soldiers" are in our country now meme.

No they aren't. The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When all things are good, and the going is great, some people sit around and delicate flower about the "establishment" and how the Justice System is so screwed up. Sure it has it's issues, but hey when your ass get mugged or your house gets robbed, the justice system is your daddy then.

I not sure about the source of this scare mongering, is it the fact that they are training for Urban warfare? I got news for you, that's nothing new. Is it the fact that they want to have troops stationed at home, just in case there is an issue? I don't foresee any Humvees rolling down the streets, unless something breaks out domestically, and then you want them there. Just sounds like more of the same to me.

And I have news for anybody, The FBI, the NSA, and the CIA have files on everyone of you. If you have a social security card, you have a file and a number assigned already. You might not have much in it, but it's there. Some more than most. So get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they aren't. The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

You want to split hairs?

Now I see where the problem lies with you folks. You only want to accept things in black and white, no shades of gray.

Unfortuantely, our enemies don't parade around like this.

D5105.jpg

or like this...

2619061_1d29e46fc7.jpg

or like this...

al-queda-klegal.jpg

When they are in our country, they try to assimilate.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to split hairs?

The Bush administration split that hair, not me. If you don't like that distinction, take it up with Cheney and his crew.

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

Why are all of you right wingers so opposed to the rule of law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bush administration split that hair, not me. If you don't like that distinction, take it up with Cheney and his crew.

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

Why are all of you right wingers so opposed to the rule of law?

"Right winger" ? Moi ? Hardly, my Atheist friend. Military is in place to defend against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. The Domestic ones don't proudly wear their towels on their heads as they would in say Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan. You trying to say that Insurgents wear uniforms. The terrorists of 9/11 wore rank and file uniforms ? Maybe the fake Versace shirts or perhaps the cheap off the rack suit from the local Men's Wearhouse is the uniform of choice for these domestic soldiers ?

If you still beleive that there AREN'T any foreign soldiers here in America then you have your head buried in the sand far deeper than any backhoe could get it out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I read their website. Not convincing. Why do you think we need this brigade assigned to NORTHCOM?

I honestly don't know. But I do know that it isn't a particularly big deal. Not enough troops to be a big deal.

I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act. Again, are you opposed to the laws that limit our government's use of military force against its own people?

If he's violating the law, he needs to be prosecuted. Moreover, I cannot answer such a broad question as you have posed. I'm sure that there are special situations where I would think that it was OK to use military force against our own people...for instance if they are enemy combatants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act.

[Citation needed]

The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

[Citation needed]

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

[Citation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's easy.

[Citation needed]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitat...islative_events:

President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into LawToday, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 28, 2008

[Citation needed]

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030507-18.html:

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
[Citation needed]

See above.

You were really unaware of these events?

I honestly don't know. But I do know that it isn't a particularly big deal. Not enough troops to be a big deal.

How many would be enough?

If he's violating the law, he needs to be prosecuted. Moreover, I cannot answer such a broad question as you have posed. I'm sure that there are special situations where I would think that it was OK to use military force against our own people...for instance if they are enemy combatants.

Do you mean like the special situations already spelled out in the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection acts?

"Right winger" ? Moi ? Hardly, my Atheist friend.

You say that, but you sign your posts with a picture of Obama and Karl Marx. Cognitive dissonance much?

If you still beleive that there AREN'T any foreign soldiers here in America then you have your head buried in the sand far deeper than any backhoe could get it out of.

Who said I believed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were really unaware of these events?

Not unaware. But HAIF, and the internet in general, would be more useful if people provided sources when they make certain types of claims. I can't patrol the wider internet, but I can make my little corner more informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please conspiracy theorists unite! I just don't see the big deal, maybe my head is in the sand and I don't know it. Could it be just the rose colored glasses. If they want to assign troops domestically for key assignments, call it strategy, not tragedy. I'd rather them here than over there. Our homeland security, despite the billions we've pored into it, is really still almost a joke. Sure they've slowed down boarding the planes and getting checked in, but our borders are still wide open. I'm still not seeing the threat of Humvees patrolling our neighborhoods anytime soon. NORTHCOM? You are referring to Northern Command I assume. They don't amount to nearly squat, what is the big deal there. Don't they just support our civil organizations? It's not like they don't need it. They came down for Ike I am pretty sure. Didn't hear ant bitching about that.

