Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.

[crest]

http://www.progressive.org/wx081209b.html

The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.
By Matthew Rothschild, August 12, 2009


The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained

Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.”

According to Pentagon public affairs officer Lt. Col. Almarah K. Belk, Stockton has not responded formally to the governors but understands their concerns.

“There is a rub there,” she said. “If the Secretary calls up the reserve personnel to provide support in a state and retains command and control of those forces, the governors are concerned about if I have command and control of the Guard, how do we ensure unity of effort and everyone is communicating and not running over each other.”

Belk said Stockton is addressing this problem. “That is exactly what Dr. Stockton is working out right now with the governors and DHS and the National Guard,” she said. “He’s bringing all the stakeholders together.”

Belk said the legislative change is necessary in the aftermath of a “catastrophic natural disaster, not beyond that,” and she referred to Katrina, among other events.

But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”

But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”

Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”

So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

At the moment, says Pentagon spokesperson Belk, the legislation does not have a sponsor in the House or the Senate.

WTF?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Sounds sketchy, but at the same time, I think it has to do with Katrina and the lack of first responders

[lamfordie]

doesnt this kinds contradict the 3rd amendment???

[odp]

 the original purpose of the US national guard and US coast guard is to protect the homeland, not to be shipped overseas.

[danker]

Glad I don't live in the US.

[Dr. Evan]

new world order.


shits coming

you better quit watching all that conspiracy shit on google video

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

PRO TROOOOOPSSSSSS

[RightCoastBiased]

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

Thanks man.... in all honesty I do kinda expect a bit of a Slap backlash because of my comments.  I really do support the military, and I like that it's voluteer.  Lots of people think that everyone in the military are these right wing, hunting, nascar loving Bush fans.  And there are a lot of those, but with the economy sucking, it's brought in more people and lots of different ideas and ways of life which I enjoy.  There's a lot of things about the Army that I dislike, but they are taking care of me right now, and I live comfortably, and I happen to like deploying a little bit and I am pretty fucking good at it.  I've grown closer to the guys that I work with more than any of my friends in the civilian world, which is a little unfortunate.

I just thought pro-troops sounded funny. If you are anti-troops you are probably a dick.

[Egon Spangler]

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

fuck yes!

[max power]

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

fuck yeh bro

[Narcissus]

Supposedly 380,000 are going to be depolyed to Love Park to protect a beloved national monument from desecration by enemy combatant skateboarders.

[grimcity]

I worked in the Governor's emergency command center after Katrina, where there were police from nearly every state, Customs & Border Protection, and a ton of soldiers (many of whom had been brought back from duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and bases in different countries via Guard, Reserve, and career soldiers). Even then, there wasn't enough manpower.

As long as the Governor of that state has administrative control (unless they've turned it over to the Fed via a declared national emergency, which happens) I don't really have a problem.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, there's nothing here that says you'll have a house full of soldiers crashing in your living room.
Anyway, they performed no law enforcement here, though they did assist police in New Orleans. Mostly they delivered sand bags, MRE's, water, and did house checks looking for survivors. There were soldiers at the Superdome, but they were charged with keeping the peace over there. They pretty much were just there, living in the same squalor that everyone else was. I'm not as worried about the numbers of troops here as I am concerned about the way they're managed.

[rawbertson.]

i would go in the military if it was like command and conquer, you know, like you get an overhead view of all your buildings and troops and shit, you send em out, build up tanks, harvest ore, build tanyas, dogs, etc.

[RightCoastBiased]

i would go in the military if it was like command and conquer, you know, like you get an overhead view of all your buildings and troops and shit, you send em out, build up tanks, harvest ore, build tanyas, dogs, etc.

Its called being a general.

[rawbertson.]

yeah but imagine you were that dude! and you just had your live GPS feed and you are movin the troops with the mouse and dudes are marchin to their death, but yall dont care cause you know you got a couple medium tanks goin to the back of their base and shit

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

doesnt this kinds contradict the 3rd amendment???

No. Not at all. The third amendment says that civilians don't have to put up soldiers in their houses. I don't know why you would think that.

Expand Quote

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

[close]

fuck yes!

