Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Pentagon plans to station 20,000 troops for 'domestic security' (14 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

    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.

    There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

    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.

    Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. chrisc
    Member

    Disbanding the military needs to be a key demand for the collapse period -- imagine what it will be like with all the troops deployed for domestic repression...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    not to be overly pollyannish - but 20,000 troops is not really that many. when we talk about troops being used to 'repress' 300,000,000 americans - many of whom are heavily armed - it is hard to imagine them controlling so many cities:

    New York City Los Angeles Chicago Houston Phoenix Philadelphia San Diego Dallas Detroit Indianapolisa[›] San Francisco Charlotte Baltimore Milwaukee Boston Seattle Denver Washington Las Vegas Louisville Portland Oklahoma City Tucson Atlanta Albuquerque Fresno Long Beach Sacramento Mesa Kansas City Cleveland Virginia Beachd Omaha Miami Oakland Tulsa Minneapolis

    That's 37 cities right there - in order of population. That's 540 soldiers per city.

    anyway...

    i do want to ask an honest question. when we all see and hear about the horror in India - do any of you worry that a LEGITIMATE threat to this country exists? do we have a right to defend ourselves? should we be prepared to defend ourselves?

    so many people complained about how our resources were overseas when hurricane Katrina hit.

    regardless of what you believe about 9/11 - isn't it true that a very real war is taking place - and there are indeed people hell bent on inflicting mass casualties on us?

    why is it that everytime it is suggested that US troops should be deployed in the US to protect us in an emergency, so many people are so quick to assume the worst?

    yes - i know that the posse commutotus (spelling?) laws prevent US troops beging used for law enforcement - BUT - so many of our national guard have been deployed overseas - shouldn't a prudent effort be made for homeland self defense?

    no matter what you may think of america and its policies - do we really want to see a nuclear or biological attack take place WITHOUT sufficient military to respond to the human tragedy?

    these are questions that haunt me.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    These are legitimate perspectives, but try bringing this stuff up with most 9/11 "truthers" and you'll probably have a flame war on your hands.

    Real terrorism exists. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is terrorism. Dropping bombs and white phosphorous on civilians is terrorism. Yet in the mainstream mindset, the US and Israel and other "civilized peoples" do not participate in "terrorism." A video of Muslims beheading an American is "barbaric" and shocking, yet 1,000,000+ casualties as a result of the US invasion is "an honorable cause."

    Now, most of us in the Western world have some legitimate fear of violent retribution. There are people out there who want to kill us, and for as good as reason as there is: because we're killing them. Yet most high-profile terrorism against us does not seem to serve the interests of our enemies; it strangely serves our interests.

    There is a possibility of some extreme underground, rogue group pulling off a nuclear or biological attack in the US. In fact, I do think that our "fearless leaders" genuinely fear this, and that that paranoia justifies their increasing imperialism and fascistic control.

    Anyone could pull off a "terrorist attack" any day. In fact, if there was particularly devious person or group, they could probably cause mass casualties fairly easily. Yet, generally, it doesn't happen. If all these people really want to kill us, why aren't they doing it more often and in more effective ways?

    Personally, I think that most high-profile terrorism is used for political means: to demonize the enemy perpetrator and scare into submission the target population. (I know, this isn't a revolutionary perspective in our circle).

    Maybe there are insane people out there who would detonate a nuclear bomb or release the ebola virus in America, but for them to be organized enough to pull it off (without being discovered by the surveillance-intelligence apparatus) is very, very unlikely.

    And having US soldiers stationed domestically is not the way to effectively deter or deal with such possibilities. Our paranoia will be the death of us. If we do not move toward conciliation with the other people of the world, and the world itself, all of our worst fears will come true.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    Maybe you were reading this?

    Growing risk of nuclear or biological attack: report

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081202/ts_alt_afp/us...

