PDA

View Full Version : Ok ...a little spooky.



K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 12:24 AM
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 1, 2008; A01

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 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.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.

The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.

If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.

Entire article here>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html



The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.

Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."

luvalab
12-02-2008, 06:39 AM
I've been ranting about this for months.

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

Seems there isn't a huge amount of interest in the subject, though.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 10:50 AM
I've been ranting about this for months.

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

Seems there isn't a huge amount of interest in the subject, though.

This is the first I have read of it. I am still sorting it out, I am not used to agreeing with the ACLU ...that freaks me out almost as much as a standing federal army involved in civil affairs.;)

backpasture
12-02-2008, 11:23 AM
Crossing the Rubicon -- another part of the Bush legacy.

Let's hope the new President has different plans.

luvalab
12-02-2008, 11:44 AM
This is the first I have read of it. I am still sorting it out, I am not used to agreeing with the ACLU ...that freaks me out almost as much as a standing federal army involved in civil affairs.;)

The shock will wear off, Kevin; then you get used to it; and eventually you like it.

Sort of like any strong taste--blue cheese, dark chocolate, red wine... all the good stuff takes some time.

;)

gsc
12-02-2008, 12:39 PM
Crossing the Rubicon -- another part of the Bush legacy.

Let's hope the new President has different plans.

I believe he is in agreement on this issue.

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 12:42 PM
I'm really starting to believe we have two political parties driving us over the same cliff. Bush seems to be setting Obama up for something scary. The bailout will hand Obama a banking, insurance, and auto industry that is well on it's way to being nationalized. This military presence in our cities combined with the civilian security force Obama wants is very troubling. It may be Bush setting Obama up to cross the Rubicon. Just keep the people focused on class warfare, while the people at the top plan something much bigger. Lets see if they try to disarm us first.

backpasture
12-02-2008, 01:03 PM
I believe he is in agreement on this issue.

Citation? I can't find anywhere that he has spoken one way or the other about the issue.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 04:02 PM
The shock will wear off, Kevin; then you get used to it; and eventually you like it.

Sort of like any strong taste--blue cheese, dark chocolate, red wine... all the good stuff takes some time.

;)
Stop it. :eek:

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 08:36 PM
Depending on the scope and nature of the application, this can make a lot of sense from an emergency management/disaster response perspective.

Auntie Emme Auntie Emme It's A Twister It's A Twister Regards,

Joe S.

Marvin S
12-02-2008, 08:59 PM
Depending on the scope and nature of the application, this can make a lot of sense from an emergency management/disaster response perspective.

Auntie Emme Auntie Emme It's A Twister It's A Twister Regards,

Joe S.

I believe that to be the reason there are National Guards - for domestic emergencies. I just do not believe there to be any reason to have a domestic army.

backpasture
12-02-2008, 09:22 PM
Depending on the scope and nature of the application, this can make a lot of sense from an emergency management/disaster response perspective.

Auntie Emme Auntie Emme It's A Twister It's A Twister Regards,

Joe S.

I need someone to explain to me why we have Guard and reserve troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are deploying active duty troops to guard the homeland.

It makes sense to have a rapid response force here, but can't the National Guard do that? Isn't that what they are *supposed* to do?

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 09:25 PM
I need someone to explain to me why we have Guard and reserve troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are deploying active duty troops to guard the homeland.

It makes sense to have a rapid response force here, but can't the National Guard do that? Isn't that what they are *supposed* to do?

Wow I think I agree with you.:confused:

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 10:26 PM
Wow I think I agree with you.:confused:
Wow ...the potus place harmony thread.

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 08:21 AM
I believe that to be the reason there are National Guards - for domestic emergencies. I just do not believe there to be any reason to have a domestic army.

We already have a domestic army. Corret? The topic of discussion is the mission/employment of that already standing domestic army.

One of the legacy issues, for example, with using the National Guard in domestic emergencies is that you are GENERALLY asking people from the impact area to leave their families and loved ones to aid the general populace. Often with limited equipment and capabilities. While effective to a point, there comes a point in time where we all, seemingly, would become as or more concerned with our personal lives than we would with the locals.

