Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

canadian · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

In Canada, it is considered good manners that, uponvisiting someone's home for the first time, you should bring a gift.

In that spirit, I am presenting a gift to you, my American friends. It is my hope that it will be well recieved.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Apparently, the third infantry's 1st BCT has been assigned to NORTHCOM until 2010. Now, this is not the first time active duty soldiers have been ordered to perform domestic operations - They were used for Katrina, as well as the riots in Los Angeles, Detroit and Little Rock. This does however, mark the first time in modern history (at least as far as I'm aware) that an active combat unit has been permanently assigned to domestic operations like this.

Granted, a single brigade is not enough to impose martial law nationwide, but at the same time, you don't reassign troops like this (especially while conducting *2* foriegn wars) unless you forsee a specific need for them in the future. A brigade, supported by local police and National Guard could certainly "pacify" a city...say New York or Washington. So my question is this:

What do they know, or expect to happen, that would require combat hardened troops, supported by artillery, armor and air cavalry, in a major city?

Grapeshot · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Our own troops cannot be utilized on domestic soil. The state guards are deployed within the respective states by their Governor.

This gives the federal government the ability to bring in more man power and fire power in the event that our poiliticians see the "need" and they would not be acting hostile to their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.

I don't like it, I think it circumvents the Constitution. I am not sure how the American people would react to foreign troops on our soil telling us what to do. Didn't we settle that once before?

You wouldn't attempt to disarm me in violation of our laws would you?

Yata hey

PS - your "gift" which I presume is the knowledge/information relayed is well received although I think many here were already aware of the new circumstances.

Dustin · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Our own troops cannot be utilized on domestic soil.

What ?

2 Battalions of Marines were sent to the Mexico border in 2006 for 6 months.

One of them was my neighbor.

Of course they weren't Grunts, but still our own Military.

But Grunts from 3/8 did Deploy to New Orleans after Katrina, for some executive convoy protection something or another.

My Friend, Josh S. Cpl, was in that company that went down there.

Grapeshot · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Dustin wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Our own troops cannot be utilized on domestic soil.

Click to expand...

What ?

2 Battalions of Marines were sent to the Mexico border in 2006 for 6 months.

One of them was my neighbor.

Of course they weren't Grunts, but still our own Military.

They had no ammo and as I understood it were only there as "observers."

Fine line I realize. I'm sure that they can be used to repeal invaders but my understanding is not against citizens. I'm too short on time today to look up the cite - anyone?

Yata hey

Dustin · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Dustin wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Our own troops cannot be utilized on domestic soil.

Click to expand...

What ?

2 Battalions of Marines were sent to the Mexico border in 2006 for 6 months.

One of them was my neighbor.

Of course they weren't Grunts, but still our own Military.

Click to expand...

They had no ammo and as I understood it were only there as "observers."

Fine line I realize. I'm sure that they can be used to repeal invaders but my understanding is not against citizens. I'm too short on time today to look up the cite - anyone?

Yata hey

No Ammo ? Are you nuts ?

3/8 took 6 240 Gulfs with them when they went to N.O., and the Motor "T" unit that went to the Border, were indeed ARMED.

In case you were wondering, This information I'm writing here, comes from talking to those who were actually deployed to those places, not some article are website.

I can name several of their names but won't since this doesn't seem like it's public information.

Grapeshot · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Dustin wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Dustin wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Our own troops cannot be utilized on domestic soil.

Click to expand...

What ?

2 Battalions of Marines were sent to the Mexico border in 2006 for 6 months.

One of them was my neighbor.

Of course they weren't Grunts, but still our own Military.

Click to expand...

They had no ammo and as I understood it were only there as "observers."

Fine line I realize. I'm sure that they can be used to repeal invaders but my understanding is not against citizens. I'm too short on time today to look up the cite - anyone?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

No Ammo ? Are you nuts ?

3/8 took 6 240 Gulfs with them when they went to N.O., and the Motor "T" unit that went to the Border, were indeed ARMED.

In case you were wondering, This information I'm writing here, comes from talking to those who were actually deployed to those places, not some article are website.

I can name several of their names but won't since this doesn't seem like it's public information.

You may be right - my info comes from my memory and reports like this below. We only know what the press tells us and what we learn through first hand reports.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15248937_ITM

Yata hey

Doug Huffman · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

We only know what the press tells us and what we learn through first hand reports.

...first hand verifiable reports.

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.

Grapeshot · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

We only know what the press tells us and what we learn through first hand reports.

Click to expand...

...first hand verifiable reports.

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.

"The report of my death were greatly exagerated!" - Mark Twain

Yata hey

TipsyMcStagger · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

sounds like a horrible precedent.

Dustin · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Or like we say in the Corps,

Believe NONE of what you hear, Half of what you see, and believe it only 10 minutes after it happen.

That's good advice for any Military Member

Orygunner · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

Did anyone else read the last paragraph this way?

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come andthreaten libertyif they’re ordered,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and oppress the people at home.”

Time to break out the obligatory Founding Father quote, this one from James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution":

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

I think that probably they'll be good soldiers, doing nothing but good for the people, helping out with disasters, pulling kittens out of trees, so that they'll be accepted by the general populace, and more may be stationed in other locations, "for the public good."

And we that know better will say :banghead:and wait for the inevitable...

...

