Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
Washington Post ^ | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: banglist; civiliantroops; dod; homelandsecurity; immigration; possecomitatus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-128 next last
To: TenthAmendmentChampion

Ouch! That is quite a post. Thank you so much for posting it. I think the Executive, legislative, and judicial branches need to be shown your refresher course.


51 posted on 12/01/2008 9:24:15 AM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

Years ago, good friend of mine in a inner city hood used to talk about cops who acted like they were in a warzone. There is some truth to that- the problem is sometimes with things like the drug war, some cops forget not everyone is a thug.


52 posted on 12/01/2008 9:29:42 AM PST by PghBaldy (I shall call him President Little Squirt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

“something like a pair of lightning bolts, perhaps?”

Nah, it’ll probably be more like blue helmets.


53 posted on 12/01/2008 9:31:30 AM PST by Dr. Marten ("We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." ~ Aesop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
An uncomfortable truth: George Bush stopped being the friend of the people on January 20, 2005.
54 posted on 12/01/2008 9:32:34 AM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

The other issue is the failure this is- NOT preventing, but cleaning up the mess. They have been saying for years a nuke attack is not a case of “if,” but “when.” WHY even try to prevent, if you accept the inevitibily of it?


55 posted on 12/01/2008 9:34:20 AM PST by PghBaldy (I shall call him President Little Squirt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

“Combat and law enforcement are two entirely different undertakings. Anyone who equates the two as being even remotely similar has no business being involved in either one. Mixing the two has proven a disaster everywhere it’s been tried.”

I see military police on patrol nearly every workday as I commute through New Orleans East. Been that way since Katrina. It no longer seems unusual. I feel better with military police around than the regular police force which consistently fails to uphold the Constitution. Confiscation by the NO police of legally carried weapons is still an ongoing problem here.


56 posted on 12/01/2008 9:40:13 AM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

I should say that the military police I speak of are the LA National Guard, but I think most of you will know that already. I’m sure it seems strange to a visitor to see military police cars and Humvees patrolling the streets and issuing tickets, etc.


57 posted on 12/01/2008 9:45:08 AM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Historix

Biden backs letting soldiers arrest civilians July 22, 2002

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/720228/posts


58 posted on 12/01/2008 9:45:17 AM PST by PghBaldy (I shall call him President Little Squirt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

“And this is why I shuddered when Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.”

Me too. I never supported either, and I could never understand conservatives who did. Well, now people will begin to open their eyes, but it is of course much too late.


59 posted on 12/01/2008 9:46:45 AM PST by Cyberrat (Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
"It no longer seems unusual..."

I understand. However,you're talking about Military Police. The plan calls for the equivalent of 3 Army Divisions not to enforce law, but to impose order. Get back to us on that the first time it's you they pull from the vehicle, find on the street after curfew, or wind up on the receiving end of their "knock and announce" policy.
60 posted on 12/01/2008 9:52:39 AM PST by PowderMonkey (Will Work for Ammo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: All

The ONE question I have, is what is to be when the US itself is under attack HERE? I could see the need for this, as it may have APPEARED to be the case on 9/11... THOSE situations and when we are invaded by outside military (such as Red Dawn type situation)... For other times, like natural disasters, I dont understand why the Guard isn’t enough.


61 posted on 12/01/2008 9:55:44 AM PST by PghBaldy (I shall call him President Little Squirt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conqueror

Works for Israel, at least until they started trading land for ‘peace’. Now they have the rocket attacks.

Indeed, the Japanese, in planning the invasion of the US, knew they had screwed up. The general in charge of all Japanese Imperial Forces once said, “Upon landing, we will find a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

In truth, CC permits ARE the most effective way of securing freedom.


62 posted on 12/01/2008 9:56:26 AM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
And law-and-order conservatives would be the first to back up and circle the wagon around the government.

I live close to DC. I can't see that happening.

63 posted on 12/01/2008 9:59:21 AM PST by bmwcyle (McCain had no honor when he failed to defend Sarah Palin, Leno was not enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
"some cops forget not everyone is a thug."

It's like the old expression says, "when the only tool you have to work with is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail." When the Army gets tasked with imposing order on the American population, all civilians will be perceived as an opposing force.
64 posted on 12/01/2008 10:01:49 AM PST by PowderMonkey (Will Work for Ammo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Marshall law.....will mean, Marshall law.


