Author Topic: Washington Post-PENTAGON TO DEPLOY 20,000 TROOPS INSIDE USA  (Read 5254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wouldntyouliketoknow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
« on: December 01, 2008, 09:51:33 am »
Drudge also has this as a headline and link

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."

Offline Capt. Obvious

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,347
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2008, 09:53:04 am »
not good

Offline wouldntyouliketoknow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2008, 10:16:42 am »
No not good at all but very interesting that it is making into MSM. They want to start getting their spin out there it seems.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 10:57:47 am »
By troops do they mean to say US troops or Blackwater and other mercenary units.. or a combination, or what.

I have heard we, our troopers , will be taking orders from Nato troops, is this on the level. In our own country we will be ordered around by foreigners.

Well guys, this is not the begginning, they have stepped into the circle long ago, thse plans were on their wartables years ago.

I go along with Tatum, the year 2000, F&¨%%&¨ck 2012.
They are in control now.

Offline national732

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • Wake up call...the republic has been stolen.
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 10:58:31 am »

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.


And if you don't go along with it (insert media buzzphrase here) "you must be supporting terrorism!"

At 20 seconds is your answer:

  Here is an audio clip of MSNBC*HVm59bc8NB-OU9e3cYRgtLU5wSniRywFOswxvjyiPl/msnbcsecretprison.mp3

Do you have enough food on hand to feed your family for a year?

" The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy."
                  - Carroll Quigley


  • Guest
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2008, 02:33:13 pm »

OPERATION FALCON: Practice Makes Perfect

        "But how would all those potential incompatibles, certainly tens of thousands and likely far more, find their way to an appropriate detention center? After all, the Bush administration has managed to prosecute only a handful of businesses for hiring illegal aliens who number in the millions. Its clearly a matter of priorities. So, despite such distractions as hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department has been conducting mass arrest exercises code named Operation Falcon, (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally), whereby thousands of law enforcement officers from federal, state, county and local agencies arrested some 10,000 individuals within seven days, working from lists provided by the U.S. Marshall’s Service, all coordinated to commence across the country simultaneously. Since practice makes perfect, four mass arrest exercises have been conduced: Two national (Falcon I April 4-10, 2005 arresting 10,340; Falcon II April 17-23, 2006 arresting 9,037); and one “eastern half of the country” (Falcon III October 22-28, 2006 arresting 10,733).


        The latest, Falcon IV (renamed Falcon 2007), continues narrowing the focus with regional exercises, such as Operation FALCON-Baltimore (February 2007, arresting 195)and Operation FALCON-Indianapolis (May 2007, arresting 283) as well as 27 other regional exercises  (from July 8, 2007 to September 16, 2007), arresting a total 6,406 "fugitives", including "235 for not registering as sex offenders" and "300 documented gang members" making for excellent press. In fact, the main focus of Falcon 2007 was gang members and sex offenders, neither of whom were prepared to match the federal public relations effort, which includes raw video footage (more raw footage) passed to corporate media that shows police raids with positive commentary, no questions asked and no critics heard. What has not changed is the operational profile: federally prepared arrest lists, distributed to local, state, and federal police agencies, who arrest as many as possible within a week's time, usually starting before dawn on Sunday morning.


        What can not be found among these data and reports is mention of any legitimate law enforcement purpose uniquely served by these coordinated, mass arrests, where little or no connection exists among the targets. According to the then Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “Operation FALCON is an excellent example of President Bush’s direction and the Justice Department’s dedication to deal both with the terrorist threat and traditional violent crime,” but failing to mention that none of the over 30,000 arrests was for a terror-related crime. While some arrested were serious criminals, most were of the non-responding warrantee, technical parole violator, and support payment delinquent sort, soon released. The important element here appears to be getting operational experience and, perhaps most critically, habituating state and local police agencies to conducting mass arrests from lists provided by the federal government. In the eastern regional Falcon III alone, 103 state agencies, 430 county sheriff's offices/departments and 482 police departments did just that according to the U.S. Marshals Service web site. At the current pace, perhaps Falcon 2007 was the last drill and then the real thing: Operation Falcon V (or Falcon 2008). Throughout history mass arrests are solely an instrument of political repression, just as they would be here.


Operation Falcon V: This is Not a Drill


        So its likely, when Bush addresses his fellow citizens after declaring the national emergency, many of his critics will be listening most attentively to detention camp loud speakers. As for how detainees will be treated, one can assume every effort will be made to maintain our current standards for indefinite detention without trial and torture assisted interrogation, where little slip-ups under the press of numbers and emergency conditions are likely to be of little consequence.


Mass Detention Logistics


        An article by former congressman Dan Hamburg reports: "According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month." Given a national mass detention arrest rate of about 50,000 per week, it would still take federal and local authorities roughly 15 weeks to arrest them all. This estimate ignores two mutually offsetting factors: first, the law of diminishing returns resulting from the likely increasing difficulty in locating those to be arrested; second, the total arrests need only be a fraction of the potential arrestees to accomplish the primary objective quickly: wide-spread fear, thereby intimidating the general population.