What are you, fucking regular? The guns Americans have access to can't even compare to modern military weaponry. The way I see it, the second amendment should include tanks and nuclear weaponry if you want to truly protect yourself from tyranny, but it doesn't, so its useless in terms of its original purpose. Your handgun wouldn't do shit against the American military if they came after you. I mean, even if you had equal guns you'd still get your mutilated by an army of 400,000 well trained soldiers, or any government group.
Look what happened in Oakland recently, dude had an AK 47 and a no-bail warrant. Cops pulled him over, and he killed two. Then he went on the run and hid in an Apartment. The cops caught up to him, and he killed 2 more.
You know what happened next?
The police shot him until there was barely anything left of his body. Wow, way to fight the man. You killed 4 people, are remembered as a pariah, and made it about an hour using your gun to make it so the government wouldn't "oppress" you.
The American "Pull it out of my cold, dead hand" mentality is the fucking dumbest macho asshole bullshit fairytale ever.  There is like this idea that because you have a gun that you are some tough army-of-one unfuckwithable freedom defender, and that tomorrow, a single man from the government, with no back up whatsoever, may come and try to announce oppression to you, and that you can just shoot him and end it, with nobody wondering what happened to him, no back up coming to take you out, and the top person trying to take over will just quit.
You want to defend democracy and liberty, use the pen, use words, use organization. A gun won't do shit but get you killed.

Also, just curious, did ANYBODY look at what is written, and not just the headline?
Do any of you know what a "first responder" is? It's NOT like they are doing law enforcement with it, its emergency response stuff. Not to mention the fact that 400,000 soldiers being put here doesn't make the military larger. Those soldiers exist, and if the government wanted to pull some military coup tyranny game, they could deploy them in America whenever they wanted in massive numbers without anouncing it to us. Personally, I'd rather post troops here in the States than in some other country in an attempt to Imperialize it.
Think about it, if you have 1.5 million troups deployed at any one moment, they gotta go somewhere. If not here its Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea,  or some other country that owes us due to our Imperialism, which is far worse in terms of keeping us safe, maintaining the U.S. as a democracy rather than an Empire, etc.

[cherry]

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

trading all of your money for raw materials and then never using currency again is the best way to defend yourself from your government.(considering your goverment operates in a market society) In my sort of educated opinion.

[rawbertson.]

Expand Quote

doesnt this kinds contradict the 3rd amendment???

[close]

No. Not at all. The third amendment says that civilians don't have to put up soldiers in their houses. I don't know why you would think that.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

[close]

fuck yes!

[close]

What are you, fucking regular? The guns Americans have access to can't even compare to modern military weaponry. The way I see it, the second amendment should include tanks and nuclear weaponry if you want to truly protect yourself from tyranny, but it doesn't, so its useless in terms of its original purpose. Your handgun wouldn't do shit against the American military if they came after you. I mean, even if you had equal guns you'd still get your mutilated by an army of 400,000 well trained soldiers, or any government group.
Look what happened in Oakland recently, dude had an AK 47 and a no-bail warrant. Cops pulled him over, and he killed two. Then he went on the run and hid in an Apartment. The cops caught up to him, and he killed 2 more.
You know what happened next?
The police shot him until there was barely anything left of his body. Wow, way to fight the man. You killed 4 people, are remembered as a pariah, and made it about an hour using your gun to make it so the government wouldn't "oppress" you.
The American "Pull it out of my cold, dead hand" mentality is the fucking dumbest macho asshole bullshit fairytale ever.  There is like this idea that because you have a gun that you are some tough army-of-one unfuckwithable freedom defender, and that tomorrow, a single man from the government, with no back up whatsoever, may come and try to announce oppression to you, and that you can just shoot him and end it, with nobody wondering what happened to him, no back up coming to take you out, and the top person trying to take over will just quit.
You want to defend democracy and liberty, use the pen, use words, use organization. A gun won't do shit but get you killed.