65 posted on 12/01/2008 10:04:38 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

I agree. One thing I want to stress though (s I think all would agree)- I love our military- and our police...it’s just our politicians I dont trust. THEY are the ones who dont realize they are playng with fire. Their children and grandchildren will rue the day they fiddled with our security (by not controlling the borders etc) and allowed our Constitution to become ala carte, to only consider parts which advanced their cause, and discard the rest.


66 posted on 12/01/2008 10:05:53 AM PST by PghBaldy (I shall call him President Little Squirt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

I’m with you. Just saying that the groundwork for a military presence has already been laid out and accepted in the US. Some seem to think that it has not happened, but it already is happening and has been for years. The LANG were supposed to be here in NOLA for only a few months, and yet they are well entrenched into everyday life after 39 months. No one bats an eye anymore seeing military personnel pulling over cars on the freeway or making arrests.


67 posted on 12/01/2008 10:22:00 AM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey
I just read an article that said the Marines have been working on this “domestic” force for some time now. I have often thought that the Marines at the officers level have a broader concept of what it means to, “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” They tend to think more individually and tend to have a higher degree of education.

The Marines have a tendency to seek traditional-valued individuals who are not in lock-step with “think-tank” mentality. I have valued those individuals I have met recently who range from Fine Arts majors (sculptors), business administration, lawyers — actually a diverse and absolutely charming group of men and women. They have completed their schooling (not joined to get it), and have opted to serve their country. It is to them that I turn to defend all you and I hold dear.

We gave thanks around our table this Thanksgiving for the safety this nation enjoys and the men and women who provide it. I got misty as I saw my son raise his glass to his brothers and sisters at our table. It was a Kodak moment to be sure. Then as he enjoyed left-over turkey sandwiches on Friday with his fellow officers candidate after a long run. I would trust him with all of your lives, and he loves all of you enough to protect them. Keep your mind at peace and your heart fixed on God.

68 posted on 12/01/2008 10:22:38 AM PST by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Historix

Things like this, and REX-84 and every other situational power-grab are going to keep eroding the line between the 3 branches until the Executive is the only one that counts for anything... in crisis or otherwise

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans...”
-Bill Clinton, 1993


69 posted on 12/01/2008 10:24:54 AM PST by swordfishtrombone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
Any mention of putting some troops on the border?

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.
70 posted on 12/01/2008 10:29:24 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
No one bats an eye anymore seeing military personnel pulling over cars on the freeway or making arrests.

I hope I never see this become commonplace across the US. It's absolutely pathetic that it would become common in even one area. A few generations from now, our descendants will curse our names for what we are letting this country become.
71 posted on 12/01/2008 10:32:46 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Historix

This may explain why Robert Gates was retained by the team Obama.

Barack Obama
“...interview with the editors of the Army Times July 13: “I do think that Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally.”

But what does Gates have to do with the concept behind the “civilian national security force”?

Gates invented the idea.

Last fall Gates began giving a series of speeches about the need to create a more modern State Department and a “civilian national security force” that could “deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside the military.”

Gates’ idea was big – seemingly as big as Obama’s $439 billion vision: “If we’ve got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don’t have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82253


72 posted on 12/01/2008 10:40:19 AM PST by Sharrukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Historix

Consider this move and take into account the Joe Biden “Mark my words” campaign speech. It appears to me that the Feds have been tipped off to a mass terror plot on U.S. soil that is probably in its last stages of planning and preparation but can’t be preempted for whatever reason. SECDEF Gates has also recently directed a bottoms up review of Reserve Component capabilities and limitations. Gates is also staying on as Obama’s SECDEF for at least a year.


73 posted on 12/01/2008 10:43:25 AM PST by TADSLOS (McCain Courted Socialism and Brought Us Marxism Instead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conqueror

Agreed


74 posted on 12/01/2008 10:46:25 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Historix

VERY IMPORTANT

This is absolutely critical - the Pentagon is saying - without saying it - that at least one - possibly more - of our cities is going to be hit with a terrorist nuclear attack.

They expect it to happen.


75 posted on 12/01/2008 10:49:42 AM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS
SECDEF Gates has also recently directed a bottoms up review of Reserve Component capabilities and limitations.

This was needed no matter what. NG/Reserve units have went through a lot of equipment, and have lost or left behind a lot of equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of units were never prepared for so many deployments in such a short time span, and our reserve components are hurting in a lot of areas.
76 posted on 12/01/2008 10:56:21 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: nw_arizona_granny; 100American; Fresno

Ping


77 posted on 12/01/2008 10:56:24 AM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (The best thread on FreeRepublic is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005
This is absolutely critical - the Pentagon is saying - without saying it - that at least one - possibly more - of our cities is going to be hit with a terrorist nuclear attack.

