Permanent homeland military ops

[Jeebus]

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

[memebag]

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.

[PapillionWyngs]

....... 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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[memebag]

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?

[PapillionWyngs]

No slippery slope. It's called reality, unfortunately.

[TheNiche]

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.

[memebag]

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.

[N Judah]

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?

[editor]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[crunchtastic]

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.

[TheNiche]

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

[memebag]

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?

[Jeebus]

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.

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.

[N Judah]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[KinkaidAlum]

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.

[N Judah]

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

Even the cops can do that.

[memebag]

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?

[crone]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[memebag]

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".

[crunchtastic]

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.

[TJones]

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.

[TJones]

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.

[houstonmacbro]

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'.

[RedScare]

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.

[KinkaidAlum]

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?

[N Judah]

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.