Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crunchtastic

Permanent homeland military ops

Recommended Posts

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?

Say that a dirty bomb was set off in Manhattan. Never mind that it probably would not contain enough radiological material to be a health hazard; you'd have a crowd of people that were totally freaked out. They would need controlling.

Say that a hurricane hit a major American city, which happened to be below sea level. And say that the levees failed. And say that there were still tens of thousands of people there, many of them desperately poor. You'd have a crowd there. They would need controlling, and somehow (perhaps from a faint memory), I suspect that the national guard deployments would be inadequate to handle the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Municipalities and states have reciprocal agreements with other municipalities and states for shared support. This was witnessed in the aftermath of both 9-11 and Katrina. In the context of this army brigade, we're not talking about disaster recovery and relief, this is about policing. The biggest opponents of federal troop deployments are governors, mayors and and police chiefs. They view unsolicited federal intervention as usurping their authority. Note 'unsolicited', which is the sticking point in the way the law was re-written. There is a difference between a Mayor Nagin requesting federal help, and the DOD or the president deciding they will intervene with combat troops. On a constitutional level, it is a states rights argument, which would explain why the association of Governors was vigorously opposed.

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Municipalities and states have reciprocal agreements with other municipalities and states for shared support. This was witnessed in the aftermath of both 9-11 and Katrina. In the context of this army brigade, we're not talking about disaster recovery and relief, this is about policing. The biggest opponents of federal troop deployments are governors, mayors and and police chiefs. They view unsolicited federal intervention as usurping their authority. Note 'unsolicited', which is the sticking point in the way the law was re-written. There is a difference between a Mayor Nagin requesting federal help, and the DOD or the president deciding they will intervene with combat troops. On a constitutional level, it is a states rights argument, which would explain why the association of Governors was vigorously opposed.

From the article you originally linked to:

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

...

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There may be an argument to be made over jurisdictions and control, and whether these guys can be deployed without the permission of a state or locality. But it isn't clear to me what that argument is, specifically, or whether the fact that this brigade exists is in and of itself in violation of the law. Besides which, it seems like training combat troops for emergency relief efforts and keeping them available for use is a pretty good way for them to spend their time, when they aren't at war. Gives them some practical and transferrable experience for their life after the military, too.

They aren't just training; they're deployed. Why are you in favor of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say that a hurricane hit a major American city, which happened to be below sea level. And say that the levees failed. And say that there were still tens of thousands of people there, many of them desperately poor. You'd have a crowd there. They would need controlling, and somehow (perhaps from a faint memory), I suspect that the national guard deployments would be inadequate to handle the situation.

Maybe the master plan is to have our "storm-troopers" take all the people that needed "controlling" to PapillionWyngs "concentration camps", next time there is a disaster. :huh:

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

Oh yeah? Name the location of one concentration camp "Adolf Bush" has had built.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

An interesting aside. Now I'm interested in which crowds the US Army *isn't* allowed to control, and the procedures for deciding which crowd can be controlled by whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They aren't just training; they're deployed. Why are you in favor of this?

They're stationed domestically, and by technical definition, they are deployed. But they aren't engaging in activities that could be defined as their primary mission at this time. So informally, one might say that they are effectively not deployed. Semantics. You know what I mean.

I'm OK with it because on the face of things it looks like they serve a compelling purpose. And I don't see that there is a compelling argument that they're likely to oppress U.S. citizens or that they will by their very existence violate state's rights.

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?

You need crowd control just in case people protest outside of the official protest zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're stationed domestically, and by technical definition, they are deployed. But they aren't engaging in activities that could be defined as their primary mission at this time. So informally, one might say that they are effectively not deployed. Semantics. You know what I mean.

Oh, I wish I did. If they are informally not deployed, then why are they formally deployed?

I'm OK with it because on the face of things it looks like they serve a compelling purpose. And I don't see that there is a compelling argument that they're likely to oppress U.S. citizens or that they will by their very existence violate state's rights.

So you're OK with the growth of federal powers as long as it isn't "likely" that those powers will be abused?

Even the cops can do that.

