PDA

View Full Version : 20,000 troops to be deployed... in the US.


avatar4321
12-01-2008, 07:59 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html

Does this bother anyone else?
Kathianne
12-01-2008, 08:03 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html

Does this bother anyone else?

I thought this was brought up earlier?
5stringJeff
12-01-2008, 08:24 PM
Yeah, it bothers the hell out of me. I read this at work today. Whatever happened to the Posse Comitatus Act? Why can't FEMA, or other governemnt agencies (Lord knows we've got enough of them) be trained to provide first response in the case of a nuclear/bio/chem incident?

The military has no business deploying within the borders of the US, unless a foreign enemy is attacking us.
Mr. P
12-01-2008, 08:51 PM
I could go for an adviser trained in Chemical, Biological and Nuclear stuff assigned to each major city perhaps..But a rapid-reaction force? NO WAY!
manu1959
12-01-2008, 09:06 PM
i have no problem with our military being stationed within our borders ...it is where they should all be......reopen all the closed military bases.....staion all our military there....jobs would be created and communities revitalized.....

rather here than ....cuba...diego....garcia...iraq....kuwait...dubi ...germany...england...japan...korea....
Yurt
12-01-2008, 10:08 PM
Yeah, it bothers the hell out of me. I read this at work today. Whatever happened to the Posse Comitatus Act? Why can't FEMA, or other governemnt agencies (Lord knows we've got enough of them) be trained to provide first response in the case of a nuclear/bio/chem incident?

The military has no business deploying within the borders of the US, unless a foreign enemy is attacking us.

isn't the point of this to protect against foreign terrorists? 9/11....i believe the intent is to train them against foreign terror acts.

and manu has a good point. but i can't help but believe that our military bases overseas played a crucial role in helping us win the cold war.
Mr. P
12-01-2008, 10:12 PM
isn't the point of this to protect against foreign terrorists? 9/11....i believe the intent is to train them against foreign terror acts.

and manu has a good point. but i can't help but believe that our military bases overseas played a crucial role in helping us win the cold war.

Yurt, a rapid-reaction force is used "after" the fact, so no it's not to "protect against".

Think SWAT.
crin63
12-01-2008, 10:17 PM
This way it will be easier for more Waco and Ruby Ridge type experiences.

All enemies foreign and domestic.
Yurt
12-01-2008, 10:24 PM
Yurt, a rapid-reaction force is used "after" the fact, so no it's not to "protect against".

Think SWAT.

i know, after the fact of a foreign enemy attack, such as a nuclear attack. i don't think think that steps on the normal roles of police power. the national guard was called up after 9/11 to patrol US streets. if we were under nuclear attack, i wouldn't mind having a military swat trained to deal with that kind of attack.
Mr. P
12-01-2008, 10:36 PM
i know, after the fact of a foreign enemy attack, such as a nuclear attack. i don't think think that steps on the normal roles of police power. the national guard was called up after 9/11 to patrol US streets. if we were under nuclear attack, i wouldn't mind having a military swat trained to deal with that kind of attack.

Good no worries then, cause if that ever does happen the military will be out in force just like 911..No need to put them there before they're needed in that capacity..is there?
Kathianne
12-01-2008, 10:39 PM
i know, after the fact of a foreign enemy attack, such as a nuclear attack. i don't think think that steps on the normal roles of police power. the national guard was called up after 9/11 to patrol US streets. if we were under nuclear attack, i wouldn't mind having a military swat trained to deal with that kind of attack.

I'm not being facetious, but how would a SWAT or any response help in the vicinity of a nuclear attack?
Yurt
12-01-2008, 10:44 PM
Good no worries then, cause if that ever does happen the military will be out in force just like 911..No need to put them there before they're needed in that capacity..is there?

i would want them trained for it on our soil and here to protect us against other foreign threats. as long as don't interfere in normal police activity or that defined under that act, i don't see the problem.


K,

i would rather have something then nothing
retiredman
12-01-2008, 10:59 PM
I'm not being facetious, but how would a SWAT or any response help in the vicinity of a nuclear attack?

bingo
Mr. P
12-01-2008, 11:01 PM
i would want them trained for it on our soil and here to protect us against other foreign threats. as long as don't interfere in normal police activity or that defined under that act, i don't see the problem.


K,

i would rather have something then nothing

They ARE trained in it and would be deployed if needed. They are here now, ready if called upon and don't interfere with normal police activity. So, why change what we have now? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yurt
12-01-2008, 11:18 PM
They ARE trained in it and would be deployed if needed. They are here now, ready if called upon and don't interfere with normal police activity. So, why change what we have now? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

they are trained to deal with the military implications of an attack like that? i can't believe after such an attack we would have no need for military assistance. i would be surprised if martial law was not declared.
Mr. P
12-01-2008, 11:22 PM
they are trained to deal with the military implications of an attack like that? i can't believe after such an attack we would have no need for military assistance. i would be surprised if martial law was not declared.

Sheeezzzzzzz I donno where yer coming from tonight. Sounds like a fifth of Jack though...donno.
5stringJeff
12-01-2008, 11:27 PM
The military is there to wage combat. After a chemical/nuclear attack, if there is no foreign enemy there to fight, the military has no business being there. Mr. P mentioned advisors, and I agree: if a military officer is around in an advisory role, that would be one thing. Deploying battalions of troops around a city after a chemical attack, with no enemy around, is another.
Yurt
12-01-2008, 11:30 PM
Sheeezzzzzzz I donno where yer coming from tonight. Sounds like a fifth of Jack though...donno.

how so? are you saying that under martial law the military would not be deployed within our borders? just because i do not have a problem with military being trained to handle a catastrophic event within our borders at the hands of foreign terrorists make me drunk?

you're funny
gabosaurus
12-02-2008, 01:55 AM
I think all of our troops in the Middle East should be removed and used to defend our country. We could call it a "reverse surge."
crin63
12-02-2008, 10:14 AM
I guess I'm just paranoid but I don't like this at all. It sounds like a provision for rapid deployment to control crowds quickly if people don't like whats going on in the federal government and start protesting to intensely.

I asked guys I worked with that were ex-military what their opinions were of using military force against the people at Waco. For the most part they were okay with it so long as the government said they were domestic enemies. What constitutes a domestic enemy, anyone the government finds as a thorn in their side or wants to make an example of.

Hypothetically if there came a point where the government decided to eliminate certain rights and they expected strong resistance what would their military strategy be? Would they want troops poised and ready to put down any resistance? Would anyone who resisted be considered a domestic enemy?