One of the advantages to using a deployable military force from outside the impact area is the capability to mobilize thousands of trained, disciplined, highly organized individuals complete with organic support (food, water, comms, transportation (ground/air), C2/C3) in a relatively short time period. Depending on the situation pre-planned and pre-deployed personnel and equipment could be in place prior to the on-set of the event.

Keeping in mind we are not talking about deployment for the 1 v 1 car accident or minor event. We are talking about deployment for a response to an issue that has or will rapidly overwhelmed the local or regional response capability.

To suggest that the local or state government, even supplemented by the massive various Federal response elements as outlined in the National Response Framework or Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 would be enough in the event of a terrorist attack on the CONUS using biological, nuclear, or improvised nuclear weapons is incorrect.

Emergency Management Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 08:33 AM
I need someone to explain to me why we have Guard and reserve troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are deploying active duty troops to guard the homeland.

It makes sense to have a rapid response force here, but can't the National Guard do that? Isn't that what they are *supposed* to do?

We have Guard/Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have enough regular Army troops to get the job done and provide a rotation for those deployed.

The reason the National Guard/Reserves don't serve as a rapid response force in the manner being suggested here is their civilian jobs. The troops that are forming the center pieces of the rapid response force are ready at Notification plus ?/2/4/6/8/12 hours (N + X) to deploy or begin deployment to the area. The Guard/Reserve may have longer lead times than that, especially depending on where they may be coming from.

The faster one is able to put a coordinated response together the better one is able to stay on top of and in front of the response effort. Research has shown, and Katrina proved again, that a slow, haphazard response triggers a series of cascading events that serve only to geometerically complicate the overall response.

I said originally that depending on the scope and nature of employment, this could be a good thing. If this rapid reaction force is routinely deployed for relatively minor emergencies, it would be problematic, I think.

Emergency Management Regards,

Joe S.

backpasture
12-03-2008, 08:58 AM
We have Guard/Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have enough regular Army troops to get the job done and provide a rotation for those deployed.
.

Then let's bring 20,000 of those Guard troops stateside, and let them be deployed here. Then, replace them with the 20,000 active duty troops that are planned to be deployed stateside.

Or better yet, let's get ALL those Guard troops out of Iraq, and let them have stateside duty if they are activated.

IowaBayDog
12-03-2008, 11:25 AM
Then let's bring 20,000 of those Guard troops stateside, and let them be deployed here. Then, replace them with the 20,000 active duty troops that are planned to be deployed stateside.

Or better yet, let's get ALL those Guard troops out of Iraq, and let them have stateside duty if they are activated.


This topic came up at work with the same arguments going around. There would be no difference between activated NG troops and Active Duty Military. THere are already hundreds of thousands of Active Duty Military stationed stateside at any time, giving a few of them a domestic "job" seems more reasonable than taxing and already overworked part time volunteer force.

I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week! :barf:

luvalab
12-03-2008, 01:01 PM
Okay, here's my thing--if government has a resource, it's going to use it. Period.

If there is a standing army on home soil, government is going to use that standing army on home soil, emergency or not. I do not believe it is right or fair or just or legal to use soldiers in domestic situations that are not emergencies, and yet I believe in my heart that that is how they would be used. Because the government would have the resource. And government uses its resources, necessary or not.

National Guard, Reserves, and a streamlined approach to bringing troops stateside in an emergency--that's the way I'll run the world when I'm promoted to the position. ;)

Not only that--but I thought it was ultra spooky that the first "Homeland Brigade" became active (if that's the right word) pretty much simultaneously with the onset of the public's knowledge of the current financial blow-up. I don't doubt it was coincidence... but what if the first "emergency" had been a run on the banks? Would that have been an appropriate and legal way to use troops? Who would be making the call? What precedent would there be? Would these troops be armed? What kind of position would that put us all in?

I repeat--very, very roughly paraphrasing and referencing Thoreau--government is going to use a standing army if it has it because government uses its resources... a standing army on home soil would be used on home soil, whether it was needed or not, and that is a HORRENDOUS position to deliberately put ourselves in as a democracy.

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 07:53 PM
I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week! :barf:

Yeah, well, that has been know to happen from time to time. I've been told something like I'm not as big a prick as I've been thought after people have gotten to know better...of course, now that I think about it, these comments have come from women who got to know me better...while I'm not really sure what they were trying to get at now that I think about it, I'm sure it was positive.;-)

Be well, Dan.