Also, just curious, did ANYBODY look at what is written, and not just the headline?
Do any of you know what a "first responder" is? It's NOT like they are doing law enforcement with it, its emergency response stuff. Not to mention the fact that 400,000 soldiers being put here doesn't make the military larger. Those soldiers exist, and if the government wanted to pull some military coup tyranny game, they could deploy them in America whenever they wanted in massive numbers without anouncing it to us. Personally, I'd rather post troops here in the States than in some other country in an attempt to Imperialize it.
Think about it, if you have 1.5 million troups deployed at any one moment, they gotta go somewhere. If not here its Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea,  or some other country that owes us due to our Imperialism, which is far worse in terms of keeping us safe, maintaining the U.S. as a democracy rather than an Empire, etc.

i think he was just kidding dude

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

^ Maybe, but some people do genuinely think that if they have a colt 45, that suddenly they can defeat the U.S. Army.

Expand Quote

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

[close]

trading all of your money for raw materials and then never using currency again is the best way to defend yourself from your government.(considering your goverment operates in a market society) In my sort of educated opinion.

True!

[cherry]

True!
[/quote]

yay! i did something today.

[RightCoastBiased]

Expand Quote

doesnt this kinds contradict the 3rd amendment???

[close]

No. Not at all. The third amendment says that civilians don't have to put up soldiers in their houses. I don't know why you would think that.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

This is why I support a persons right to own guns. Because a gun is the best way to defend yourself from your government.

[close]

fuck yes!

[close]

What are you, fucking regular? The guns Americans have access to can't even compare to modern military weaponry. The way I see it, the second amendment should include tanks and nuclear weaponry if you want to truly protect yourself from tyranny, but it doesn't, so its useless in terms of its original purpose. Your handgun wouldn't do shit against the American military if they came after you. I mean, even if you had equal guns you'd still get your mutilated by an army of 400,000 well trained soldiers, or any government group.
Look what happened in Oakland recently, dude had an AK 47 and a no-bail warrant. Cops pulled him over, and he killed two. Then he went on the run and hid in an Apartment. The cops caught up to him, and he killed 2 more.
You know what happened next?
The police shot him until there was barely anything left of his body. Wow, way to fight the man. You killed 4 people, are remembered as a pariah, and made it about an hour using your gun to make it so the government wouldn't "oppress" you.
The American "Pull it out of my cold, dead hand" mentality is the fucking dumbest macho asshole bullshit fairytale ever.  There is like this idea that because you have a gun that you are some tough army-of-one unfuckwithable freedom defender, and that tomorrow, a single man from the government, with no back up whatsoever, may come and try to announce oppression to you, and that you can just shoot him and end it, with nobody wondering what happened to him, no back up coming to take you out, and the top person trying to take over will just quit.
You want to defend democracy and liberty, use the pen, use words, use organization. A gun won't do shit but get you killed.

Also, just curious, did ANYBODY look at what is written, and not just the headline?
Do any of you know what a "first responder" is? It's NOT like they are doing law enforcement with it, its emergency response stuff. Not to mention the fact that 400,000 soldiers being put here doesn't make the military larger. Those soldiers exist, and if the government wanted to pull some military coup tyranny game, they could deploy them in America whenever they wanted in massive numbers without anouncing it to us. Personally, I'd rather post troops here in the States than in some other country in an attempt to Imperialize it.
Think about it, if you have 1.5 million troups deployed at any one moment, they gotta go somewhere. If not here its Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea,  or some other country that owes us due to our Imperialism, which is far worse in terms of keeping us safe, maintaining the U.S. as a democracy rather than an Empire, etc.

Yes, I did read the article and not just the headline. I understand that it is being implied that the military will only be used for things such as natural disasters or emergencies. The problem for me is how that force and power can be misused.

As far as people owning guns, the guy in oakland was a criminal. Not a person who chooses to own guns legally. And having equal fire power to the US military clearly isn't necessary in beating them, see iraq.

[cherry]

Yes, I did read the article and not just the headline. I understand that it is being implied that the military will only be used for things such as natural disasters or emergencies. The problem for me is how that force and power can be misused.

