Joined
·
3,296 Posts
Not a good developmemt
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
919 Posts
The only probelm I see with this is my army is getting a little small for its job.
Joined
·
986 Posts
I will have to agree with MickeyC. Back during the initial response to 9/11, Nat'l Guard troops were mobilized and the funds to pay them had to be funneled either through thier home state or the Dept Treasury not through the DoD. There are strict guidlines about the use of "Military Forces" in domestic affairs. No true police powers.
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
Well, Posse Comitatus can be bent a little. I was Air Force Security Forces while I was in (glorified MP for all intents and purposes). We had to get briefed on stuff like this all the time because of the role we would have played.
In respect to this, if the President declares a national emergency/security event, and I can't recall the exact verbiage, he can actually place the entire US basically under FEMA control. I think the country gets split into 8 'sectors' with a FEMA 'governor' for each. Under such circumstances qualified, not absolute, martial law is imposed; absolute as needed by area or emergency. It's been years since I had to even listen to that crap so I might be remembering things differently. I'm saying right now I'm not an expert!
Public Law has provisions for the use of federal troops in times of emergency. You don't have to look farther than hurricane Katrina to see it. US troops, on US soil, enforcing standards on US citizens, in specific situations. The news article is talking of the same deal, an emergnecy of very catastrophic proportions. Nuclear material or weapons. According to Dan Aykroyd, those things "will suck the paint off of your house and give your family a permanent orange afro."
Bet you never heard of plans to use military blood bank stocks as a way to introduce all of the unique, and expensive, vaccinations we had to get to the general populace. I read about it briefly in the clinic waiting area once, don't remember the jist. But there are some bizarre things Uncle Sugah' does.
In respect to this, if the President declares a national emergency/security event, and I can't recall the exact verbiage, he can actually place the entire US basically under FEMA control. I think the country gets split into 8 'sectors' with a FEMA 'governor' for each. Under such circumstances qualified, not absolute, martial law is imposed; absolute as needed by area or emergency. It's been years since I had to even listen to that crap so I might be remembering things differently. I'm saying right now I'm not an expert!
Public Law has provisions for the use of federal troops in times of emergency. You don't have to look farther than hurricane Katrina to see it. US troops, on US soil, enforcing standards on US citizens, in specific situations. The news article is talking of the same deal, an emergnecy of very catastrophic proportions. Nuclear material or weapons. According to Dan Aykroyd, those things "will suck the paint off of your house and give your family a permanent orange afro."
Bet you never heard of plans to use military blood bank stocks as a way to introduce all of the unique, and expensive, vaccinations we had to get to the general populace. I read about it briefly in the clinic waiting area once, don't remember the jist. But there are some bizarre things Uncle Sugah' does.
G
Guest
·posse comitatus was repealed or at least subverted by bush.
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
Not as a rule, but it did happen.
G
Guest
·why would they want to be limited by having police powers granted to them???
They can just call you an enemy combatant or a terrorist and do anything they want.
Having police powers would be an improvement!!
Joined
·
50 Posts
The problem with this is that the Nat'l Guard is supposed to do this stuff, not active duty troops. But now Gates wants to combine guard, reserve with active using some "total force" strategy.
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
Total Force is another older concept. The idea started to ensure reserve component forces were trained and equipped so they could mesh with the active units with little additional training or resources. It works in reverse in that the active units have to know to receive and integrate them.
The oath you take is to "support and defend the Constitution". I understand the wariness of using a nation's military inside its borders, but lets look at that fiasco during Katrina. Civilian leadership blaming other folks, better yet, breaking down and crying (LA govenor) instead of acting. In a lot of situations, I'd rather some GI took over and just got the job done. (I'm talking about saving lives and property here guys, no flaming!)
The oath you take is to "support and defend the Constitution". I understand the wariness of using a nation's military inside its borders, but lets look at that fiasco during Katrina. Civilian leadership blaming other folks, better yet, breaking down and crying (LA govenor) instead of acting. In a lot of situations, I'd rather some GI took over and just got the job done. (I'm talking about saving lives and property here guys, no flaming!)
Joined
·
919 Posts
K I don't know how many of you guys visited NYC on or around 9-11, but troops where stationed just about everywhere for oh, what, 4-5 years afterwards? Did they have police powers? No. Did they go around shooting and beating anyone that looked at them funny or pissed them off. No. What did they do? The stood around at subways, airports, ground zero, power plants, and did pretty much nothing. Had to report to the NYC police if anything happened. Couldn't respond to anything unless they where in direct physical harm. Psssst, alot of them didn't even have ammo in those magazines.