Martial Law Preparations and Resistance


        In addition to mass arrest and detention preparations, the administration has taken steps to prepare for the implementation of martial law. For example, the FBI program InfraGuard, claiming to be "a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector" with "more than 23,000 representatives of private industry" has been reported to be discussing with elements of the business community their role "when" martial law is declared. Another program is "urban warfare training" that used US Army and Marine troops to conduct martial law like practice deployments in American communities. And a widely reported program to use clergy to secure the cooperation of the population in areas under martial law.


        These preparations address a highly unpredictable factor: Possible general resistance to mass detention and martial law, which could range from subtle passive inefficiencies, through institutional impediments such as political and legal objections, to manifest active interference. The sequence, frequency, and intensity of such resistance might well follow historic patterns, but could deviate into the unprecedented, given the potentially significant destabilizing effects of martial law, greatly complicating both mass detention logistics in particular and martial law operations in general. This would likely depend on whether the American people can be convinced to worry about some other threat more than the threat from the government itself. An effort burdened by the fact that for each arrest of apparently law abiding citizens or disruptions of daily life by martial law, it is likely that an equal or greater number would join the aggrieved, producing more opponents than it eliminates.


        This arises from the nature of mass detentions because they are based principally on "status offenses", arising from government declarations about an individual's status, such as "enemy combatant" or "potential terrorist" or "threat to national security" or "danger to public order", rather than from specific criminal acts. This contradicts the generally held American view that thoughts or beliefs, and expressions thereof, particularly criticisms of the government and its policies, should not be the basis for deprivations of life, liberty, and property. And large scale detentions of citizens for such status offenses would likely be perceived as a grave, unconstitutional threat to the fundamental liberty of the people, no matter what law Congress may have passed to allow it or inherent powers a president claims permit it. It is possible, given significant general opposition, that municipalities or states might themselves undertake direct resistance to such detentions to protect their citizens, especially if those so detained were held without trial, perceived to be at risk from mistreatment and torture, or subject to the judgments of military tribunals including execution. Clearly, large scale or institutional resistance, whatever its immediate outcome, would be further destabilizing.


        The political calculus informing the decision to declare a national emergency would include the assumption that a state of crisis would itself provide substantial support, however temporary, among the populace for the nation's leadership, as it always does. However, the endemic level of distrust toward the current government, and Bush in particular, is such that resistance to starting a war with Iran or to staging a coup d'état by national emergency would likely spread once begun and be difficult to contain. This, however, is more relevant is assessing the likelihood of  either a wide refusal of orders or a general insurrection rather than in predicting Bush's appreciation of the situation before he acts.                   


No Need to Worry, Its Only Temporary


        What is certain, should a coup d'état by national emergency take place, is it will be denied even as it unfolds, and this is likely to be followed by assurances it will be temporary, lasting "not one day more than it needs to", followed by complaints about disappointing levels of cooperation (never mentioning any acts of resistance) being responsible for prolonging the state of emergency, threats of severe punishment and asset seizure for those related to or harboring fugitives wanted by the authorities, and finally appeals to turn in others if you want your own relatives released from detention or your property/assets returned.


        To sustain a permanent state of national emergency, Bush will likely take every opportunity to claim it is temporary. One can imagine him insisting he did it to protect the nation and to restore order, even as he attacks the nation's most vital institutions, arrests law abiding citizens, and causes increasing chaos. And an even more disciplined corporate media will ignore these blatant deviations from reality, except to repeat administration claims again and again.


Corporate Media: Dallas Uber Alles


        What is likely to be important in most corporate media, continuing its de facto censorship and warmongering,  is demonstrating our determination to carry on, starting with the most common advice to all good citizens: "keep shopping." While its likely every effort will be made to retain the trappings of the old republic, perhaps our national anthem with its "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" might be a bit much for a budding police state trying to keep its population fearful, so one can imagine an exciting national contest conducted by corporate media, as a public service, to select the proper anthem for our new world order. Perhaps "God Bless American", or, more radically, something stirring along the lines of "Deutschland Uber Alles", except with a touch of Texas twang as in "Dallas Uber Alles", in an arrangement using fewer trombones plus a weeping steel guitar. However, since this is such an important decision, our new anthem, with its companion homeland prayer and logo, should be selected by ‘We the People of the United States’ from among three finalists chosen by our First Lady, in our first-ever national referendum, proving yet again our commitment to democracy and putting all those new voting machines to use in November '08 after all."


  • Guest
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 02:52:21 pm »
WTF People!!!! This is nuts. Everything is *really* starting like has been said many times over. My wife said all the people in Russia are laughing becuase they know America is crashing like the Soviet Union crashed. They are asking her when she is going to come home to a free country.