Honest Regards,

Joe S.

P.S. - That cheap feeling you have from agreeing with me...yeah...that is going to have to wear off sorta' like a skunk smell...won't come off in the shower. :-)

Bubba
12-03-2008, 08:51 PM
Might try rubbing some turpentine on your nuts. Oh wait that's for a completely other problem.

Never mind regards

Bubba

Patrick Johndrow
12-03-2008, 09:00 PM
I've been told something like I'm not as big a prick as I've been thought after people have gotten to know better....





Now Joe don’t go short selling yourself there….you’re one…if not the biggest prick I know.

We still love ya regards

Joe S.
12-03-2008, 09:55 PM
Now Joe don’t go short selling yourself there….you’re one…if not the biggest prick I know.

We still love ya regards

Hey, contrary to what those women may have been trying to say, I'm not short at all...:(:o:cool:;-)

Dude, is it possible to GdG a thread in a place where all the thread are considered GdG?

Perspective Is Everything Regards,

Joe S.

Legacy 6
12-03-2008, 11:37 PM
This topic came up at work with the same arguments going around. There would be no difference between activated NG troops and Active Duty Military. THere are already hundreds of thousands of Active Duty Military stationed stateside at any time, giving a few of them a domestic "job" seems more reasonable than taxing and already overworked part time volunteer force.

I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week! :barf:

Thank you... The National Guard and Reserve forces are a weekend warrior force. When they are home, they have to do their own jobs, except in cases of emergency, Like Katrina or Ike... that doesn't mean I agree with the sentiment that us active duty guys should be deployed within the US...

In fact, I guess that I can't really agree OR disagree. It's unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in the case of Declared War. The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act... which (according to my stupid stupid Conservative brain stuff) substantially limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances only authorized by Congress... IOW, Unconstitutional.

Joe S.
12-04-2008, 08:06 AM
It's unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in the case of Declared War.

Please check with the JAG office.

It is not unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in case of Declared War in the least. There are NUMEROUS occassions were active duty military or federalized National Guard/Reserve troops have been deployed. As you mentioned, the response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita spring to mind immediately.

The installation commander is authorized in most cases, without approval of HHQ, to provide aid to the local community in support of disaster relief operations or to combat an imminent disaster. I seem to recall military members from Grand Forks AFB being used for sandbag details and the like during flood season when I was stationed there, but I am certainly open for correction. I also think that active duty military personnel have been used to fight fires in many of the western states, but again, I'm open for correction.

Now, using active duty military to enforce domestice laws is, as I understand it, a violation fo the Posse Comitatus Act.


The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act... which (according to my stupid stupid Conservative brain stuff) substantially limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances only authorized by Congress... IOW, Unconstitutional.

In the referenced Washington Post piece it said 8% of the force would be assigned to law enforcement in a force protection role, it said nothing about using U.S. troops as civilian law enforcement officials nor have I been able to find any reference to it in any other article. A force protection role would be similar to a posted sentry at an entry control point to a military installation which is certainly allowed now. There is no mention of using active duty military to enforce traffic laws or investigate common crimes. In fact, it seems that they have taken great pains to explain that they will not be used in that role.

Again, the discussion is centered on a response to a MASSIVE situation. An IND, RDD, Chem, Bio, CAT 12 Hurricane where the local, state, regional response efforts will be RAPIDLY overwhelmed. To suggest that should an IND explode in Kansas City that local, state, regional or perhaps even the enhanced Federal response be enough to resolve the situation may not be accurate. And that is just one city at one time. Given the aQ MO of using multiple-attacks in multiple places it could be several cities all at the same time or within a short timeframe. National response capability as it currently exists would be taxed to or beyond the breaking point.

The National Response Framework and it's supporting annexes and appendicies, coupled with HSPD-5 provide the national response protocols. Is this proposal spooky and worthy of considerable independent oversite? Clearly, without the slightest bit of doubt...just like any operation the Government does that has the potential to abuse the power they have been entrusted with.

Is it unconstitutional as currently identified?

Beats me. I've only slept at a Holiday Inn Express. It doesnt' seem to me to be in the least given the current known scope and nature of the response protocols and the fact that it is being talked about by and in the public, which sets this apart from say, warrentless domestic spying.

I would further suggest that if planning were not underway to use all available resources in the event of a massive response or clearly imminent emergency someone is going to ask why that specific resource was not committed to the response. When thousands or potentially millions of our citizens are actively suffering, "Because it was against the rules..." doesn't seem to hold up well under the stark light of reality.

IMHDAO (ubp, K2, Inc.) Regards,

Joe S.

IowaBayDog
12-04-2008, 09:29 AM
After a long debate about this at work it was apparent that folks seem to have a stigma about the Active Duty Military and not the National Guard. They are both made up of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors. One is no more evil than the other.

I can understand the opposition to the idea on Constitutional grounds even though I don't agree with it. If you are against this type of allocation of resources you would have to be OK with a situation where a "major" event/attack took place in L.A. and the 30,000 or so Marines at Pendleton sat on their hands and said "Sorry we can't help" while a group made its way up the coast to further their attacks. The NG might get together in a week or so to put together a sufficient response. Not really a good use of resources IMHO.

I guess having been in the military I don't have that evil tin hat feeling when it comes to the motivations of those that are in the Military.

Legacy 6
12-04-2008, 11:22 AM
National Defense and Natural Disaster are one thing...

Deploying troops within the US to assist in "police" and "security" type missions, IOW to enforce the laws - is quite another.

We could talk about the NG troops doing security at Airports, and we could also talk about Marshal Law... but I'm not going to go into that...

Gerry Clinchy
12-04-2008, 03:51 PM
National Defense and Natural Disaster are one thing...

Deploying troops within the US to assist in "police" and "security" type missions, IOW to enforce the laws - is quite another.

We could talk about the NG troops doing security at Airports, and we could also talk about Marshal Law... but I'm not going to go into that...

Well, I saw military in the streets of Washington DC during the riots of the late 60s. Didn't stop to ask if they were NG or active military ... just got directions to get the heck out of there. Believe the same thing was going on in Newark NJ at the time. Exits on the NJ Turnpike into the city were closed.

Armed soldiers in the streets are pretty scary ... but it seems that there are times when they have been called upon in the past.

luvalab
12-04-2008, 04:11 PM
Armed soldiers in the streets are pretty scary ... but it seems that there are times when they have been called upon in the past.

I agree. But I don't really have an issue with "called upon."

I guess I see "called upon" and "ready and waiting to be called upon at a moment's notice" as two totally different animals!

Marvin S
12-04-2008, 05:10 PM
I seem to recall military members from Grand Forks AFB being used for sandbag details and the like during flood season when I was stationed there,

In the early 1900's (?) the CO State Patrol Troopers were called upon to restore order in a strike. In the resulting incident some unarmed strikers were shot & killed. When we lived there in the early 60's the Courtesy Patrol as they were then called were unarmed even in the process of doing their duties.

Did the sandbag thing at Offutt in the early 50's to help the local citizenry in Omaha. We did that with only our fatigues & strong backs being the required gear - no weapons. What I rememember to this day was the Red Cross showing up, seeing we were a bunch of GI's & leaving to then go over, & give the paid help, $3 an hour, all the refreshments. The Salvation Army showed up about an hour later & gave us coffee, a donut & a cigar.

Guess who is on our yearly giving list & who is not!

Joe S.
12-04-2008, 08:05 PM
I guess having been in the military I don't have that evil tin hat feeling when it comes to the motivations of those that are in the Military.

Say Dan, how is that flu bug doing? 'Cause I'm starting to feel ill myself...

I agree with you, kind of.

I don't think it is the fear of the military, per se. I think it is the fear of the Government ordering the military to do things unthinkable to American citizens. Every two-bit country that has a coup the people doing the coup-ing are the military on orders from Generals or politicians. So that fear of "It could happen here..." sorta' maybe seeps in except we aren't a two-bit country.

Again, I think it should be watched closely but as outlined, I think it is a good idea from an Emergency Management perspective.

How's the duck hunting?

Shoot Them In The Bill Regards,

Joe S.

