It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: U.S. to use troops for domestic security

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
A new set of war plans developed at Northern Command headquarters in Colorado Springs calls for the use of National Guardsmen and active-duty troops to be part of the domestic response team in the case of a terrorist attack on domestic soil.
 



www.newsmax.com
The plans indicate an historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to participate in domestic operations and is legally barred from taking part in law enforcement within the U.S.

Officials told the Post that the troops would for the most part play a supporting role in emergencies, backing up police, firefighters and other response groups. But the officials acknowledge the likelihood that troops will have to take charge in certain situations that could overwhelm civilian resources.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I understand the need for the military to be involved in the case of a large-scale attack (chemical/biological/nuclear), but this seems like a back-door policy. On the surface, it's sounds like a good idea, but this plan could be used to have a military presence around for anywhere the government deems unsafe or insecure. It’s not a stretch to see this as a way of instituting martial law.

I'm including a link to the Washington Post website, but you have to be a registed user to get to the article.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com

[edit on 8/8/2005 by yadboy]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

A contributor voting NO on your submission: (submission) (war) U.S. to use troops for domestic security has indicated they did so because they feel your primary source lacks credibility. Perhaps you should locate another source and edit your submission.


O.K. I got this U2U right after I posted. I mean immediatly after. So the person obviously just saw "Newsmax" and voted NO. If they had bothered to read the article or follow the links, they would have seen that the story is taken from the Washington Post.

I just love the people who vote no for no real reason. Give me a break, try reading the post at least.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I'm not understanding the dynamics of this change, but I thought the National Guard was ALWAYS available for local emergencies: riots, flood and hurricane duties, etc.

Am I missing something??



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I think the difference this would make is that the troops would be deployed faster without having to go through the usual channels. The thing that caught me eye was the mention of using active-duty troops as well. I would love to read the actual war-plan to see just what areas of law enforcement/civil services this would effect.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Just wondering about the News Mag web site - anyone know how credible it is?

Dallas



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Just wondering about the News Mag web site - anyone know how credible it is?


Washington Times is somewhat credible(as credible as any other regular conservative news outlet) but Newsmax on the other hand is not credible in the slightest. Very oh how do you say it tabloid reporting style.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I keep getting no votes on source, but I think it's just a democrat conspiracy


Newsmax definitely leans to the right, but I've been going there for a few years and have yet to see anything that was misleading. They have kind on of cheesy site, but theirs stories always check out, at least in my experience.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
@ Dallas
If I make a suggestion?
Why not go to Newsmax.com and see for yourself. Read a few of the stories and make your own decision. Why go by what others think when you can see with your own eyes.

Mewsmax does lean to the right, and is not the most elegant website, but I figure that reasonable people can read a story and decide for themselves.
Some sites lean to the right, some to the left *shrugs*

Now, back on topic, please:

yadboy, thanks for that info. I think at this time, the governor has to call out the National Guard. I see the state's governors as being the "commander in chief" in these emergency call-ups. I'm not sure how much easier it could be, unless the event would be a lesser emergency or something tied to the Patriot Act.



[edit on 8-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Atsnn pollution..

This ones already spoiled.

If the voting process is discussed within a thread, that will potentially sit
on our front door...I will vote no..

sorry, but that's how I feel.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I did go to the site, as I do with all News Stories up for submission. Between yourself and others who took the time to answe my query - thanks. I'll vote now.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...#


This is something that people should be aware of, just to know what your rights are, and how the United States will act if there is a WMD attack in the continental US. this is something that could be very real in the next few years.

Do you feel that the military should not be sent in to restore the unrest, or should that be handled on a state or federal (FEMA) level? what happened to debate on this site?

If this happens, half of you will suddnely want to know why, and call the republican in office a warmonger for sending the Army into downtown Detroit after a dirty bomb attack, or if a Democrat is in office still blame Bush and Co.

People, AQ is real and so is terrorism, and there are people in this world who hate us. I mean, if there are Americans who live in the splendor that is called the US, and can sit behind their computers and hate our leader and country, think how MUCH the 19 y/o who lost his whole family in a ethnic uprising, was transplanted from Iran to Iraq at 9, fighting with an Ak at 13, and has never had a real home hates us.

Sorry for the rant



However, again, does anyone have a view on this.....

[edit on 8-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Atsnn pollution..

This ones already spoiled.

If the voting process is discussed within a thread, that will potentially sit
on our front door...I will vote no..

sorry, but that's how I feel.


The only reason I mention the voting is because the person obviously voted before actually reading the post and exploring the links. There have been at least 5 No votes on this story, but I only specifically metioned the first because the person obviouly didn't "deny ignorance" which is what ATS is all about. If you wanna vote no, that's fine, I just don't appreciate a NO vote so fast that you know the person didn't really take the time to read the post. That's where the real pollution is coming from...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Sounds like they're getting ready for the next "big one" in the good 'ol US of A. Not that they need to do this if a nuclear bomb goes off in Chicago, but it certainly will make it much easier to establish martial law if/when it does happen.