Right, and we've got cops. Why do we need the army?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys remember Kent State? The National Guard kid who fired into those students was only about 19 himself. If the need should arise, I would prefer seasoned military than scared kids doing crowd control. A family member was working in NO after Katrina. There were shots fired by crazed drug addicts who had been many hours without their drugs. Then Blackwater came in and scared the fool out of everybody. Rather have trained military there, too. A bunch of guys with big guns, too much testosterone and not enough brains is also scary. Just saying, there is all kinds of crowd control. I better get a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're OK with the growth of federal powers as long as it isn't "likely" that those powers will be abused?

Have the federal powers been grown with this official deployment? Or are they just utilizing powers that heretofore have not been?

It might be helpful if you could show me the legislation that passed or the supreme court decision that was made that has done what you're talking about.

Right, and we've got cops. Why do we need the army?

Cops are perfectly good for everyday emergencies. But there aren't enough of them to effectively handle catastrophic circumstances, even affecting a single city. And if a sufficient number are relocated there from partner jurisdictions, then it leaves those jurisdictions without the capacity to effectively handle everyday emergencies, much less those that might arise in the wake of a terrorist attack or some such event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have the federal powers been grown with this official deployment? Or are they just utilizing powers that heretofore have not been?

It might be helpful if you could show me the legislation that passed or the supreme court decision that was made that has done what you're talking about.

That was in the first post of this thread: H.R. 5122 (2006). See also Insurrection Act Amendments.

Cops are perfectly good for everyday emergencies. But there aren't enough of them to effectively handle catastrophic circumstances, even affecting a single city. And if a sufficient number are relocated there from partner jurisdictions, then it leaves those jurisdictions without the capacity to effectively handle everyday emergencies, much less those that might arise in the wake of a terrorist attack or some such event.

N. Judah was saying cops could control crowds that protest outside official "protest zones".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have the federal powers been grown with this official deployment? Or are they just utilizing powers that heretofore have not been?

As with many consitutional issues, it has to do with the intent of the law.

The provision of HR 5122 expanding the president's martial law authority was repealed in 2008, and the executive is bound once again to the original law pertaining to state authority over National Guard troops. Those in opposition to the homeland brigade oppose it for the same reasons they opposed HR 5122--it is viewed as an attempt to circumvent the reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus law which prohibits the army from acting in a law enforcement capacity on US soil against US citizens. While it is true the brigade is set up as a disaster response unit, it is trained and ready to serve as a federal police force.

In that regard, yes, it provides another means to the same end--an expansion of federal powers. Whether those means are ever used is another story.

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You're right, there are only about 15 to 30 million illegal NON-CITIZENS in the country, and more pouring in everyday meme. Nothing to be concerned about. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you guys remember Kent State? The National Guard kid who fired into those students was only about 19 himself. If the need should arise, I would prefer seasoned military than scared kids doing crowd control. A family member was working in NO after Katrina. There were shots fired by crazed drug addicts who had been many hours without their drugs. Then Blackwater came in and scared the fool out of everybody. Rather have trained military there, too. A bunch of guys with big guns, too much testosterone and not enough brains is also scary. Just saying, there is all kinds of crowd control. I better get a gun.

Good Point, I much prefer using MERCs over our military to kill off a few crackheads that are taking potshots, at law abiding citizens in dire need, because they need a fix. I don't want our military personnel being spit on for doing their job, protecting me, and they happen to kill a few crazed crackheads. I'll let crazed mercanarnies do that job any day of the week. I am sure those Kent State protestors would have not been so giddy, if they had seen a bunch of men all dressed in black with skimasks and M-16s coming at them, they would have ran for the hills and dispersed immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Point, I much prefer using MERCs over our military to kill off a few crackheads that are taking potshots, at law abiding citizens in dire need, because they need a fix. I don't want our military personnel being spit on for doing their job, protecting me, and they happen to kill a few crazed crackheads. I'll let crazed mercanarnies do that job any day of the week. I am sure those Kent State protestors would have not been so giddy, if they had seen a bunch of men all dressed in black with skimasks and M-16s coming at them, they would have ran for the hills and dispersed immediately.

You must live in a BAD neighborhood that is stuck in the 80s. Crack is so out now and meth is the drug of choice for 'crackheads'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with many consitutional issues, it has to do with the intent of the law.

