Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections

Wow, Doesn't history repeat itself here. Reference Herb Hoovers little incident in the 1930's where he sent out MacArthur's Infantry to burn out the unemployed returning WWI veterans. It comes down to the government fearing their own people. Great Barry....change we can all believe in.:applause:

 

I do appreciate the heads up - I will have to look into this some more. I would like to research the other side's POV.

 

Obama's ideas concern me greatly and I don't trust him or his friends. However, I view the title of the Examiner article as very misleading. The military is, in fact, preparing to deal with what we hope never happens - a domestic chemical, biological, or nuclear attack that renders civil authorities incapable of responding on their own. This isn't all that new - they've always had such roles. In such a situation everyone will be demanding that response and if it isn't effective there will be panic, chaos, anarchy, and misery for thousands or millions. I think the plan is changing more from a few large response teams to more smaller response teams. The DefenseNews article provided some insight on that. I've seen other information in some regimental journals I read. I hope it is never needed but I think we'll be glad to have it if it is. I don't see this as a political tool - to be used to interfere with elections as the title of the Examiner leads one to ponder. I do, however, know that such things have to be closely monitored because power does corrupt and socialists put individual rights way down below their view of what's best for everyone.

 

Posse Comitatus always falls victim to the insurrection act. Any President that wants to use the military for police activities simply labels it an executive right under this act. You know like G.H.W. Bush did in allowing Marines and Soldiers to be used in the L A riots.

 

Beautiful! :applause::applause::applause:

 

I do actually. I don't believe President Obama is an evil person bent on destroying America.

I'd like clear cut examples, more than one, of this.

 

Agreed. An inexperienced puppet of the Chicago Machine maybe

 

I hope that is an "s" and not another letter...a "p" perhaps...because the consequences are significant...

Anyhoo, what you're doing is setting up a logical fallacy in your entire argumentation.

A. All Democrats disregard the Constitution and laws
B. President Obama is a Democrat
~ President Obama disregards the Constitution and laws

The fallacy is ridiculous and when pressed for evidence you offer nothing. You are just angry for the sake of being angry. You have no evidence to support your claims except the babbling of politically maligning organizations.

If you hate the President with such a vengeance that you disregard the legitimate and honest queries for fact than you likely need to review your Scriptures for what an attitude like that is called.

Just because a man is in another political party and may hold some beliefs that you disagree with doesn't make him worth destroying as everyone one of your posts directed at him attempt to do. Besides, as a Christian you are called to something better and higher than this.

 

Somebody call Jack Bauer! :thumbs:

 

I don't think I can claim credit for this one Robert. If anyone can take credit it would be Obama.

If Obama were a "republican" president all the new conservatives like our friend Carpro would be cheering the appearance of the military openly policing citizens. It would be sold to us as "security measures" and making us safe from terrorists.

But we have a "democratic" president today so the new conservatives see this it for it is . . . tyranny.

At least the new conservatives can see danger when it comes from the left. That's something I guess.

 

Let's do a reality check on this activity by the DoD! Here's some key extracts from one of many official documents describing the program. This one is titled "Today's Armed Forces".

Let's start with definition:

"Consequence management is predominantly an emergency management function and includes measures to protect public health and safety, restore essential government services, and provide emergency relief to local governments, businesses, and individuals affected by the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents or high-yield explosives (CBRNE) incident. In an actual or potential incident, a consequence management response will be managed by a Lead Federal Agency (LFA) such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) using structures and resources described in the Federal Response Plan."

Let's continue with a summary of the action:

"In the event of a domestic incident on American soil resulting in the release of CBRNE, the local law enforcement, fire and emergency medical personnel who are first to respond may become rapidly overwhelmed by the magnitude and lingering effects. In that instance, a governor may request a Presidential disaster declaration for the state and assistance from the federal government through the LFA. If DoD assistance is requested, the Department of Defense has many unique capabilities, both technical and operational, which could support civil authorities to mitigate and manage the consequences of such an incident."

Let's continue with some implicit limitations:

"First, DoD will ensure an unequivocal chain of responsibility, authority, and accountability for its actions to assure the American people that the military will follow all relevant laws when an emergency occurs. To this end, the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Civil Support will provide full-time civilian oversight for the domestic use of DoD’s CBRNE consequence management assets in support of other federal agencies.