OK. I just reread my own post, and want to make something absolutely clear. I fully support and respect our men and women who have chosen to serve our country in the military, who have sworn to uphold the constitution, and protect the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe the intentions of this are most likely good, but there's always the chance there's a bigger objective at stake, or that this could go sour in the future. Putting a standing army, ready for combat, stationed within the United States, with these purposes (Concerns in bold) is a little scary.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

...At least at this point they're not bringing in Brightfire, er, Blackwater to do it...
...Orygunner...

lukeshort · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

It seems someone wants some fire power closer to home. It is another one of those “for your safety” or “public good” excuses that is so liberally used at this day and age.

I always think of the saying, “Every cloud has a silver lining”, but I was never clear on if the cloud was made of C.S. gas. This seems to be a prelude to something and I don’t like it one bit. The use of military for any situation domestically, should be very limited, unless of course we are invaded by some unwelcome guests. Then I would not be to sure they were not welcomed by somebody from within anyhow. There seems to be a lot of anti American thinking being forced down the citizens of this countries throat. A little here and a little there, and one day it will all be gone.

I would like to understand the purpose of trained soldiers using non-lethal force. What is the point of that? Wars are fought and won, with guts and deadly projectiles. Is the plan now to save as many as possible to work in the rice fields or what?

In my opinion (go ahead and call me paranoid) this has the look of desensitizing the populace to a new way of business.

I know this site is read by those that wonder about us that cling to God and our guns. I can not speak for anyone but myself when I write what I’m thinking, but it looks to be a bad state of affairs when any government starts to train military for crowd control and police work. Do our officials expect the enemies we now face (terrorist or Taliban) to put on an illegal demonstration or are we expecting something else? So just go on and allow every swinging D!&# politician think for you and keep you safe from evil, like they know the difference anyway, and we’ll all be lead into the new world were everyone can live together as one big happy family as long as we do what we are told. And if you happen to work in a profession whose goal is this end? Words can not describe how ignorant you must be and let’s just get it over with all ready. Make your move.

rodbender · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

I think anyone with some sort of common sense can, or should be able tosee where this is going. I think it is ridiculous to think that these military personnel will be doing humanitarian work for very long. They want us to be use to seeing the military as our protectors, but in actuality they will eventually become our suppressors. This is very dangerous ground that they are treading upon and should be looked at with very much caution.

They are training them to use non-lethal weapons which suggests to me that this new training will be intended for use on the citizenry of this nation with minimal loss of life.They doknow that we are not all fools and expect a rebellion against whatever the real motive is behind all of this.

I'm not (or have not in the past been) a conspiracy theorist, but I am nowwondering if I need to change my attitude.

Hopefully, most in the military will see this for what it actually is and refuse to participate when the time comes for actual deployment to domestic battlefields.

The military personnel take an oath to defend and uphold COTUS. We can just hope against hope that they know what it says about domestic interference.

I'll look it up and post ithere ASAP.

Doug Huffman · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

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; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)

rodbender · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

It is actually the Posse Comitatus Act, not the COTUS that prohibits military use as law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

skidmark · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

At one time it was possible to believe that federal troops could not be used for law enforcement activities within the borders of CONUS, AK, HI and the Territoriews/Trust Lands. That was so well planted in the American mindset that even Hollywierd understood it and made it a major part of one of James Garner's lesser-known films - "Tank"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088224/from which comes one of the best lines ever uttered: "Are you calling me a Communist pussy?" [Sheriff Cyrus Buelton to MG V.E. Hubik after being told Hubik could not call out the army base troops to go after Garner's character because of the Posse Comitatus Act]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

a snipette from there:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

except that:

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 [sic] wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068)

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.§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 threat 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. [/list]

fortunately:

Homeland security

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions that granted the President additional rights to use federal or state National Guard Troops inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR).

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Now all we have to do is see if Congress will pass any legislation reintroducing the sorts of things they decided to repeal earlier this year [see above re: homeland security & natural disasters]. From the OP it sounds as if POTUS has instructed SecDef to "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" in spite of Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068) which supposedly restored Posse Comitatus to the original wording.

If nothing else, this will be at least 2 bolwls of popcorn worth of watching to see how it shakes out, if anything shakes at all.

stay safe.

skidmark
PS - Canadian -

Welcome to OCDO and "Thank you very much" for the very fine gift you brought to us. Here's hoping we mayy be able to repay you without becoming engaged in an international potlatch.

skidmark

* edited to add postscript, as I had temporarily forgotten my manners.

Doug Huffman · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

And the original humanitarian uniformed service is? The Coast Guard, now a division of DHSeverity, and exempt from PC.

You ought to see the youngsters struttin'

Doug Huffman · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Here's hoping we mayy be able to repay you without becoming engaged in an international potlatch.

'Potlatch', very good!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

The main purpose of the potlatch is the re-distribution and reciprocity of wealth.

Daddyo · Sep 19, 2008

imported post

There is no way this is good. Even if it starts out with good intentions (which I doubt), the temptation is too high for it to turn bad.

This is just more along the lines of an article I read a couple of years ago where some EMA said that one of the things they learned from 9/11 was that they needed to find ways to keep the general public out of the area and wait for the professionals to arrive. So I'm just supposed to stand there, chainsaw in hand, and look at my neighbor and say "Sorry Fred, I'd like to get that tree off of you but DHS says only the Army can do that. I'm sure they'll get here as soon as they can."

A lady at work's son just signed on with 82nd Airborne. I wonder what her take on this is?

Flyer22 · Sep 22, 2008

imported post

I'm wondering if maybe--just maybe--the assignment might have something to do with this. The timing is certainly interesting.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/09/21.html#recap

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member