Our rights are being stripped away consistently and few people seem to even raise an eyebrow anymore.
Sure, there are terrorists in the world. There always has been and there always will be... they just have different names and come from different backgrounds with different agendas. There are terrorists on the school yard, in your television programming, and everywhere in this world trying to make us fearful. Taking away freedom will NOT protect us, but will rather bring us all closer to a world police state in which terrorism is the staple used by law enforcement and government to control everyone.

Terrorism extends beyond roadside bombs...

Ultimately, we as individuals have to start choosing love over fear. Peace starts in the heart and works out from there, not the other way around.

Peace to you all.

~Jammer+

P.s. One last note, what is all the talk about voting on threads? It seems to be so common and I personally don't see why anyone cares. Can someone explain this? Thanx.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Yep, sounds like Martial Law creeping ever closer in the U.S.
Once these changes happen there is no way they are going to go back. Not a good sign.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I would very much love to see the particulars of these documents.
What exactly would be "acceptable" for deployment of gound-forces "to assist Law Enforcement". I would also love to see what (if any) kind of timeline they have set up for the military to return operations to local law enforcements.
These documents could very well indeed be considered giant steps to outlining and legitimizing Martial Law on US soil.
yadboy
I am going to link your thread to my own thread
To Arms! To Arms A Call for all Americans! Time to overthrow the Goverment!
which examines some reasons why there is a need for the US citizen to call the goverment to task on it's actions.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I'm not understanding the dynamics of this change, but I thought the National Guard was ALWAYS available for local emergencies: riots, flood and hurricane duties, etc.

Am I missing something??


Yes you are missing something, as a matter of fact. You see a large portion of the US "National Guard"-you know, the ones supposed to guard OUR nation, are fighting in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Ah,

So the sleeping giant moves another chess peice into play, it wont be long now before we are put into Check... I just hope we have the brains to side step this and make a decisive victory of our own... If not, its only a matter of time before it is check-mate...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I really do not see any issue with using the Guard for domestic items as we do already. Of course, assuming there are any left here in the states vs being in Iraq. The US gov't can impose martial law with or without this new policy thus I do not see how this is any real change.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Originally posted by anniejhops
[...] I do not see how this is any real change.


It just gives the government a burocratic loophole to take advantage of... It wont be long before you see the Army doing house raids "Because they are better trained than the FBI..."

These kind of things are just small peices in a puzzle, yet to reveal the big picture...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The Washington Post Article - direct link

The Washington Post article goes far more in depth than the newsmax article does - the WP article is 3 pages long, and quite detailed. After reading the WP article, I am in agreement with some who have posted in this thread before me: on the surface, this seems like a good solution to the potential for attack, yet given the track record of the current administration (not to mention the track records of several administrations preceeding the current one) regarding honesty, I'd have to seriously doubt the true intentions of this move, especially given the mention that the WP made regarding the fact that the Department of Homeland Security and NORCOM has 14 lawyers on its legal team, in comparison to the next largest number for a single department at 10 lawyers - all those lawyers on the government payroll screams "finding loopholes!"

As has been discussed many times on ATS, it seems that the US government is moving the nation closer and closer towards a police state. If the 2nd Amendment argument is found to be valid, then it appears that it is solely the discretion of the president as to where he wants to place troops, and with a cover story and plausible deniability, he could pretty much put troops anywhere in the country that he wanted, for any reason, with any orders. For instance, I could wake up one day, and find my hometown of Baltimore City under military control, only to find out that "major terror cells have been discovered in the city, and an attack was thwarted," when in actuality, nothing really happened. This is possible, given that Baltimore is home to one of the largest seaports on the US East Coast - The Port of Baltimore (and we all know how much they like to strike at financial/transportation targets).

I caught a glimpse of what this would be like on the evening of 9/11/01, after the dust had settled from the attacks that morning. As I drove home through the city, the streets were lined with National Guardsmen and police in full riot gear, all with fully automatic weapons. Civilians were nowhere to be seen on the streets, which is highly unusual, especially in the harbor district, which is the tourism hub of the city. As I drove through the city, I was being watched by every officer and guardsman lining the streets. To be quite honest, that scared the (expletive deleted) out of me - much more so than the attacks that morning did.

I feel that if the president is given the ability to place military troops on domestic soil, it's only a matter of time before manditory, permanent curfews are implemented, random searches are commonplace, and arrest without being charged in a timely manner will be the rule, not the exception.

All said and done, I don't like it. Not one bit.







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join