If this was the case, Bush would have secured our southern border instead of leaving it wide open in many areas.
78 posted on 12/01/2008 10:57:12 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Yes, I understand that. The RC has historically been underfunded and under equipped, but this review is more specific to a homeland security mission, there is a distinct sense of urgency to it and it’s coming directly from Gates, not the service chiefs.


79 posted on 12/01/2008 11:07:01 AM PST by TADSLOS (McCain Courted Socialism and Brought Us Marxism Instead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Historix

Isn’t it unconstitutional to have troops doing law enforcement work inside the US? Posse whatever it is? Why not just hire more Border patrol agents, shut down the border except for people with valid passports and send everyone else back, build the fence and jail all illegals who kill, maim, hurt, rape, embarrass or otherwise harm American citizens and legal residents.


80 posted on 12/01/2008 11:08:22 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Historix

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!!


81 posted on 12/01/2008 11:29:41 AM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan; bmwcyle
And law-and-order conservatives would be the first to back up and circle the wagon around the government.

No, the law-and-order conservatives will be protecting our homes with the guns we refuse to turn over to the SS.
82 posted on 12/01/2008 11:32:15 AM PST by PleaDeal (Palin in '12!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PleaDeal

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.


83 posted on 12/01/2008 11:34:55 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Beware of Obama's Reichstag Fire; Don't permit him to seize emergency powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Cowgirl
“I wonder how many of them are illegal aliens.” So are you saying the U.S. Military has illegal aliens serving our military? Well yes some enlisted have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. At some point they will be required to become a U.S. citizen; or they will have to leave the military. All U.S. Military Officers have to be United states citizens

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)

84 posted on 12/01/2008 11:40:00 AM PST by donna (If America is not a Christian nation, it will be part of the Islamic nation. Take your pick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PleaDeal

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 . . .


85 posted on 12/01/2008 11:41:21 AM PST by Free America52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: donna

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


86 posted on 12/01/2008 11:44:27 AM PST by Sharrukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Historix

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.


87 posted on 12/01/2008 11:58:45 AM PST by A Strict Constructionist (On the "Road to Surfdom"is no longer a question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Strict Constructionist

Add: Foreign invasion from the south.


88 posted on 12/01/2008 12:08:58 PM PST by donna (If America is not a Christian nation, it will be part of the Islamic nation. Take your pick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Historix
If we ever have a NUKE attack on our soil, undoubtedly Marshall Law will be declared and civilian law enforcement will need all the help they can get.

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.

89 posted on 12/01/2008 12:09:27 PM PST by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

“All I can say is: Look at my tagline.”

And mine:


90 posted on 12/01/2008 12:11:02 PM PST by Cyberrat (Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: donna

Can I change it to “Encouraged”...


91 posted on 12/01/2008 12:16:13 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (On the "Road to Surfdom"is no longer a question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 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.
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]

92 posted on 12/01/2008 12:18:20 PM PST by Condor51 (Obama believes in Karl Marx. I believe in Sun Tzu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
undoubtedly Marshall Law will be declared

Who is this Marshall guy and what is his law?

< roll eyes >

93 posted on 12/01/2008 12:24:02 PM PST by meowmeow (In Loving Memory of Our Dear Viking Kitty (1987-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: meowmeow

94 posted on 12/01/2008 12:27:06 PM PST by John W (Voters were more afraid of losing their money than losing their souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“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.


95 posted on 12/01/2008 12:30:19 PM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

the moderator wasn't kidding... no one uses search anymore... here are the newer ones:

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 Tyson
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...
 

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 Tyson
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...
 

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 Tyson
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...
 

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 Tyson
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...
 


96 posted on 12/01/2008 12:34:43 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The border patrol could use assistance sealing the southern border and completing the fence.

Use the military troops abroad and the National Guard to assist the border patrol.

Wouldn't that be the right way to do it?

97 posted on 12/01/2008 12:37:10 PM PST by msnpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Historix
What's next? A few UN troops to help out? Photobucket
98 posted on 12/01/2008 12:42:37 PM PST by SiVisPacemParaBellum (Peace through superior firepower!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Historix

bump


99 posted on 12/01/2008 12:57:23 PM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

“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


100 posted on 12/01/2008 12:58:17 PM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-128 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson