Thread: Under Napolitano, Expect Department of No-Land Security

Authored by a former member of the Federal Election Commission.

Under Napolitano, Expect Department of No-Land Security
by Hans von Spakovsky
12/15/2008

Naming his national security team, President-elect Obama acknowledged that the attacks in Mumbai once again emphasized the threat of terrorism and the importance of these picks for “a new dawn of American leadership.â€

She may not be the worst possible choice that Obama could make to be the key player in protecting our internal security, but she comes close

So true. She's a joke for this Dept.

Another politician that seems to hate us!

With the appointment of Claudia Munoz of LaRaza as government affairs adviser, Obama Bin Laden has shown he has absolutely no intention of securing the borders and protecting Americans from the never ending hordes crossing our borders including terrorists, identity thieves, murderers, sex offenders and others taking our jobs and using our benefits. This economy will never improve as long as our borders remain open resulting in the continued loss of jobs to cheap labor and all of humanity availing themselves of our scarce resources. Obama will allow the continuation of the La Raza reconquista agenda. Bye Bye America...............

I can hear the fighting and riots in the streets already, but I'm sure it would create a new "hate crime" with more severe penalties than any other form.

Sometimes I actually think this is what the government wants...fighting in the streets, so they can turn illegal aliens into a protected class, then hand over citizenship so we can never question or fight for enforcement or anything else ever again.

What does the government think the people will do when they (the government) blatantly goes against federal law while they (The People) suffer and become homeless? Do they expect these people to just take it without a fight? Do they think people are so uninformed or even stupid enough to sit back and turn up the burner themselves and slowly boil to death?

This next round is going to be a doozie, and we better get organized and get it right once and for all! There are too many fractions of our movement that don't communicate with each other, and that needs "change" now more than ever.

Originally Posted by Nightowl

What does the government think the people will do when they (the government) blatantly goes against federal law while they (The People) suffer and become homeless? Do they expect these people to just take it without a fight? Do they think people are so uninformed or even stupid enough to sit back and turn up the burner themselves and slowly boil to death?

The government has thought of that. That is why they are going to deploy "Peace keeping" troops within the boundaries of the US. They will say it is for preventing terrorism, but we all know its real reason will be to round up citizens who will rebel against the poverty of "third world wages" and loss of national sovereignty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html

Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 1, 2008; A01

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.

The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.

If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.

Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.

In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.

In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.

Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.

Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.

Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.

"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.

Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.

"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."

McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement. For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992.

U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq. The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics.

The one-year domestic mission, however, does not replace the brigade's next scheduled combat deployment in 2010. The brigade may get additional time in the United States to rest and regroup, compared with other combat units, but it may also face more training and operational requirements depending on its homeland security assignments.

Renuart said the Pentagon is accounting for the strain of fighting two wars, and the need for troops to spend time with their families. "We want to make sure the parameters are right for Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. The 1st Brigade's soldiers "will have some very aggressive training, but will also be home for much of that."

Although some Pentagon leaders initially expected to build the next two response units around combat teams, they are likely to be drawn mainly from reserves and the National Guard, such as the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from South Carolina, which returned in May after more than a year in Afghanistan.

Now that Pentagon strategy gives new priority to homeland security and calls for heavier reliance on the Guard and reserves, McHale said, Washington has to figure out how to pay for it.

"It's one thing to decide upon a course of action, and it's something else to make it happen," he said. "It's time to put our money where our mouth is."


Comments

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
username wrote:
This is against the law to have national troops inside the US to control citizens, and people are allowed to fight back. (Especially if they are wearing blue helmets)

It's called Posse Comitatus.

Sorry, there WILL be resistance.


12/8/2008 7:59:34 PM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
nkauffman1937 wrote:
interesting article - the authors need to look into the status of the US Coast Guard - supposedly assigned to non defense federal agencies in peacetime, e.g., formerly US DOT and now Dept of Homeland Security - but in wartime assigned to US Navy and therefore would be part of DOD.
How does the fact that a US Military Unit (USCG) is now part of domestic homeland security in time of "war on terror" and how is this all related to POSSE COMITATUS - sounds kind of mixed up!
12/6/2008 9:34:38 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
swiftone wrote:
As a retired member of the US Military, this scares me even more than another term of King George the 2nd. The whole purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act, is to ensure that the active duty military does not get used in this form. If they want a force to use in this situation then train up (and fund) the National guard/Reserves. As far as i can see, this looks like another power grab by the white house (read King george and Prince dick).
12/5/2008 5:15:42 PM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
vladimir19561924 wrote:
Domestic military force? Wasn't that the one of the big reasons the American colonies rebelled against their British masters? Patrick Henry declared that it wouldn't be long before there was a British soldier posted at every door and private arms would be confiscated.
I lived in Argentina in the 1970's during the "Dirty War", when people were disappearing and the military kept a commanding presence in the country. They could stop any public conveyance (busses, cars, etc) board trains to search for "subversives" or ask people for their papers. Every citizen and alien carried a national identification booklet, equivalent to "papers". More than once I was on a bus stopped by the army and asked for my "documents". I could be stopped on the street at any time and harassed.
The soldiers were always heavily armed and usually very intimidating.
You want that in the United States? You're crazy if you do.
Do want storm troops patrollng the streets and keeping citizens in line? That's what you'll get. The government could declare any incident or situation a "national emergency" and could then send troops to "keep the peace".
Should I say, Zeig heil!!!?
12/5/2008 7:30:49 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
vicious1 wrote:
What's wrong with our own National Guard that is already in place across the country? That is, if our government can leave them alone and keep them here in the USA where they belong. And, by the way, if Washington can figure a way how to "give away" taxpayer money to whomever asks for it as long as they already waste billions of dollars, Washington can figure out a way to pay for our own security for cryin' out loud! Just print some more money! What they've been doing all along!
12/4/2008 8:16:20 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
sinnerjizm wrote:
"...or other domestic catastrophe..."

Think: economic meltdown
12/3/2008 10:39:49 PM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
powersdg wrote:
It is the duty of each individual state to protect its citizens domestically, with this new plan that would be a gross extension of the executive authority that rests with the President.
12/3/2008 10:04:50 PM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
helloisanyoneoutthere wrote:



srb2 wrote:
Did you read the article? Did you look at when this is supposed to happen? Between now and that date, who will be president for almost the entire time?

BO has expressed a tax policy... BO has expressed preferences for his cabinet... why do you think it's so strange for him to have a position on this?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

srb2, Bush also made a policy statement on the Military in Iraq even before the elections saying that the military would be there until December 31, 2011.

Do you think that, at that time Senator Obama had a say in that decision. His proposal has been to remove troops in 16 Months.

Currently, Secretary Paulson has absolute authority over how $750 Billion dollars will be doled out to the financial institutions. Do you think President Elect Obama has a say in this.

President Elect Obama would also like to see a "surge" of American Troops in Afghanistan. Do you see that happening right now, or will you expect to see that happening after January 20, 2009?

Why do you think that President Elect Obama keeps saying currently, there can only be one President and that is President Bush?

Bush is running the show here. The only obligation Bush would have is to inform President Elect of his actions.

President Elect Obama can propose policy all he wants right now, but until he has a veto proof majority in Congress, Obama and the Democratic Congress have no say in what happens until January 20, 2009.






12/3/2008 8:39:19 PM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
allanjudydobson wrote:
All of my life, I have been told that this was what the National Guard is for. I was a member of Army NG
12/3/2008 6:01:04 PM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
sendthemback wrote:
so maybe they will round-up all illegals & box them back!!
12/3/2008 11:36:15 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
repudar711 wrote:
Zawahiri is still behind most terror attacks and who knows about bin Laden. Every time someone insults Zawahiri he thinks he has to go kill some innocent civilians. That's how fragile his ego. I'll go kill some innocent defenseless people and that will show them. So we need to take care of his problem permanently.
12/3/2008 9:44:15 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
repudar711 wrote:
What are you Imarkex, a documented idiot?
12/3/2008 9:34:55 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
repudar711 wrote:
I agree with the comment that this is being done by our present Commander-in-thief.
12/3/2008 9:27:03 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
repudar711 wrote:
Before we start putting troops on US soil why not just get rid of the Middle East.
12/3/2008 9:15:27 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
dunnowhattothink wrote:
I was selected and took one on these surveys in circa 1991/92.
12/3/2008 9:02:46 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Judi1 wrote:
I suggest that no one walk into a trap that would set Bush off to do worse. He could even declare martial law and stay in as president for quite some time. Instead, make written protests and petitions to the legislature.
12/3/2008 1:05:40 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
CGeorge wrote:
This is high treason and it must be stopped.
12/3/2008 12:54:20 AM
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Judi1 wrote:
This has nothing to do with Obama. This is being done by our present commander-in-chief and has been in the works for some time.

U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?
by Chuck Baldwin
October 1, 2008

According to the Army Times (dated Tuesday, September 30, 200, "Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks."

The article continued by saying, "But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/c ... 81001.html

U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens
Published on 2008-02-04
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5482
12/3/2008 12:39:57 AM
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
Imarkex wrote:
This is just the beginning of the "FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE" Obama wants to implement .However Obama is NOT President yet.I among other American citizens DEMAND Obama MUST PROVE he is eligible to be President .Obama is a documented liar many times over therefore I cannot take his word for it that he is eligible.

Remember the show Jericho? I still believe the show was yanked because it offered insight as what to do in times that may be ahead for us. A massive amount of viewers pushed for its return, only to show re-runs then disapeer quickly again.

The Anti-American Civil Liberties Union.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.

The idiots at the AACLU have pi**ed on executive authority for years, or at the very least, federal law. If this ever takes place, I hope the AACLU is the first group to be chucked in a dark hole for acts against the United States and its people.

Dumbama's cabinet members have to be approved by Congress. I'm sending emails and making phone calls demanding their appointments not be approved.

ARE YOU DOING LIKEWISE???????????