Legacy 6
12-04-2008, 08:06 PM
Well, I saw military in the streets of Washington DC during the riots of the late 60s. Didn't stop to ask if they were NG or active military ... just got directions to get the heck out of there. Believe the same thing was going on in Newark NJ at the time. Exits on the NJ Turnpike into the city were closed.

Armed soldiers in the streets are pretty scary ... but it seems that there are times when they have been called upon in the past.

I didn't say that because Eisenhower did it, it’s okay, and Obama/Bush does it, it’s not...

Both are Unconstitutional.

Joe S.
12-04-2008, 08:13 PM
National Defense and Natural Disaster are one thing...

It is.


Deploying troops within the US to assist in "police" and "security" type missions, IOW to enforce the laws - is quite another.

Again, that does not appear to be the role as outlined. The role as outlined calls for 92% of the troops to be in a response role with 8% in a "force protection role." 18,400 helps in a disaster response role is a LOT of help.


We could talk about the NG troops doing security at Airports, and we could also talk about Marshal Law... but I'm not going to go into that...

Could...but NG troops doing security at Airports were augmenting local PD and did not have powers of arrest, as I recall. They had the power to detain. Big difference.

Topic At Hand Regards,

Joe S.

IowaBayDog
12-05-2008, 08:47 AM
How's the duck hunting?

Shoot Them In The Bill Regards,

Joe S.


I'll have to tell you on Sunday. Our group scout has some of the last remaining birds located to some fields for Sat. but temps at or a little below zero might drive them off. Hopefully at least some geese will hang around. When I drove over the Cedar River this morning it had iced over already.

After this week it will be hunting the large brown furry antlered creatures until my "Right Wing Conspiracy" late season jaunt to SD after Christmas. :cool:

Joe S.
12-05-2008, 11:53 AM
I'll have to tell you on Sunday. Our group scout has some of the last remaining birds located to some fields for Sat. but temps at or a little below zero might drive them off. Hopefully at least some geese will hang around. When I drove over the Cedar River this morning it had iced over already.

After this week it will be hunting the large brown furry antlered creatures until my "Right Wing Conspiracy" late season jaunt to SD after Christmas. :cool:

Cold can be good but too much cold is, well...too much cold.

I hope to be hunting the large brown furry antlered creatures tomorrow afternoon if all goes well. My plan is to apply a "Liberal" dose of lead to his heart in an attempt to change his mind. What I do not know at this juncture is if that means a narrow application of a mass quanity of lead in a specific direction or vast quanties of lead in several directions. My druthers are to apply it narrowly, like a SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Scalia...;-)

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.

SMITTYSSGTUSMC
12-05-2008, 12:08 PM
Cold can be good but too much cold is, well...too much cold.

I hope to be hunting the large brown furry antlered creatures tomorrow afternoon if all goes well. My plan is to apply a "Liberal" dose of lead to his heart in an attempt to change his mind. What I do not know at this juncture is if that means a narrow application of a mass quanity of lead in a specific direction or vast quanties of lead in several directions. My druthers are to apply it narrowly, like a SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Scalia...;-)

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.

take the rifle WHILE YOU STILL CAN lol ;)

Good luck to you I will be shevering in the duck blind in the A.M.

IowaBayDog
12-06-2008, 08:35 PM
Well the duck report is spectacular. We went out today, unfortunetly about an hour too late the geese moved a little sooner than expected or we would have been done with geese early. Something they didn't like with our spread and they kept dumping in the next field.

We saw more ducks than I ever have in my lifetime, maybe combined. We watched ducks pour in by the hundreds for about 2 hours in the morning in the field about 1/2 mile from us. Got a couple flocks to come our way but more than 5000 went the other way. Birds everywhere, we froze are arses off (14 degrees, 20 MPH wind) but what a sight to see.

The first flight of ducks to come in to our field spread were 30 all drake mallards that came in picture perfect and low, probably the coolest decoying image I have seen. Unfortunetly not the best shooting but I will remember that for a long time. 3 hours later and I don't think I am thawed out yet.

Joe S.
12-07-2008, 07:16 AM
Your shooting concerns are shared.

I am forced to conclude that increased target focus, or prehaps staying awake in the stand, would lead to a less-liberal application of lead. I think the deer starting snorting and whistling when I started to snore...

Restful Regards,

Joe S.