Deployed in the US--our creeping militarization

[PubliusInfinitum]

This is an old article. More recent events should be more alarming to us. They deployed Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina hit to "protect" private industry from looters.

"Deployed"? ROFLMNAO... Blackwater is a private company which 'deploys' its security assetts wherever they're hired to do so. 'Protection' is what security does...

This means that Blackwater was deployed on American soil against civilian targets.

Are you really an idiot? Blackwater employees are civilians... Blackwater is operated by civilians... It's not a government operation, thus they can go wherever they want.

Blackwater has profited highly from the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.

So what?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Proof? It's fact

The rest of the world may of not had liked Stalin or Communism but that doesn't mean they were all for it killing millions of innocents.

Just because Stalin was no hero to Western Europe doesn't mean plenty of people would of been pissed about what America did.

Plenty of people still hate us today for what did to Japan in WWII, can you imagine if we did the same to Russia too?

I never said other countries would not have dared nuke us after WWII. We had enough nukes to blow the world up twice, doesn't mean we can force everyone to trade with us.

If nobody decides to trade with America, we're doomed. Now more then ever today. Unless America wants to create a bunch of Martyrs by bombing country after country for not submitting to our policy?

ROFLMNAO... The ideological left is responsible for the murders of 150 million innocent people. It is the most lethal ideology in human history.

Now this is outside of the wars fought in the 20th century... The Japanese declared war on the US and fought a brutal war murdering millions all over the western pacific. That someone hates us for our defense of our sovereign life, is their problem... they deserved everything they got.

 

[BrianH]

ROFLMNAO... The ideological left is responsible for the murders of 150 million innocent people. It is the most lethal ideology in human history.

Now this is outside of the wars fought in the 20th century... The Japanese declared war on the US and fought a brutal war murdering millions all over the western pacific. That someone hates us for our defense of our sovereign life, is their problem... they deserved everything they got.

Don't forget...Modbert's hypothetical scenario is "proof" and "fact" LOL.

 

[strollingbones]

Deploying troops on the home front is very different from waging war abroad. Soldiers are trained to kill, whereas civilian peace officers are trained to respect constitutional rights and to use force only as a last resort. That fundamental distinction explains why Americans have long resisted the use of standing armies to keep the domestic peace.

this is from the article....i am sorry if you think the america soldiers are trained to "kill"
do you really think they do not have the ability to make the distinctions between war and their own country? with this opinion, what should be done with men/women coming home....are they needing "re edcuation camps" or what?

I find the whole attitude towards the military totally insulting. They are trained to do much more than kill. I hated to see that HBO show titled, "generation kill"...because people like you seem to believe that crap.

 

[Richard-H]

Black Water sure seems to have a monopoly on government security contracts. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were a larger number of disassociated security firms with these kind of contracts.

They seem to be a modern day Praetorian guard - and that's not good.

 

[coolgeee]

Here they come!

For more than 100 years — since the end of the Civil War — deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina).

continued here:
Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the ?Homeland??

 

[Mr. President]

Here they come!

For more than 100 years — since the end of the Civil War — deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina).

continued here:
Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the ?Homeland??

I DONT SEE THE PROBLEM quit crying

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Here they come!

For more than 100 years — since the end of the Civil War — deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina).

continued here:
Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the ?Homeland??

No.

It's illegal to use ARMED federal troops for general LAW ENFORCEMENT that is what possee comitatus refers to.

Federal troops were deployed to south Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 but they carried no ammo.

Federal forces were used in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11...armed...because it was not a civil law enforcement role.

 

[AshamedAmerican]

I DONT SEE THE PROBLEM quit crying

"The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" — and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

"The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn’t take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President’s police force, is so disturbing."

"the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President’s powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations."

"The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future
"
When a president declares he's not bound by law ... (21-MAY-06) Sarasota Herald Tribune
"we are in the midst of ... a potentially profound reinterpretation of ... the separation of powers doctrine familiar to many of us."

"if President George W. Bush has uninhibited powers, a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would most likely seek to exercise those very same powers."

"when Bush has signed bills, he has used "presidential signing statements" to declare "that he is not bound by, and will not enforce, certain sections of the law with which he disagrees."

"The extraconstitutional powers we tolerate now will be available for all future presidents, scrupulous or unscrupulous. And our entire constitutional system repudiates the notion that electing good men is a sufficient check on abuse of power."



And you don't see the problem?
Wow where to start...
First of all it's a violation of the constitution and against the law.
The last time I checked there's nothing in The United States Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, United States Bill of Rights, The Insurrection Act, The Posse Comitatus Act, or any other legal document saying that the president can "secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate" any act or law, or to "not recognize those new limitations" to an act passed to limit him."

