Posted on 12/01/2008 7:52:18 AM PST by Historix
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This will happen..Prepare for Martial Law! One of Obama’s nominee’s said they will be used in case of a Nuke attack or Bio/Chemical attack. Biden said their will be an attack within the first 6 months of an Obama presidency. Put it together an attack using a Nuke,Bio, or Chemical weapon is Obama’s excuse for Emergency Powers!!
I should have put “conservatives” in quotes.
I am talking about the cops-never-did-wrong element of conservatism you see on FreeRepublic.
My cousin, the prison guard, comes to mind. He’d be first in line for the power of a domestic Gestapo.
They don't have to be citizens:
Service During Hostilities : By Executive Order Number 13269, dated July 3, 2002, President Bush declared that all those persons serving honorably in active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States at any time on or after September 11, 2001 until a date to be announced, are eligible to apply for naturalization in accordance with the service during hostilities statutory exception in Section 329 of the INA to the naturalization requirements. This means that individuals with even one day of honorable active duty service can apply for citizenship, regardless of how long they have been a resident. (snip)
Recruiting the undocumented for the military is proposed Noncitizens account for about 5 percent of the troops in all the branches of the U.S. military. Noncitizens now must have green cards to enlist. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2007565/posts
The FBI's 2007 report on gang membership in the military states that the military's recruit screening process is ineffective, allows gang members/extremists to enter the military, and lists at least eight instances in the last three years in which gang members have obtained military weapons for their illegal enterprises.[21] "Gang Activity in the U.S. Armed Forces Increasing", dated January 12, 2007, states that street gangs including the Gangster Disciples, Bloods, Crips, Black Disciples, Hells Angels , Tiny Rascal Gang , Asian Boyz , Latin Kings, The 18th Street Gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Mexican Mafia, Maravilla, Norteños, Sureños, Vice Lords, and Black P. Stones (snip)
Maybe it has something to do with BHO natural born citizen issues that may cause civil unrest? Don’t know, just a guess.
Also, unless there are civil issues, I don’t take this to mean they are rolling the streets. I think they are simply on a heightened awareness and will be trained on specific situations that may happen on our home soil.
I don’t like it, but for the world we live in today, it may be the best alternative to protect our country. Now if they get carried away with it, that’s another story . . .
Yeah and that does not include the Private Military Contractors (PMC’s) at all.
Also...
Kampala — Ugandans who want a career in the United States military, can sign up at the annual convention of the Uganda North American Association, organisers say.
American military recruiters will set up a booth at this year’s UNAA convention in Orlando, Florida, and seek out professional Ugandans, said Lt. Frank Musisi, himself an officer in the US Army.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200804070356.html
Is Bush an IDIOT or a fellow traveler? I’m beginning to think fellow traveler is the better description. His administration will be remembered as one of crucial keys to the “Fall of the American Constitution.”
1. Patriot Act
2. “Homeland” Security
3. Bail Out
4. Destruction of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Now I’m beginning to see why Obama wants Gates. I am also beginning to think George has been “drinkin agin”.
Hire more soldier’s for overseas, keep the Guard home for civil problems.
Add: Foreign invasion from the south.
As I understand this 20k military personnel force it is to be used only for NBC attack or a high yield explosion [dirty bomb] and not for anything else.
If this is TRUE and NOT just the first step in a progressive take over of civilian law enforcement then I see it as necessary.
“All I can say is: Look at my tagline.”
And mine:
Can I change it to “Encouraged”...
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.Uh-huh... "or other domestic catastrophe", suuuure, okay, like say...... Katrina? Gee, no wonder Barry and his RATS want a new, and more stringent, AWB passed asap.
[Time to lock and load]
Who is this Marshall guy and what is his law?
< roll eyes >
“They’re preparing for the coming revolution. They’ll send southern rural troops against the inner cities, and urban troops against the southern suburbs and rural areas.
< /tin foil hat >”
**Actually**
I was thinking about this the other day. At first blush, I thought O as the CinC was terrible for our troops because it weakens their morale. He can’t lead them in a way they could respond to, with strength. Come on. Our enemies will be emboldened. I felt bad for what those troops will have to go through.
Then I thought about it and a WORSE scenario came to my mind.
Worse than having the enemy laughing at your pantywaist leader is having that same swishy leader telling you, as a soldier, to turn your guns on your own people.
Is it that far-fetched to think that O would order U.S. troops to gun down U.S. citizens on our own soil?
Just asking.
| Pentagon to detail military to bolster security (20,000 by 2011) |
||
|
12/01/2008 8:50:12 AM PST · by STARWISE · 391+ views MSNBC ^ | 11-30-08 | Spencer S. Hsu, Ann Scott TysonThe 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... |
||
|
|
||
| Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security |
||
|
12/01/2008 10:35:23 AM PST · by Esther Ruth · 10 replies · 401+ views www.washingtonpost.com ^ | Dec 1, 2008 | By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott TysonPentagon 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... |
||
|
|
||
| Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security |
||
|
12/01/2008 11:42:57 AM PST · by TexasCajun · 16 replies · 310+ views WashingtonPost.com ^ | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott TysonThe 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... |
||
|
|
||
| Pentagon to detail military to bolster security |
||
|
12/01/2008 12:08:09 PM PST · by Spacetrucker · 5 replies · 207+ views washingtonpost.com ^ | updated 11:46 p.m. ET, Sun., Nov. 30, 2008 | By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott TysonThe 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... |
||
|
|
||
Use the military troops abroad and the National Guard to assist the border patrol.
Wouldn't that be the right way to do it?
bump
“We are talking about George Bush, not Ron Paul. Bush does not want a military presence along the border, because we are good friends with Mexico, etc., etc., etc.”
Do you realize Ron Paul voted against putting troops on the border? In fact, Ron Paul never made a move to do anything about the immigration mess until he ran for president.
Ron needs to go back to the house and do his job without all his fans still trying to turn him into something he never was and never will be.
Voted against employment verification in 2008
Rep. Paul voted against a bill, HR 6633, to reauthorize the E-Verify program for a period of 5 years. The E-Verify program allows businesses to determine the legal status of new hires and prevents illegal aliens from being hired, thus making the program an important tool in the Attrition through Enforcement anti-illegal immigration strategy. The bill passed by a vote of 407-2
Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.
Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.
Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004
Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.
Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003
Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.
Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003
Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.
Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.
Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.
Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.
Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.
Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999
Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.
Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien
Section 245(i) program in 1997
Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunset” late in 1997 and be automatically taken off the books. But the Senate voted to permanently continue the pro-illegal immigration program by attaching it to an appropriations bill. House leaders, though, refused to include the program in the House appropriations bill. That meant the issue would be decided in a joint Senate/House Conference Committee. Representatives wanting to make sure that House Conferees fought the Senate stance, brought a “Motion to Instruct” to the floor. The motion — if passed — would make it clear that the House wanted the Conferees to kill the Section 245(i) program. Immigration lawyers lobbied the House vigorously to keep what to them was a lucrative program. Rep. Paul was part of a 268 to 153 House majority that refused to “instruct” the Conferees to kill the program. Despite the vote, House Conferees worked hard to kill the program and succeeded.
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TX&VIPID=787
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.