    The odds that terrorists will attack a major city with nuclear or biological weapons are now higher than ever due to threats from rogue states, nuclear smuggling networks and the spread of weapons know-how, according to a bipartisan task force created by the US Congress, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

    "In our judgment, America's margin of safety is shrinking, not growing," said the draft report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, cited by the Post.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    well - i do NOT think stationing troops domestically will protect us from attack. i never wanted to suggest this - or support such an idea.

    But - i do think the military would be needed if, God forbid, a real attack of massive proportions did occur. Lets face it - if a nuke goes off in a major city - we will need the military to expedite medical triosh, medical evacs, food distribution, emergency shelters, massive relocations etc etc.

    you do make the obvious point that the war in iraq is terrorism also. in fact 'war on terror' is an oxymoron.

    but you do come dangerously close to the 'we got it comin' perspective. i think this is a 'chicken and an egg' debate. which came first? hell - some of these blood feuds go back thousands of years!

    Israel and Palestine is a perfect example. Israel kills Palestinians because they 'have it coming' - for acts of terrorism. Palestinians blow up Israeli buses - because 'they have it coming' - for acts of terrorism against the Palestinian people..

    its the Hatfields and the McCoys. It is a blood feud. they BOTH have it coming!

    and NEITHER side deserves to see their innocent citizens targeted!!

    its a real conundrum.

    but - it is very important to realize that terrorism is not uniquely being aimed at the United States. India, Indonesia, Spain, France, the UK, Japan, and on and on and on have all been victim's of terrorism. in fact - we've been very lucky in the sheme of things.

    we do live in a hightened state of risk. i do agree that this is partly a result of our own policies. our invasion of Iraq was a recruitment tool for those who would seek to harm us.

    but islamic terrorism against India is aklso a recruitment tool for military hawks who seek to widen the wars.

    where does it end?

    neither side is innocent.

    and i disagree that it is "very very unlikely" that a terrorist group could initiate a nuclear or biological attack without being picked up by our intelligence services. i actually have the opposite opinion. it would be so damned easy to smuggle these weapons in. any boat or truck or plane or cargo hold could do it.

    hell - our intelligence services didn't even see hurricane Katrina coming! LOL!!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    but you do come dangerously close to the 'we got it comin' perspective. i think this is a 'chicken and an egg' debate. which came first? hell - some of these blood feuds go back thousands of years!

    My perspective is that people are (born) fundamentally good and that they generally don't want to kill others or cause mass chaos. But the prevailing global socioeconomic system is built on greed, oppression, and murder, which has a profound effect on all of us. Our role should be in deconstructing the fundamental structure of this system, outlining it's flaws and injustices, and pointing towards something more sane. I think the human species definitely "has it comin'," in terms of the results of our shortsightedness and lack of compassion. In terms of violent, indiscriminate terrorist attacks, I think they're horrible and only serve to perpetuate the existing system, no matter who they originate with.

    it would be so damned easy to smuggle these weapons in. any boat or truck or plane or cargo hold could do it.

    In some ways, it would be easy, just like it would be easy for me to decide one day to mow down a crowd of people on the sidewalk in my car. If I didn't tell anyone I planned to do this, or it was a spur-of-the-moment idea, nobody could possibly stop me. If contemplating the detonation of a nuclear bomb or the release of bio-weapons in the US just makes you shudder and hope for more protection or resources to deal with such an outcome, then it's probably not a good thing for you to be thinking about. And note that it is just the thing that Bush and the propagandists most want you to worry about...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. JohnA
    Member

    well - i certainly didn't want to turn this into a fear-mongering post.

    i guess my question is more aimed at the 'preparedness' issue. I think the one thing that shocked me the most about the Hurricane Katrina imbroglio was how ill-prepared we were for a natural disaster. its funny because - as much as i dislike the Bush administration - i always assumed the ONE thing they had under their belt was having the 'police-state' apparatuses in place. in fact - i has assumed this was their #1 priority - turning america into a fascist-like state where people are required to carry 'papers' and the military indistrial complex transforms the homeland into a national security cottage industry - spending billions to 'secure the homeland' (and stamping out dissent in the process).