The problem? Is that our president is circumventing the law.
He is not our king, dictator, monarch, liege, lord, despot, or emperor.
He is bound my the law just as we all are.

We impeached Clinton for getting a little head...
And we just allow this sociopathic cowboy to run amuck breaking any old law he doesn't agree with, and wiping his ass with our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and our entire way of life.

So back to your question, what's the problem?
The biggest problem we have, and one that pales all of those in comparison, is that ignorant, arrogant people like you actually ask...
"whats the problem?"

P.S. I would just like you to know that if this were the animal kingdom, there is a very good chance your mother would have eaten you shortly after birth.

 

[Mr. President]

"The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" — and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

"The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn’t take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President’s police force, is so disturbing."

"the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President’s powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations."

"The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future
"
When a president declares he's not bound by law ... (21-MAY-06) Sarasota Herald Tribune
"we are in the midst of ... a potentially profound reinterpretation of ... the separation of powers doctrine familiar to many of us."

"if President George W. Bush has uninhibited powers, a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would most likely seek to exercise those very same powers."

"when Bush has signed bills, he has used "presidential signing statements" to declare "that he is not bound by, and will not enforce, certain sections of the law with which he disagrees."

"The extraconstitutional powers we tolerate now will be available for all future presidents, scrupulous or unscrupulous. And our entire constitutional system repudiates the notion that electing good men is a sufficient check on abuse of power."



And you don't see the problem?
Wow where to start...
First of all it's a violation of the constitution and against the law.
The last time I checked there's nothing in The United States Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, United States Bill of Rights, The Insurrection Act, The Posse Comitatus Act, or any other legal document saying that the president can "secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate" any act or law, or to "not recognize those new limitations" to an act passed to limit him."

The problem? Is that our president is circumventing the law.
He is not our king, dictator, monarch, liege, lord, despot, or emperor.
He is bound my the law just as we all are.

We impeached Clinton for getting a little head...
And we just allow this sociopathic cowboy to run amuck breaking any old law he doesn't agree with, and wiping his ass with our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and our entire way of life.

So back to your question, what's the problem?
The biggest problem we have, and one that pales all of those in comparison, is that ignorant, arrogant people like you actually ask...
"whats the problem?"

P.S. I would just like you to know that if this were the animal kingdom, there is a very good chance your mother would have eaten you shortly after birth.

First I Would like to say that the neg rep was a beautiful addition and secured my belief that you are nothing more than an ignorant person with far too much time on their hands.

Second the things that the Army is being deployed for are not general circumstances and thus the President has every right to meet these issues with an overwhelming force and it is indeed his duty to do so.

Third when police are called to a riot scene they may have a hard time controlling the crowd. As a soldier I can tell you that the presence of the US Army tends to neutralize any preconcieved notions that any violence from the protesters would be acceptable.

 

[AshamedAmerican]

First I Would like to say that the neg rep was a beautiful addition and secured my belief that you are nothing more than an ignorant person with far too much time on their hands.

Second the things that the Army is being deployed for are not general circumstances and thus the President has every right to meet these issues with an overwhelming force and it is indeed his duty to do so.

Third when police are called to a riot scene they may have a hard time controlling the crowd. As a soldier I can tell you that the presence of the US Army tends to neutralize any preconcieved notions that any violence from the protesters would be acceptable.

Your welcome for the negative rep, that was my "stupidest thing I'v ever heard" award for you. for your "whats the problem" post when it's blatantly obvious to the entire planet besides you what the problem is.

"the President has every right"
No... and that is the whole point of the article that I posted, and you obviously didn't even bother to glance at, before you started shooting your mouth off like you knew what you were talking about.
The president is thumbing his nose at our laws, or as I put it earlier, and I like this one more... "wiping his ass with our Constitution"

"the presence of the US Army tends to neutralize any preconcieved notions that any violence from the protesters would be acceptable."
I have respect for our soldiers so don't take this as a personal attack against you, it's not.
You are not the one breaking the law, your commander in chief is.
When the time comes that you are finally asked to violate the constitution, In the name of your government, I will expect you to be standing next to me trying to take the government back.

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Our military took an oath to defend US and OUR Constitution, not our government, president, beuracrats, elitists.
That oath means you swore to protect us FROM our government, president, beuracrats, elitists if the time ever comes.

 

[Mr. President]

I read the article twice just to be certain i grasped the position you were taking. The complaint is that troops are being deployed in state with valid reasoning behind the deployment. I do not see the issue. If it were unconstitutional and we were being sent to fight against the constitution then yes it would be our obligation to defy that order. But these orders are not only legit but they are logical and most importantly constitutional.

 

[Navy1960]

HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 Text of Hr5122 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation. As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1807 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068,) however in signing H.R. 4986 into law President Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.