I guess I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total number of active + reserve military in the United States is 2.2 million. Considering that a certain percentage of that (20% maybe?) has to provide support services, it's not even enough troops to secure New England, let alone the entire country.

I don't think there will be Humvees rolling down anyone's streets anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The total number of active + reserve military in the United States is 2.2 million. Considering that a certain percentage of that (20% maybe?) has to provide support services, it's not even enough troops to secure New England, let alone the entire country.

I don't think there will be Humvees rolling down anyone's streets anytime soon.

I seem to recall from years ago that the ratio was eight combat support or combat service support personnel for every one member of the combat arms. Given the move toward having more civilian contractors, the ratio is probably somewhat lower now. ...all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the National Guard and the Coast Guard for hurricanes and other events. It's always been that way. Are you saying they're not good enough?

Homeland security *is* a joke and so is the idea that the army can protect us from terrorists here. Anybody who wants to hit us can. Same with Europe. I know it's been a while, but surely everyone remembers that the original reason *we* went over *there* is because that is the easiest way to keep *them* from coming *here*. Killing bin Laden is proactive...but by the time an army soldier in front of a building in an American city notices the building blowing up then it is far too late.

Anyway the article's emphasis on crowd control says it all. There's no doubt in my mind that's what this is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said I believed that?

Ummm, you did, when you said only our country's enemies soldiers wear uniforms. So, using that logic, you think the Taliban and Al-Queda are not our enemies because they don't have chevrons on their turbans, is that right ?

If you would read what you print, you would see that Al-Queda does not fall under Geneva convention, because they don't meet all the requirements, so how can the world law be broken ? Besides, you think Al Queda even abides under the Geneva convention or for that matter, ANY form of law other than Muslim law? They only heard about Geneva because some ACLU lawyers went crying about their civil rights being violated, which they aren't.

Judah, I agree with you. I will take a CoastGuard to get me out of the water if my boat tumped over in a storm, over a Navy Seal, anyday.

Crunch, what would you have our Govt. do with our Military, once we bring all our young men and women home ? I much prefer them to be on the borders or working airports and our marine ports. Protecting something, not just sitting around on base, waiting for something to happen.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, you did, when you said only our country's enemies soldiers wear uniforms.

I said that's what the Bush administration said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said that's what the Bush administration said.

You took that part to heart, yet you conveniently left out the fact that there are provisions for AlQueda and Taliban combatants ? Why is that meme ? So, not all Foreign soldiers on U.S. soil wear a "standard uniform" even under a Bush Doctrine, isn't that correct ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seaports. That's a good idea. They're huge targets and woefully underprotected. Let's put the military there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You took that part to heart, yet you conveniently left out the fact that there are provisions for AlQueda and Taliban combatants ? Why is that meme ? So, not all Foreign soldiers on U.S. soil wear a "standard uniform" even under a Bush Doctrine, isn't that correct ?

Nope. Bush says if they aren't wearing a uniform then they aren't a soldier. That's what he said, and that's what I've repeated here. If you have some other information about the Bush administrations position on this, please share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. Bush says if they aren't wearing a uniform then they aren't a soldier. That's what he said, and that's what I've repeated here. If you have some other information about the Bush administrations position on this, please share it.

It's all right there in the links you provided. Thanks.

and I quote...."Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty. "

There are 4 criterias that have to be met. A uniform is ONE of the four, you keep omitting the rest to fit your skewed view.

Taliban and AlQueda soldiers "uniforms" would be , whatever the clothes on their backs are.

Seaports. That's a good idea. They're huge targets and woefully underprotected. Let's put the military there.

THanks Editor. :D

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. I don't disagree.

I'm still buying gold.

Crunch, you were acting like you didn't have 2 nickels to rub together a few days ago. No you're buying GOLD ?!?

Man, I wish I had your "money troubles". B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a few pissed off Muslims killed a lot of folks.

I guess the folks killed by good Christians don't matter (i.e., Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Unabomber, the compound at Waco, ad nauseam....)

Frankly it strikes me odd that there's so few pissed off Muslims; apparently, only 20 or so, most of whom were killed on 9/11.