So let a BCT sit around the US with nothing to do. If something blows up some where let them go help out. I seriously doubt there will be any combat duty for them, much more likely they well just end up being 5000 bodies and some heavy equipment to help out if something bad happens.
Who knows when 5000 people that can be anywhere in the US in 24hours that know first aid might come in handy. Or that are trained to work in a hazardous environment. Or can at the very least fill sand barricades with the best of em. I doubt you'll see Bradley’s and Strykers strolling down your streets spewing pissed off soldiers rifling through your homes anytime soon.
Heck we didn't even do that to the Iraqi's..... Who do you think we are, Russians?
So let a BCT sit around the US with nothing to do. If something blows up some where let them go help out. I seriously doubt there will be any combat duty for them, much more likely they well just end up being 5000 bodies and some heavy equipment to help out if something bad happens.
Who knows when 5000 people that can be anywhere in the US in 24hours that know first aid might come in handy. Or that are trained to work in a hazardous environment. Or can at the very least fill sand barricades with the best of em. I doubt you'll see Bradley’s and Strykers strolling down your streets spewing pissed off soldiers rifling through your homes anytime soon.
Heck we didn't even do that to the Iraqi's..... Who do you think we are, Russians?
G
Guest
·nope they did just fine with a police state and a nanny state.
http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/reports/2003exereports/03-09-22ncommand.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/jfcom.htm
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37657
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=864&Itemid=1
NORTHCOM doesn't seem so bad an idea for being prepared to assist. I agree, the military can do a lot of good, in a professional and organized manor, in a regionally located disaster. A lot of the "what ifs" disaster and new command structures were outlined and planned during the Reagan Administration. However, 911 resurrected that initial strategy to a new level. After all, how bad can 20,000 troops be? In addition to their main function of "assisting", they have containers prepared for non-lethal, and lethal use (just in case). These new 20,000 troops are seasoned folk, more specialized in counter terrorism than current personnel. At first, this does not seem to be such a big deal, but when is the last time something like this was done in the U.S.? It starts to get interesting knowing how Homeland Security works, FEMA, and that ultimately the Allied Command Transformation (some interesting folks over there in Virginia) can become involved, and they will be controlled ultimately by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, who, if called upon must report to NATO, who will be influenced by the U.N. So, if the SHTF, and it reaches the level of ACT or USJFC within our own borders or globally, just exactly what is going to be going on, and just how big can this thing get? Why has the U.S. government spent millions and millions of dollars, much of it buried in pork projects under various bills, for various states, during the past 6-8 years to beef up and modernize old military camps and detention centers that are not being used, but are being staffed currently by skeleton crews? This is a lot of planning and preparation for a "just in case". We must believe that a large natural catastrophe or larger scale terror assault (nuclear, bio, etc.) must be higher in odds than we would like to think. That, or maybe the disaster is going to be a major economic collapse. While it can not be known for certain exactly what did get discussed during the closed session of the 20th Congress in March (a pretty rare event), it no doubt was serious. Had it been only a political ruse to push the FISA issue through, the minutes would have been released due to so many people being upset by the misuse of the closed sesssion. The bipartisan decision was not to release the minutes. It only lasted 1-2 hours, so it wasn't about the end of the world, but it was serious enough that a lot of politicians were pretty unhappy about it, and angry over not being able to share it.
If, somehow, for some reason, Martial Law is ever declared, or if NATO becomes involved (for whatever reason), the rules of game change quite a bit. I am glad we have the dedicated and professional service folk that we do, and we should be very grateful for them, and proud of them. However, if things ever get to this level, I would really hate to be in their shoes, and a lot of stuff is going to be going through their heads. It would be a major acid test. We have dropped the ball so many times already on truly following the Constitution, that I hope all Americans stay true to what has served us well, and for which so many have served and sacrificed for.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/jfcom.htm
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37657
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=864&Itemid=1
NORTHCOM doesn't seem so bad an idea for being prepared to assist. I agree, the military can do a lot of good, in a professional and organized manor, in a regionally located disaster. A lot of the "what ifs" disaster and new command structures were outlined and planned during the Reagan Administration. However, 911 resurrected that initial strategy to a new level. After all, how bad can 20,000 troops be? In addition to their main function of "assisting", they have containers prepared for non-lethal, and lethal use (just in case). These new 20,000 troops are seasoned folk, more specialized in counter terrorism than current personnel. At first, this does not seem to be such a big deal, but when is the last time something like this was done in the U.S.? It starts to get interesting knowing how Homeland Security works, FEMA, and that ultimately the Allied Command Transformation (some interesting folks over there in Virginia) can become involved, and they will be controlled ultimately by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, who, if called upon must report to NATO, who will be influenced by the U.N. So, if the SHTF, and it reaches the level of ACT or USJFC within our own borders or globally, just exactly what is going to be going on, and just how big can this thing get? Why has the U.S. government spent millions and millions of dollars, much of it buried in pork projects under various bills, for various states, during the past 6-8 years to beef up and modernize old military camps and detention centers that are not being used, but are being staffed currently by skeleton crews? This is a lot of planning and preparation for a "just in case". We must believe that a large natural catastrophe or larger scale terror assault (nuclear, bio, etc.) must be higher in odds than we would like to think. That, or maybe the disaster is going to be a major economic collapse. While it can not be known for certain exactly what did get discussed during the closed session of the 20th Congress in March (a pretty rare event), it no doubt was serious. Had it been only a political ruse to push the FISA issue through, the minutes would have been released due to so many people being upset by the misuse of the closed sesssion. The bipartisan decision was not to release the minutes. It only lasted 1-2 hours, so it wasn't about the end of the world, but it was serious enough that a lot of politicians were pretty unhappy about it, and angry over not being able to share it.