    I had even gone as far as to read into the very existence of FEMA as a defacto martial-law administrative body, standing at the ready to sweep in and do the bidding of whatever shadow government might be in place after a real or manufactured disaster.

    but what did we find out after Katrina? FEMA was essentiall gutted. the couldn't find their own ass with a flashlight. the National Guard was operating on paper-thin resources. our military is straining to the break-point. and should a disaster happen - be it natural or man made - we are basically on our own.

    so - short of fear mongering - i think 'preparedness' is a responsible question for citizens to ask. are we ready for the next climate-fueled or hate-fueled disaster?

    of course it is not my intention to echo Captain May and predict calamity. But - the opposite is also problematic. Complacency can also be very dangerous - and very easily cross the line into criminal neglect. we see it everywhere.

    • bridges are collapsing because of neglect.
    • the environment is collapsing because of neglect.
    • the economy is collapsing because no one heeded the obvious warnings.
    • aspect of 9/11 happened, arguably, because of criminal neglect.
    • the WMDs in Iraq claims were not investigated by the media - because of criminal neglect.
    • the health insurance industry / pharma monopolies have basically raped the middle class because of legislative criminal neglect.

    speaking to the issue of 'preparedness' is not fear mongering. it is responsible citizenry - no less important than the stewardship of the environment.

    but what the REAL fear-mongers (the neo-cons) have succeeded in doing is making us fear the government - to the point where the redeployment of critical military resources in the US is viewed as more of a threat than the lack of preparedness - for whatever nature or terrorists may decide to throw at us.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. nornnxx65
    Member

    what's wrong with using the National Guard to defend the US; it's THEIR mission, not the US military's. if US military troops are available to be deployed here, then the state-controlled (supposedly; Warner's Defense Authorization changed this) National Guard troops can be made available to do what is their job. This seems like a continuation of the fascist power grab, by the people who actually pull the strings of whatever puppet Republocrat administration is in place. The Bullshit administration knew the potential for a Katrina, willfully ignored it, and used it as an exercise in martial law afterwards- Bush smirked "what didn't go right?" http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=...

    Sure, any psycho (or small group) can take a bunch of automatic weapons and shoot up a school or shopping mall, but the NSA is tapping everyone, and the FBI is sending out NSLs by the thousands; how likely is it that any large attack could succeed w/o "approval" from high, high up? Especially any large attack that requires a lot of knowledge, preparation, money- like a bio or nuke attack. The Anthrax attacks with military grade Anthrax sent thru the US mail only killed 5 people. Reid couldn't get his shoe bomb lit w/ matches and was taken down by passengers. The Atlantic multi-plane bombing plot was not even close to being operational, had already been infiltrated, and wouldn't have worked anyway- mixing the chemicals in the bathroom would've taken hours and created massive fumes.

    Until there's truth and reconciliation about 9/11, the Fed and many other things, there's no reason to trust the US govt is capable of protecting the US from violence, disaster or tyranny.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    the National Guard is in Iraq. i never agreed with sending the National Guard to Iraq. but that's where they are - and its not like they are in one place in one bridage. they are scattered throughout Iraq.

    i did see a fascist powergrab in the nature of the new executive powers Bush granted himself - the unitary executive office - as well as the multiple violations of the constitution - wiretapping - special renditions - special courts, etc etc..

    but - i also think there is a certain amount of hysteria when it comes to stuff like the reaction of redeploying of troops stateside. unless you have examples of these troops being used against the general population in some sort of draconian attempt to execute mass roundups - or quell dissent - i would have to say that your reaction is a little overblown.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. Manatus
    Member

    I believe it would be negligent or naive to just accept this notion at face value without critical examination. The Posse Comitatis Act carries significant weight regarding our civilian liberties and freedom. I believe legitimate concern about this issue is prudent based on many recent dubious policy decisions made by the federal government and pentagon.