Second, during a CBRNE event, DoD will always play a supporting role to the LFA in accordance with the Federal Response Plan and will ensure complete compliance with the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, and other applicable laws. The Department routinely provides support and assistance to civilian authorities and has considerable experience balancing the requirement to protect civil liberties on one hand with the need to ensure national security on the other."

 

Yeah right. They haven't got a very good track record in this area. Katrina? New Orleans? Gulf oil spill? These boys will be to busy covering up their own mistakes and criminal activities to "ensure an unequivocal chain of responsibility, authority, and accountability for its actions".

This paragraph is a joke Dragoon. You'll need something a little more convincing than "trust us we're the government" this time around. But then again with as dumbed down and drugged up as our society is most will probably buy it hook line and sinker. And that is sad!

 

I don't agree with your allegation of blame toward DoD for "Katrina, New Orleans or the Gulf oil spill" as none of these things have anything to do the purpose outlined and were not - are not - issues managed by the DoD.

I'm not advocating a we "trust the government" - I'm just setting the record straight about the purpose of this consequence management participation by DoD because it was grossly misrepresented in the Examiner article. That kind of irresponsible reporting just detracts for real areas of concerns by spreading false alarm among the people.

 

Yeah I can see that but I still haven't forgotten the time when it was the DoD itself spreading false alarms among the people. If memory serves you didn't have much of a problem with that.

And I haven't forgotten the DoD's operatives (Message Force Multipliers) posing as independent "anylists" to spread even more alarms and disinfo among the people.

Trust the government to police itself??? Trust the government to tell the truth???

You got to be joking Dragoon. :laugh:

 

I prefer to sort out the truth. If it stinks it stinks but if it doesn't it doesn't. So far I don't find anything in this consequence management participation by DoD that smells. It's not new - it's been around by this name for at least a decade and others before that. It's a legitimate potential use of our armed forces primarily related to managing the consequences of a terrorist act. Could it be misued by corrupt officials - you bet it could just like any other aspect of government whether local, State, or federal. There's plenty to be concerned about but the mission and training of this so-called "special army unit" isn't something to worry about - it's rather something to be thankful that we have. Now, if you want to bash some of Obama's - and others - social programs and where he'd like to take our country, go for it and I'll probably chime in. But I'm not in slamming our military for "crimes not committed".

 

That shouldn't placate us. The real trouble is what is legal, not what isn't. Even when it doesn't lead to collateral damage, the use of standing armies at home can, to quote Jefferson, "overawe the public sentiment," and acclimate Americans to a militarized home front inconsistent with democratic life.

SOURCE

Was Jefferson "slamming the military" when he said this Dragoon?


More from the article.

In the panicked days following 9/11, Bush administration officials repeatedly suggested that only armed soldiers could defeat the domestic terror threat. When thousands of troops patrolled the streets in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted approvingly that "the largest theater for the United States is not Afghanistan today. It is, in fact, Salt Lake City and the environs."

To guard against hijackers, then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta proposed putting Delta Force operatives on domestic flights, collecting frequent-flier miles instead of pursuing al Qaida in Afghanistan. Today, along with the "war on drugs," we contemplate using our military to fight hurricanes, floods, immigrants, Mumbai-style attacks, and more, as if it's the national Swiss army knife.

But there is no good argument that domestic militarization is necessary to keep us safe. Civilian officers have been successfully keeping the peace and responding to disasters for a century or so, occasionally supplemented by National Guardsmen under the command of their state governors. Every state's National Guard force is now equipped to cope with attacks using unconventional weapons. Their ranks will be bolstered as the war in Iraq winds down.

The regular military is wonderful for destroying enemy troop formations or bombing their command centers, but not for finding hidden killers like terrorists. Intelligence and old-fashioned police work are our most potent counter-terrorism tools. Neither does Hurricane Katrina justify a domestic army. The problem there was the mismanagement of the National Guard and local first responders, not their lack of capacity.

Moreover, using troops at home undermines military readiness. When soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade, according to a 2003 General Accounting Office report that looked at some of the homeland security missions the military carried out after 9/11. The GAO also found that, naturally, such missions also put a serious strain on a military already heavily committed abroad.

Yet creeping militarization continues, and few in the media or Congress object. The militarized future to fear isn't one that ends in a dictatorship or martial law. Our troops' commitment to civilian rule prevents that. The danger we face is one in which the public embraces the notion that civilian institutions are weak and messy, and that when you want the job done, you call in the boys in green. That approach will make us no safer — only less free.