The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011

Is this about to become a common image on the streets of America?

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. Read more

No votes yet

This will be illegal according to the Posse Comitatus Act. But who cares? Nobody in government has paid any attention to the law in years anyway.

There are a number of situations in which the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply. These include:

  • National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
  • Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
  • Under 18 U.S.C. ยง 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.

    So according to these exclusions, the President could deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion even if it is only a perceived and not an actual threat.

    - Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

  • If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    Technically, the National Guard's use while under the control of the governor is not excluded by the Posse Comitatus Act. The Act applies only to federal troops. While under the control of the governor, the Guard are state troops and neither the National Guard nor the State Guard are subject to the provisions of the Act. When the National Guard is federalized, it ceases to be the National Guard (although it is nominally still referred to in that way) and becomes part of the regular federal military and subject to the Act.

    And the Act only refers to the deployment of federal troops to perform law enforcement. Any other sort of aid to civil authority in the expectation or aftermath of a natural or man-made disaster is perfectly acceptable, although the state forces (the National Guard and State Guard) are expected to be the last line of response before federal troops.

    However, if the incident is, or is anticipated to be, a terrorist attack, the rules may well change. Official U.S. policy is that terrorism is an act of war. If there is, or if there is expected, an act of war within the borders of the U.S., the federal military can be deployed and all bets are off. Anything goes. This has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court... yet.

    What is a "State Guard" you ask? They are forces like the National Guard which are state troops but unlike the national guard, they cannot (under present law) be drawn into federal service. Their mission? To protect the state from the federal government! The Founding Fathers universally feared big central government. Brother, they must be spinning in their graves today! Yes, Ohio has one. Search 'Ohio Military Reserve'.

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

    I believe they would in this case be acting under the DHS which would get them around the Act.

    However I'm still against using our military. DHS already owns the USCG in this capacity and the govenors have the Nat Guard. Throw in the other DHS agencies which have already been beefed up in the last 8 years and I see no reason why the personnel isn't already there.

    We are currently in an expansion of our military because have widened the scope of their missions. As a result we have rendered many aspects of our military "not mission capable". The expansion is to counter that. By adding more missions all we do is increase the need for more military members. So again to that I'd ask "why can't our civilian counterparts do it?"

    It's when we begin using something for a use of which it was not intended that we get unpredictable results. I'm not saying don't do it I'm saying thread very very lightly.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    tell Carty, he'll run 'em out.

    Hell, I forgot us Americans had freedoms and rights.

    what the fuck was I thinking?

    Why this scares me is it is essentially the government saying our civilian entities are inadequate.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    What even scarier is that there is NO emergency requiring such actions, yet such a nonexistent emergency is just being assumed, and there is no discussion about that fallacy in the national media.

    Since when did constitutional law deter the federal government? Or State or local governments? Face it. These elected officials know what is best for all of us, so we'd just better be thankful that the watch dogs in Washington aren't asleep under the porch.

    From the article: 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.

    Those would be the highly mobile WMDs that were moved out of Iraq just prior to the US invasion.

    This is not the beginning of the police state that those right wing nut conspiracy theorists have been howling about for years. This is the police state in action. During the next four years the citizens of the US will be required to produce ID and permission to travel in certain parts of the country, and then, finally, throughout the entire country. Ironically The One will champion the cause, citing homeland security and unfortunate necessity. Plus, it's for the children.

    Mad Jack
    Mad Jack's Shack

    I'll throw out another option - this represents an opportunity to continue with high levels of military funding, continuing to pour money into our military-industrial complex. America knows how to do this, this is relatively comfortable for us. The military is a large source of employment for many young adults in our country, and the supporting industries that feed into the system. As we swing our pendulum back from two war fronts, faced with an economic crisis, still being told about imminent attacks, this is a scary enough excuse to allow higher-than-needed military spending, feeding into a public fear in a way that will be acceptable to many as it's "for our own protection". If we were truly concerned about this, we'd be looking (as others above have posted) to invest our resources in new and different ways to better meet the demands of terrorism on America's soil.

    Interesting but I believe we are relying on our military too much in this case. The same reason why I was against our military guarding our nuclear facilities. Why should we take military assets away from our foreign policy makers hands and apply them to domestic enforcement when we already have domestic entities in place.

    Our military has proven itself to be extremely effective. But that doesn't mean we should use them to fill the gaps in our domestic enforcement. We should expect more of our domestic entities so that they can meet their own demands.

    I have no problem with temporarily giving DHS or State the right to use military assets in times of disaster but to involve them in planning when they could very easily be out tending the needs of the DoD is reckless.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    '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'

    How about a year or two from now, when rampant unemployment leads to civil disturbances and other acts of public disobediance we haven't seen since...well, since when?

    Can anyone tell I'm not especially 'sunny-side up' this fine morning?

    will be against this. As he said before, there will be citizens with a scared look on their face when they see the domestic force. We can't have that.

    as to why the image at the beginning of this post was removed.

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    *

    I thought that as long as the image was a direct feed linked from the host site and not a copied image then it wasn't considered copyright infringement. Speaking of copyright...I wonder if the new TAKEBACKTOLEDO .com has permission from Toledophotographer for the use of Toledo_Skyline for their header image. I see no credits. I know this is a copyrighted image as I used it on my own blog but have since removed it awaiting permission. At least I gave credit for its use.

    - Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    97% of the time it is a no-no and in the Web world there is a specific term for it called leeching. There are newsworthy photos which could be legally copied, but most media photos, especially without attribution, are particularly bad to use.. News organizations are particularly protective of their intellectual property and it is quite easy to see who is leeching your photo.

    Yes, if takebacktoledo.com copied the image without license, that would be a copyright violation.

    for the clarification.

    - Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.