However, it provides a perfect excuse to put a noose, loosely, around our necks "for our own protection", and a trap door under our feet "for our convenience".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the folks killed by good Christians don't matter (i.e., Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Unabomber, the compound at Waco, ad nauseam....)

However, it provides a perfect excuse to put a noose, loosely, around our necks "for our own protection", and a trap door under our feet "for our convenience".

It doesn't really seem like these troops are going to be used in sweeping counterterrorist operations--and if they were, it would seem like there might be some jurisdictional conflicts with other federal law enforcement organizations. But once again, I would remind you that the small number of troops being allocated to this brigade are pitifully inadequate cause for alarm as it might pertain to the enactment of marshall law or some kind of systematic repression of civil rights.

Frankly it strikes me odd that there's so few pissed off Muslims; apparently, only 20 or so, most of whom were killed on 9/11.

There are way more. Luckily one of the unintended consequences of our foreign wars is that they seem to act like flypaper for pissed off Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused.. Everyone wants the troops to come home - but when they do, you complain of conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused.. Everyone wants the troops to come home - but when they do, you complain of conspiracy?

Editor injected the word "conspiracy". He's not complaining about the troops being deployed to US soil, he's insinuating that anyone who does is a conspiracy theorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....... the intended result of one of the articles in the 2007 Defense Authorization Act has come home to roost. Literally.

Beginning next week a combat brigade from the 3rd infantry has returned from the desert and will de deployed to American soil. They're on a one year tour but the command will be permanent.

Read down into the article past the 'helping the nation' during national disasters and terroritst attacks, to the part about crowd control and extensive non-lethal training and ops.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

For those who may have forgotten, or never knew, in the aftermath of Katrinna, the executive gave itself authority to over overturn the longstanding Posse Comtitatus Act by changing the terms under which the President can invoke the Insurrection Act.

The short form is that the 2007 law enables the president (via a phrase which neglects to define other 'conditions' ) to deploy troops at home, for basically any reason at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006)

Why am I not surprised that we're not seeing this story under the bailout and the bank failure headlines?

By the way, detention facilities (read concentration camps) have been being built for many years since GWB has been Pres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Editor injected the word "conspiracy". He's not complaining about the troops being deployed to US soil, he's insinuating that anyone who does is a conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps "conspiracy theorist" isn't the right term. How about we call you folks "slippery-slopists". You can even have an informal fallacy named after you...or vice versa, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps "conspiracy theorist" isn't the right term. How about we call you folks "slippery-slopists". You can even have an informal fallacy named after you...or vice versa, whatever.

Don't call me that. I'm not concerned about this because of conspiracies or slippery slopes. I'm concerned about it because I don't want the US government using its military against the citizens that pay for it.

Why does this suggest a slippery slope to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't call me that. I'm not concerned about this because of conspiracies or slippery slopes. I'm concerned about it because I don't want the US government using its military against the citizens that pay for it.

Why does this suggest a slippery slope to you?

I'm too lazy to conjure up my own explanation. Wikipedia is good enough for you slippery-slopists. Figure it out.

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

In one form, the proposer suggests that by making a move in a particular direction, we start down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it appears likely that we will continue in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction; hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).

Another form appears more static, arguing that admitting or permitting A creates a precedent that leads to admitting or permitting B, by following a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical necessity (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this a valid argument and thus not a slippery slope according to the classical definition. The slippery slope is not a fallacy by virtue of a chain of implications (which relies on the transitivity of the material conditional) but rather because of the failure to factually establish said chain.

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn.
Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm too lazy to conjure up my own explanation. Wikipedia is good enough for you slippery-slopists. Figure it out.

I can't. Where's the slippery slope in not wanting US forces deployed to US soil? Are you saying it's a slippery slope argument to say that if US forces are deployed to US soil they might be used against US citizens? I think that's exactly why you would deploy them to US soil. Most of the non-US citizens aren't on US soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be distracted -- the article speaks for itself. Crowd control? Why? Are crowds more out of control than usual? Is the national guard/coast guard somehow insufficient all of a sudden?

Edited by N Judah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be distracted -- the article speaks for itself. Crowd control? Why? Are crowds more out of control than usual? Is the national guard/coast guard somehow insufficient all of a sudden?

I guess if you're going to train people in crowd control, you have to go where the crowds are that you're allowed to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...