    The National Guard in Iraq is a questionable policy at best. Justifying another questionable policy based on that is not wise, it just enables or facilitates more unacceptable behavior. Somehow the introduction of this idea, policy, article gives me an eerie sense of deja vu.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. nornnxx65
    Member

    "i would have to say that your reaction is a little overblown."- John A.

    Please quote me where my reaction was "a little overblown"; as just one step in numerous creeping steps that have been taken toward fascism, it may not seem like much, but once 20,000's OK what's the limit? Everything's gonna change again after the next attack, which Clarke has indicated will include an i9/11. None of the steps toward fascism have been good, and the govt is in the control of mass murderers, if only for starting a war based on lies, and this idea of US troops on a domestic mission isn't good either. Send these troops to Iraq, and bring the National Guard home- better yet, turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, like the Iraqi People want, bring all the troops home, put Blackwater out of business and put the Bush Administration on trial.

    What's going on that all of a sudden we need 20,000 troops here; is the Bullshit Administration about to "fail" to prevent a nuke attack on one or several cities? Or are the 1% power elite getting worried they're not going to be able to restore faith in their financial house of cards, and there'll be civil unrest? Whatever the Bush Administration and Pentagon under Republocrat management is up to when they're undermining the Constitution is not likely to be anything in the public interest or good for human beings- I'd like to see evidence that it is

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    nornnxx65 wrote:

    what's wrong with using the National Guard to defend the US; it's THEIR mission

    Yes, why do we need combat ready troops assigned to domestic duties? If we're talking about the National Guard or something like Obama's proposed civilian service corps, then I can better understand the idea. Emergencies are going to happen, and I'd rather that they were dealt with in an orderly and honest way than a violent and chaotic one. But really, the record of our government isn't so hot when it comes to being honest and dealing with things in a just way. If we have natural/ecological/resource disasters beginning to occur, I hope there is an honest government in place to organize a logical response AND to keep the public informed of important information. But I'm beyond skeptical when I think about this realistically.

    JohnA wrote:

    but - i also think there is a certain amount of hysteria when it comes to stuff like the reaction of redeploying of troops stateside. unless you have examples of these troops being used against the general population in some sort of draconian attempt to execute mass roundups - or quell dissent - i would have to say that your reaction is a little overblown.

    Yes, there is paranoia and hysteria on this front. This stuff is always being discussed by wild-eyed, long-haired conspiracy theorists; the ones who think there's a base on Mars where the Illuminati are living. On the other hand there's a world of difference between rank speculation like that and the fact that KBR has been contracted to build mass detention centers in the US.

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/
    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/article...

    I think that if you look at the neo-con (or more broadly, the long-term authoritarian elite) worldview, it's pretty clear that they're pushing towards some sort of showdown with the forces of freedom (I mean freedom of the truth, justice, and compassion variety). Put another way, they're pushing for a system of "full spectrum dominance," in which people like us won't exactly be welcome. They aim to eliminate us one way or another. Whether it's psychologically or physically, it is most certainly one of their objectives. They aim to make us all "terrorists" so that we can be lumped together and eliminated. And don't think these people just disappear because Obama has been elected--no more so than they did when Clinton was in for 8 years.

    No reaction to the Military Commissions Act, to torture, to surveillance, to flagrant government criminality, to the crackdown on free speech, to propaganda, to the deaths of 1,000,000+ in Iraq, to increasing wealth disparity, to ecocide is really "overblown." It would be nice if all this stuff was just "crazy conspiracy theories," but it's not. This is the world we live in.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. JohnA
    Member

    well - i see a lot of very legitimate points made here. keep in mind that my position is not diametrically opposed to what i am reading here - just a little nuanced and tempered by intellectual curiosity and some uncertainty about exactly what is actually really going on here.

    but you all do make good points and i think it was well worthy debating.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.