The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S

reply to post by wonderworld


Yes, HR675...Civilian Security Force. That is quite the scary peice of legislation. I wont say what I really think!



Large Troop Deployment to Iraq

Does any of this have to do with the recent battles the states governors have been having with the Federal government regarding control of the local Guard forces? If the Governors are saying “No thank you.” and trying to keep control of their own states Guard, then why now are they being sent overseas? What could be so important.

www.infowars.com...

uh it doesn't make sense. if military are seen as threats to TPTB by homeland sec guy, why would they then use them on our homeland to enforce law and order? tis a head scratcher.

i mean, stationing 400k military on your own soil, with guns, and the authority to use them, while believing all along that they are a threat to national security is weird.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I should have worded that differently but did mean that government troops would fire back if fired on. That was an answer to some that are hoping the G-boys will not fight against the citizenry at large.

reply to post by burntheships


Thank you BTS! That was well articulated and very much in line with my thoughts. "Management by crisis" and "divide and conquer" indeed. This is slightly more than management by crisis. That term is typically linked to poor management with little forethought that spawns crisis. When the crisis strike, the management is engulfed in dealing with the crisis. In this case they (the governmnent) are producing the crisis to initiate their desired management reponses.

Excellent reply, excellent thread. Thanks again.

reply to post by burntheships

Here in Uk, we don't have 400,000 troops, what troops we do have are in Afganistan & Iraq. So our great leaders have come up with another plan, nmaely surveliance camera's, we are the most zapped nation, a londer can be zapped upto 300 times in one day with the various cameras around. We have speed cameras, traffic light camers, bus lane cameras, parking cameras, police cameras, private mall camera's etc and now the government plans to install cameras in the homes of problem families (whatever that means). it reminds me of the old quote:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

www.vitalisnews.com...

Uuuhhhhhh they've have military personnel posted in major cities all over the US for years. Armed and ready to take action..

It's called the National Guard.

reply to post by maybereal11


Do you have a link to the thread?

The First Patriot Act gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth. The Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal Government and many other areas of state government under the control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.



NorthCom

The Military Commissions Act, Repeal of Posse Comitatus and Revision of the 1807 Insurrection Act

October 17 was doubly heinous as George Bush also quietly and privately signed into law a revision to the 1807 Insurrection Act. It was hidden in Sections 1076 and 333 of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Two hundred years of tradition along with the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibit using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as allowed by the Constitution or authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection. Under the new law, the chief executive can claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law and send federal and National Guard troops to the nation's streets to suppress whatever he calls public disorder that may include peaceful demonstrations against wars of aggression and rightful demands for restoration of our constitutional rights now abandoned.

The new law authorizes a direct role for the Pentagon including use and transfer of state-of-the-art crowd control weapons and technology to state and local responders. It's intended to militarize them and blur the distinction between those from the Pentagon and local law enforcement agencies - very ominous and clear police state tactical readiness only needing a trigger, sure to come, to make them operational.....

alaskafreepress.com...

And...

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 essentially bit the dust on October 17th, 2006 when President Bush quietly signed into law the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), effectively positioning the US Government full and complete autonomy at a federal level regardless and irrespective of local authority. Sec. 1042 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 allows the President to override all state and local authority and station troops anywhere in the US as well as relinquishes the National Guard of control without the consent of the Governor or local authorities in order to "suppress public disorder". The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities currently under construction by Halliburton.

The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335), designed to protect the citizens of the United States against unfair martial law by enforcing strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement along with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 were two laws which specifically served to protect the American people against undue diligence or governmental power. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibited federal military personnel under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Congress, a right which our ancestors felt was inherently important--important enough to enact an entire act around this. Together, these two acts served to substantially limit the powers of the federal government's use of military for law enforcement.

We have the Military Commissions Act along with the Defense Authorization Act, which virtually destroy Habeas Corpus. All these from our federal government, with our states following suit by enacting or trying to enact laws restricting free speech and encroaching upon our Second Amendment rights.url

[edit on 14-8-2009 by burntheships]

reply to post by vitalisnews

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

That has always been one of my most favorite sayings.
There but for the grace of God walk I.
You are right, we are all in this together. The politicians try to divide people so that their opposition is weak. People need to stick together.

Further stating that the creation of USNorthCom to serve in the capacity as cristened by the Patriot Act is to establish a militarized North American Union police state.

That would be encompassing The North American Union.