As far as people owning guns, the guy in oakland was a criminal. Not a person who chooses to own guns legally. And having equal fire power to the US military clearly isn't necessary in beating them, see iraq.
[/quote]

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[RightCoastBiased]

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

[cherry]

Expand Quote

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[close]

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

1. Im going to go ahead and guess english is not your most fluent language just so i can get past your spelling and grammer.
2. Its not a basketball game, its war. so to even declare a winner at all is just stupid, georgie tried that shit awhile ago and it didn't work for him and its not working for you now.
3. I can go to sleep at night without thinking " I hope a bomb doesn't explode on my house" while someone my age in iraq can't. so if my country is "loosing" the war i am really glad i'm not winning.

[odp]

We only need the right to bear arms as a protection in the case of a civil war type of situation in which local militias would be formed out of necessity.  

Expand Quote

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[close]

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

the only reason we're not out of there and "winning" is because we're an occupying force with limited support and political/bureaucratic limitations at home and abroad. In no way am i saying that i'd support it, however, we could go in and destroy them all with some serious weaponry, regardless of the social outcome. This of course, would lead to WWIII and we'd all be grains of nuke dust

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

The right to bare arms is based on the idea of a militia. It was also created to help make the states a little more independent from the federal government. It's ideals worked a lot better in a smaller nation, with a smaller, less dense population. Also, technology made it possible so if the federal government did become tyrannical, the people could arm themselves to be fully ready to rebel against them.
I do not support repealing the second amendment, but I think the possibility of a real situation like that playing out with today's military would be a bloodbath, and that in reality, the second amendment does not truly protect anybody from tyranny at all.

[RightCoastBiased]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[close]

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

[close]

1. Im going to go ahead and guess english is not your most fluent language just so i can get past your spelling and grammer.
2. Its not a basketball game, its war. so to even declare a winner at all is just stupid, georgie tried that shit awhile ago and it didn't work for him and its not working for you now.
3. I can go to sleep at night without thinking " I hope a bomb doesn't explode on my house" while someone my age in iraq can't. so if my country is "loosing" the war i am really glad i'm not winning.

1.No, english is my first language, but being human I am prone to making some mistakes.
2.I agree, that labeling a winner in a war is ridiculous. My thoughts are that only governments "win" wars. While the people of country are always the losers. Also, the fact that wars and resistance to occupying forces isn't necessarily about a clean cut win. \
3.I think I addressed that point in point 2.

[cherry]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[close]

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

[close]

1. Im going to go ahead and guess english is not your most fluent language just so i can get past your spelling and grammer.
2. Its not a basketball game, its war. so to even declare a winner at all is just stupid, georgie tried that shit awhile ago and it didn't work for him and its not working for you now.
3. I can go to sleep at night without thinking " I hope a bomb doesn't explode on my house" while someone my age in iraq can't. so if my country is "loosing" the war i am really glad i'm not winning.

[close]

1.No, english is my first language, but being human I am prone to making some mistakes.
2.I agree, that labeling a winner in a war is ridiculous. My thoughts are that only governments "win" wars. While the people of country are always the losers. Also, the fact that wars and resistance to occupying forces isn't necessarily about a clean cut win. \
3.I think I addressed that point in point 2.

so why didn't you just say that in the first place?

[RightCoastBiased]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I have seen iraq and it doesn't look like anyone is winning.

[close]

Well I think by the US not winning is the opposition winning.

[close]

1. Im going to go ahead and guess english is not your most fluent language just so i can get past your spelling and grammer.
2. Its not a basketball game, its war. so to even declare a winner at all is just stupid, georgie tried that shit awhile ago and it didn't work for him and its not working for you now.
3. I can go to sleep at night without thinking " I hope a bomb doesn't explode on my house" while someone my age in iraq can't. so if my country is "loosing" the war i am really glad i'm not winning.

[close]

1.No, english is my first language, but being human I am prone to making some mistakes.
2.I agree, that labeling a winner in a war is ridiculous. My thoughts are that only governments "win" wars. While the people of country are always the losers. Also, the fact that wars and resistance to occupying forces isn't necessarily about a clean cut win. \
3.I think I addressed that point in point 2.

[close]

so why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I was watching a movie and wasn't concentrating on the post or trying to explain myself thoroughly.