If, somehow, for some reason, Martial Law is ever declared, or if NATO becomes involved (for whatever reason), the rules of game change quite a bit. I am glad we have the dedicated and professional service folk that we do, and we should be very grateful for them, and proud of them. However, if things ever get to this level, I would really hate to be in their shoes, and a lot of stuff is going to be going through their heads. It would be a major acid test. We have dropped the ball so many times already on truly following the Constitution, that I hope all Americans stay true to what has served us well, and for which so many have served and sacrificed for.
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
We've had guard troops deployed here in Florida after several hurricanes. Had them in my neighborhood directing traffic in 2004 for a week or so. Back during Andrew, when South Florida was a long-term mess, a lot of folks were carrying openly, and troops were stationed for support with weapons but no live ammo. They actually ended up pulling the guard back after one of the boys was accused of attacking a couple of girls.
But contrast that with what happened in New Orleans: The troops were used to illegally confiscate citizens' arms, and in a couple of cases assaulted citizens. That whole mess was never resolved satisfactorily.
The founders didn't like the idea of troops being used on US soil against US citizens, and I don't either.
tk
But contrast that with what happened in New Orleans: The troops were used to illegally confiscate citizens' arms, and in a couple of cases assaulted citizens. That whole mess was never resolved satisfactorily.
The founders didn't like the idea of troops being used on US soil against US citizens, and I don't either.
tk
As a historic reference, NATO has already been deployed in the USA. After 9/11 Bush invoked the NATO treaty and requested help for homeland protection. The members of NATO responded both in Afgahanistan and on American soil. Bush got a little flak from his own party and it was not reported very much by the media. NATO AWACS and Euro fighters flew surveliance and protection flights around and near ALL Nuclear facilites ----power plants and reasearch facilities in the USA for nearly a year after the attacks. Yes, German marked Luftwaffe AWACS and Euro fighters flew over America. The Luftwaffe symbols caused some consternation by the old guard. NATO troops from France, Belgium , UK , Germany , Holland, Spain, Italy, etc... flew their planes and armed Euro fighters in protection of our Nuclear facilities.
Now seriously, how many of you knew about their help and mission on US soil? Second question, why wasn't this historic moment noted by all Americans , media, and press.?
In this instance, I for one American thank the Euros for their help and their devotion to the NATO treaty that has served us well for many years. With that said, I would fear particapation of foreign troops used to quell an internal problem such as riots or civil insurection. I would fear the use of American troops to quell an internal problem ---ie. Kent State.
If push came to shove, I believe the US public could take on the US military by simply using the tactics that work in say Iraq and Afganistan. The same tactics used by the French resistance fighters in ww2. A slow deliberate guerilla war that would tear our country apart--------you know , sort of like Iraq. Not a scene I would ever, ever want to happen.
Now seriously, how many of you knew about their help and mission on US soil? Second question, why wasn't this historic moment noted by all Americans , media, and press.?
In this instance, I for one American thank the Euros for their help and their devotion to the NATO treaty that has served us well for many years. With that said, I would fear particapation of foreign troops used to quell an internal problem such as riots or civil insurection. I would fear the use of American troops to quell an internal problem ---ie. Kent State.
If push came to shove, I believe the US public could take on the US military by simply using the tactics that work in say Iraq and Afganistan. The same tactics used by the French resistance fighters in ww2. A slow deliberate guerilla war that would tear our country apart--------you know , sort of like Iraq. Not a scene I would ever, ever want to happen.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Join the discussion