Let me see if I understand the nature of this article, it's conclusion is that because an Army Brigade is now involved in the Border, what it doesn't tell you is that all of those troops stationed on the border are National Guard troopers. No, matter, the article seems to blame one Defense Bill for allowing this to happen when in fact every Defense ReAuthorization Act going back to 1989 allows for the use of US Military personel in the war on drugs. The other thing the article seems to indicate is that the local police are now have a military bent to them , because of their tactics used in keeping the protestors from destroying property in Denver and St.Paul. The same crowd control techniques have been used and refined for years by civilian authorities and if these people have a problem with that then I suggest they go to the next city counsel meeting in those citys and voice their displeasure because I am sure the DoD will direct them to the same location. The assertions made in this article are not only false they are completely misleading to the real situation and it is very obvious that the writers intention was to incite an emotional response with false and misleading information.

In a speech on immigration policy Monday evening, President Bush is expected to announce an expansion in the use of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to help reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. But at the Defense Department, officials say that does not mean border control is being transferred to the military.

Pentagon Prepares to Help Control US-Mexico Border


The National Guard is a reserve force organized in each state. It has responsibilities to the state governors, and officials say they are working on the legal structure needed for interior states to lend Guard members to border states for this project. The Guard also falls under the national military command structure. Members can be called to active military duty as needed, and they have played crucial roles in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Officials say this expanded border assignment for the National Guard will not affect the rotation of units to those conflicts.

 

[Lt COL USAF Ret]

"that the local police are now have a military bent to them , because of their tactics used in keeping the protestors from destroying property in Denver and St.Paul".

I have to admit after 28 years of service in the military-I feel as if I'm some kind of criminal roaming the streets of America. Where did are freedoms go? It's unrealistic, I remember so long ago when I joined the military, I actually felt like a free American-now after 28 years of service I feel like some kind of fugitive-What are we to do?

 

[BrianH]

For those of you who bitch about the North being able to preserve the Union when the South seceded. Military deployment in the U.S. should be no big problem. They have the duty to preserve a "more perfect union" right??

I don't have any problem with a little more firepower to stop drug & human trafficking, terrorist cells, etc....

 

[AshamedAmerican]

"that the local police are now have a military bent to them , because of their tactics used in keeping the protestors from destroying property in Denver and St.Paul".

I have to admit after 28 years of service in the military-I feel as if I'm some kind of criminal roaming the streets of America. Where did are freedoms go? It's unrealistic, I remember so long ago when I joined the military, I actually felt like a free American-now after 28 years of service I feel like some kind of fugitive-What are we to do?

What do your superior officers think of it?
The only thing I can suggest is to find out what the people above you in the chain of command believe.
Our soldiers took an oath to defend US not our government, and to defend us FROM our government if needed.
I hope the majority of our armed forces think the way you do.
This government and this president ARE violating our constitution.
Rewriting the laws to make it "legal" for them to violate our constitution, is just as illegal as violating the constitution to begin with.
These powers they are claiming to have, will be passed to the next president as well, so thinking that waiting until bush is gone will fix it is a flawed way to look at it.

 

[editec]

You are not the one breaking the law, your commander in chief is.
When the time comes that you are finally asked to violate the constitution, In the name of your government, I will expect you to be standing next to me trying to take the government back.

You will be sorely disappointed if you expect that. American soldiers are no different than soldiers thoughout the world. They WILL obey orders.

And believe me, by the time the troopps are called out, they wWILL have been so propagandized that not 1 in 30 of them will be able to stand up and say NO, I will NOT open fire on citizens of this nation.

Hell, half the people on this board HATE AMERICANS, isn't that obvious?

Every fucking problem that this government brings us on behalf of their corporate masters?

These fucking morons blame who? The people.

Never the people in charge mind you, not the banks but the bank customers cause the economic melt down.


You think the corporate masters canot find ten million people who will gladly shott down protestors int he streets?

Think fucking AGAIN.

Half the people on this board would be only to happy to shoot American citizens down if they worse LIBERAL armbands.

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Our military took an oath to defend US and OUR Constitution, not our government, president, beuracrats, elitists.
That oath means you swore to protect us FROM our government, president, beuracrats, elitists if the time ever comes.

Totally meaningless.

The tropps will be told that the people in the streets are dangerous anarchists. liberals communists whatever...and those soliders will be given a choice...obey or die.

MOST people obey.

The NAZIs had absolutely no problem finding guards willing to commit genocide and the American fascists would find the same kinds of people more than willing to kill for a decent salary, health care and that sense of power than taking orders from the powerful gives them.

There is noting unique about the Americvan character to prevent the same kind of nighmare civil war that we see happening all over the globe.

We ARE moving in that direction right now, and we have been my whole life.