The provision of HR 5122 expanding the president's martial law authority was repealed in 2008, and the executive is bound once again to the original law pertaining to state authority over National Guard troops. Those in opposition to the homeland brigade oppose it for the same reasons they opposed HR 5122--it is viewed as an attempt to circumvent the reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus law which prohibits the army from acting in a law enforcement capacity on US soil against US citizens. While it is true the brigade is set up as a disaster response unit, it is trained and ready to serve as a federal police force.

In that regard, yes, it provides another means to the same end--an expansion of federal powers. Whether those means are ever used is another story.

I must admit that it is with no small amount of bemusement that I read posters who likely sympathize with the actions of the Confederate States of America and the general treatment of the Southern states after the Civil War, now finding Posse Comitatus to be quaint and outdated, and having no qualms with federal troops exercising police power against US citizens.

State's Rights indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was in the first post of this thread: H.R. 5122 (2006). See also Insurrection Act Amendments.

N. Judah was saying cops could control crowds that protest outside official "protest zones".

Sarcasm is hard to convey on this forum. My first comment was mocking the whole idea of "protest zones" in the first place. The fact that we now have "official" protest zones is nuts and completely UN-AMERICAN. Maybe the Congresswoman from Minnesota can start her crusade there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think the idea of "official protest zones" is idiotic. But people are too cowed to do anything about it. You don't even really need cops to control people (much less the army). Just set up a bunch of barricades and people will instinctively stand behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarcasm is hard to convey on this forum. My first comment was mocking the whole idea of "protest zones" in the first place. The fact that we now have "official" protest zones is nuts and completely UN-AMERICAN. Maybe the Congresswoman from Minnesota can start her crusade there?

Here's the deal on that Kink. Do you want the crazy nutbag PRO-LIFERS, holding signs, chanting obscenities, and surrounding your Presidential candidate or those that just want to enjoy the DNC and have a good time listening to their Messiah speak ? OR, would you rather have them in a nice safe "designated" area, where you or your cohorts would not be subjected to, or may possibly come to bodily harm, by these extremists ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the deal on that Kink. Do you want the crazy nutbag PRO-LIFERS, holding signs, chanting obscenities, and surrounding your Presidential candidate or those that just want to enjoy the DNC and have a good time listening to their Messiah speak ? OR, would you rather have them in a nice safe "designated" area, where you or your cohorts would not be subjected to, or may possibly come to bodily harm, by these extremists ?

The first, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people can barely read past a 7th grade level let alone have the time to worry about this sort of thing. They are too busy talking on their cell phones, watching sitcoms like Friends or garbage like American Idol, driving all over the place, or playing games to really be any use to society at large.

I mean when shows like "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" are on TV, that alone should tell you something about the sad state of affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people can barely read past a 7th grade level let alone have the time to worry about this sort of thing. They are too busy talking on their cell phones, watching sitcoms like Friends or garbage like American Idol, driving all over the place, or playing games to really be any use to society at large.

I mean when shows like "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" are on TV, that alone should tell you something about the sad state of affairs.

Tell us how you really feel.

I think the digital age has also dumbed down our ability to compose proper sentences. My pet peeves are incorrect capitalization and punctuation. And, when did people forget the uses for their, there and they're? Don't forget then being used instead of than.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell us how you really feel.

I think the digital age has also dumbed down our ability to compose proper sentences. My pet peeves are incorrect capitalization and punctuation. And, when did people forget the uses for their, there and they're? Don't forget then being used instead of than.

More then you think. I mean... just look at them. Their no use to us.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some new developments, for anyone who's been following this topic --

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14850

If you search the news for "posse comitatus" there seems to be quite a bit to this on lots of different fronts.

This video clip seemed a bit much, but I think the overall point is very valid.

(originally found at http://maxkeiser.com/2009/08/21/ote15-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser-21-august-2009/ )

Edited by N Judah
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some new developments, for anyone who's been following this topic --

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14850

If you search the news for "posse comitatus" there seems to be quite a bit to this on lots of different fronts.

This video clip seemed a bit much, but I think the overall point is very valid.

(originally found at http://maxkeiser.com/2009/08/21/ote15-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser-21-august-2009/ )

Yea. A close friend of mine works for Genentech out in the Bay Area and has been involved in a number of projects related to the new flus. He doesn't say a lot, but always confirms my suspicion that many things dismissed as tinfoil hattery may not be necessarily probable, but are not at all far from the realm of possibility, and transcend partisan politics.

  • Like 1

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...