This agreement helps to further erode the sovereignty of both nations by allowing a foreign military to support that nation’s military during any type of civil emergency. Essentially, Canadian military forces would be allowed to support U.S. military forces during a declaration of martial law. This is just another step towards the formation of a North American Union martial law apparatus which USNORTHCOM unveiled with the public release of their Vision 2020 document.

salonesoterica.wordpress.com...

NorthCom 2020
www.roguegovernment.com...

Since research seems to be skimpy in this thread; the following facts are here for your education and enlightenment.

Cumulative number of troops being assigned to Afghanistan, 38,000 (Aprox) (current as of Aug 2009), with the following being added. 8000 Marines from Lejeune and 4000 Soldiers from Fort Lewis.

Source : www.cnn.com...

Approximate total deployed in Iraq as of July 2009, 128,000. (Most of which are in the process standing down from Iraq and may be returned to the states or redeployed to Afghanistan.)

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Number of personnel
Army 548,000
Marine Corps 201,031
Navy 332,000
Air Force 323,000
Coast Guard 41,000
Total Active 1,445,000

Army National Guard 353,000
Army Reserve 205,000
Marine Forces Reserve 40,000
Navy Reserve 67,000
Air National Guard 107,000
Air Force Reserve 67,000
Coast Guard Reserve 11,000

Total Reserve 850,000
Source en.wikipedia.org...

Personnel stationing (EG Where they are.)

Overseas

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[17] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany, the 33,122 in Japan, 28,500 in Republic of Korea, 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 84,488 military personnel are located in Europe, 154 in the former Soviet Union, 70,719 in East Asia and the Pacific, 7,850 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 2,727 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 2,043 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.

Within the United States

Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters

A total of 1,083,027 personnel are on active duty within the United States and its territories (including those afloat):

The vast majority, 883,430 of them, are stationed at various bases within the Continental United States. There are an additional 36,827 in Hawaii and 19,828 in Alaska. 90,218 are at sea while there are 2,970 in Guam and 137 in Puerto Rico.

So for those of you with no military experience, this means that there are twice over the number of troops in the states, just the Army alone could fill that 400k request. Which means, that with the request, half of the total US Based Forces can be repositioned to one place, in a time of crisis.

Just to clear on the matter, the Military can not just reposition troops at a whim, even in a national emergency. It requires planning: on transportation, housing, food, communications, and a myriad of sub tasks that have to be approved, funded and carried out, and most importantly, budgeted!

I know from experience that to move the 3rd ACR, from Ft. Bliss to their new home in Colorado, took several months of meetings, -prior- to the start of the move. Then during the move itself, which took over three months to complete, there were hundreds of more meetings to make sure all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted, and that -everything- was properly accounted for. Then AFTER the move, the follow on team spent hundreds of more hours and meetings just making sure nothing was missed.

So let me make this absolutely clear: Without having such requests and permissions established, which if you have not figured out, allots money and resources to such a positioning should it be needed... vital time would be wasted.

If should an emergency arise that needs those troops, and such permissions, funding and what not, not be in place; it would take a Presidential Executive Order, which would have to be vetted by the Senate and the Congress later on, to move those same troops in an emergency.

Which is to say, the 'emergency force' would have to dig out of their base's operational budget to carry out those orders.

That money, which -is- budgeted from the various base's over-all operational fund, is re-budgeted a number of times until it actually gets down to brigade/battalion/regimental/company level. So after they get done with the emergency, they would be scrambling to cover the costs of 'troop' maintenance and training.

With the establishing of this 'request' and the funding it would supply, not to mention all the pre-planning involved; the various bases do not get the monetary shaft, when a crisis comes up. Nor would training and the quality of life of our Armed Forces suffer from it.

---

When Katrina hit, everyone bitched "Where is the Federal Government? What did it take three days to get the ball rolling? Why didn't the President / Federal Government step up and do something?"

So in the aftermath of that, some four years after Katrina; After we have had an major shift of politicians in office, we finally are getting a commitment from the Government to handle such major crisis. Four Years AFTER Katrina, and one President later!!!!

Which to my way of thinking is: 3 years and 11 months too late!

-----

And for all you FEMA death camp / internment enthusiasts:

Where do you think such an emergency force would be sheltered or work from? The Hilton? The Marriott? Super 8?????

And while the Army can operate from tents, it is healthier (for morale and general health) for the troops to be billeted in good housing. After all if your work force is unable to rest and recover, they quickly become part of the problem; rather than a solution to the problem. Not to mention needing a place for their own cooks, medical, logistics and command personnel, to work from.

Also consider if you will, FEMA actually being on the ball (for a change), and admitting they don't have the manpower to handle large crisis problems, saying. "We can make billeting for personnel to work from, and maintain such billeting for disaster relief. And have it ready on demand!" Since the housing etc can cover a multitude of scenarios, it is easier to justify funding for.

---
I'm sure the nay-sayers and the prophets of doom will choose to ignore the need for such preparations (or harp on mythical threats from them); but then I also suspect they were also among the groups saying.

"WTF why didn't the Federal Government / Bush do something?"

They Have, 4 years later,
M.

And...coincidence? August 14th, 2009

Chief says Guard cannot go back to Strategic Reserve

General McKinley added that the guard cannot return to a model of one weekend a month and two weeks a year.

www.af.mil...

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Do you have a link to the thread?

Yes. You wrote it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Do you have a link to the thread?

Yes. You wrote it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And your point is?

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Um actually that U.S. forces has won against such a war in the Phillipines just after the Spanish-American War.

reply to post by traderjack


Look at the Phillipines campaign in the early 20th century after the Spanish-American War. Lets just say it may surprise you.

Confused. Where does this article discuss UN Troops?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

This is the perfect excuse to allow foreign UN troops to do the police work, or even some of the more brainwashed within our military, which there are a few, who don't care about people's rights.
[edit on 14-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by toraylin
When they have UN troops on every corner listening taking orders from an administration bent on controlling its own people. How much do you think they will care what happens to you?

Originally posted by Dbriefed

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Star, and flag.
So, to myself, this looks like the implementation of UN troops.

Agreed! And why do you think they want to use foreign UN troops....I'll tell you, do you think Fran from Germany really gives a rat's a s s about putting a bullet through Joe American Schmoe? Hell no he doesn't.

It sure conveniently drops the moral factor when you think about it.

I agree. There are similar precedents

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by Dbriefed
There are similar precedents, friends tell me that during the Iranian revolution, Iranians didn't want to shoot Iranians, so the revolutionaries imported enforcers from Palestine to shoot Iranians.

Actually! I think those guys in Iran were 'Ansar-e Hezbollah' and some Shi'a Islamists 'Hezbollah' mostly from Lebanon - and not guys from Palestine.

So maybe your 'friends' got it wrong!?

Peace!


[edit on 13-8-2009 by Chevalerous]

You may be right. I also heard stories about opening up anti-aircraft guns up on crowds of citizens during the revolution. The point is, that if locals didn't want to level their sights on locals, outsiders would be brought in. Lots of propaganda may still be needed to influence the gunners, so PsyOps special operations guys would be activated domestically and be pretty busy demonizing the citizenry.

reply to post by burntheships


I don't want to distract the thread...but my "point is" that you asked for a link to the thread that had already discussed this and I provided it.

Let's keep thread on topic...you can U2 me if you want to continue to discuss.

reply to post by maybereal11


Actually the thread you mentioned www.abovetopsecret.com... is part of this post...as I included it related ATS threads in the Original Post.

So it is on topic to discuss it. However, I think the point you were trying to make is that this thread is irrelevant as that thread was already posted? This is a breaking news forum.

However, since you brought up the other thread, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few of the more direct connections, and relevant points of that thread.

For instance, you are supportive of USNORTHCOM being used for disaters...does that mean that you are supportive of USNORTHCOM being used for law enforcement?

Use of NORTHCOM as law enforcement is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the States...

However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.
"My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?" according to New York police officer Ed Aquino.
"We have not used armed federal troops in New York since the Civil War when Union troops and Navy battleships attacked dissenters who opposed conscription by the Union Army," she added.

www.examiner.com...




[edit on 14-8-2009 by burntheships]

[edit on 14-8-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by burntheships

The Military Commissions Act, Repeal of Posse Comitatus and Revision of the 1807 Insurrection Act

October 17 was doubly heinous as George Bush also quietly and privately signed into law a revision to the 1807 Insurrection Act.

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 allows the President to override all state and local authority and station troops anywhere in the US as well as relinquishes the National Guard of control without the consent of the Governor or local authorities in order to "suppress public disorder". The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities currently under construction by Halliburton.
[edit on 14-8-2009 by burntheships]

Posse Comitatus Act
en.wikipedia.org...

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.[3]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies".

As of 2008, these changes have been repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.

* If we are going to be qouting lengthy laws taking up space, lets at least make sure they are applicable and actually on the books.

Otherwise people might think you are being misleading...