Posted on 07/21/2002 6:59:53 PM PDT by USA21
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:29:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law.
President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the ``Posse Comitatus Act.''
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
Doesn't sound like much of a push to me.
Mock battle in SoCal and Nevada to test battle technology
By SETH HETTENA Associated Press Writer
Published 3:10 p.m. PDT Thursday, July 18, 2002 SAN DIEGO (AP) - Preparations are underway in Southern California and Nevada for the largest military experiment in U.S. history.
The Millennium Challenge 2002, which begins next week, was mandated by Congress to help U.S. forces prepare for future wars.
About 13,500 troops from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will use the latest in military hardware in a simulation of what planners believe the battlefield could look like in five years.
Over three weeks, troops will play out a scenario that echoes real-world events involving simulated weapons of mass destruction, urban warfare, the United Nations and humanitarian relief.
The Joint Forces Command, operating in Suffolk, Va., is coordinating the experiments from July 24 through Aug. 15 off the coast of San Diego and at bases in Southern California and Nevada. Top military brass, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chief of Naval operations, will attend.
The experiments are the fruits of a drive to transform the military from a heavy, mechanized force designed to fight the Soviet Union into mobile, high-tech troops that can deliver swift hammer blows to a different kind of enemy.
"In the Persian Gulf, it took us months and months to stage forces and stockpile logistics," said Tony Billings, a spokesman for Joint Forces Command. "New concepts are designed to cut down on that preparation time dramatically and position U.S. forces so that they're capable of rapidly and decisively striking at the enemy's center of gravity."
Just as remarkable is the fact that all four branches of the military - often riven by intraservice rivalries - are working on the same page.
"It's like you're playing baseball all these years but the infield never worked with the outfield," said Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., who specializes in transformation issues. "Now you've got them all in the field trying to go through a couple of innings."
Two years of planning have gone into the experiment to test how the U.S. military can respond to an international incident that can rapidly spin out-of-control into all-out warfare.
"The question for us is how do we bring all our resources to bear to prevent that from occurring," said Cmdr. Jack Hanzlik, spokesman for the Navy's Third Fleet based in Coronado.
The hypothetical scenario begins with a military coup in a country stricken by a massive earthquake. At the same time, a decision by the World Court over disputed territory outrage the coup leaders and prompts a military buildup and a shipping blockade. In response, the United Nations votes to impose sanctions.
As part of the simulation, parts of which are classified, the U.S. Marines and special forces will destroy a hypothetical weapons of mass destruction site at the former George Air Force Base in Victorville. That will be followed by a 96-hour urban combat exercise that shifts Marines between all-out fighting and peacekeeping.
Off-the-shelf technologies will be tested including Dragon Eye, a five-pound unmanned aerial vehicle that troops in the field can use to scout terrain over surrounding hills. The Navy will test a high-speed vessel capable of maximum speeds of 55 miles per hour.
--- On the Net:
http://www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/mc02.htm
Ridge, senators call for study of expanded military powers for domestic law enforcement
AP (link does not work) | Sun, Jul. 21, 2002 | AP
Posted on 07/21/2002 7:59 PM Pacific by US
Please provide the correct AP link. I do not want to remove your article. Thanks.
U.S. Mulls Military's Domestic Role
By SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law.
President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the ``Posse Comitatus Act.''
Ridge said Sunday that it ``goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest,'' and called the prospect ``very unlikely.''
But he said the government is wise to examine the law.
``We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event,'' Ridge said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus.''
Two influential Democratic senators agreed with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed, but expressed no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman Senate Armed Services Committee, said posse comitatus ``has served us well for a long time.''
``It's kept the military out of law enforcement, out of arresting people except in the most unusual emergency situations like a riot or after some kind of a disaster where they have to protect against looting,'' Levin, D-Mich., said on CNN's ``Late Edition.''
However, he said: ``I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful in a very supportive and assisting role even than they have been up to now — providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting people.''
Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he favors expanding the military's role in responding to major catastrophes such as an attack by a weapon of mass destruction.
The law ``has to be amended, but we're not talking about general police power,'' Biden, D-Del., said on ``Fox News Sunday.''
Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, who heads the new military command charged with defending American territory, told The New York Times he favors changing the law to grant greater domestic powers to the military to protect against terror attacks. He offered no specific changes he favored.
Congress is racing to approve legislation by the end of its session this fall that would make Bush's proposed Department of Homeland Security a reality.
In the Senate, a version of the measure by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., tracks closely with Bush's plan. It also would augment the agency's ability to gather and analyze intelligence from the FBI, CIA and others.
That bill is to be considered by the Senate committee Wednesday.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' there was a strong possibility Congress will resolve its differences and send Bush a bill enacting the sweeping government reorganization by Sept. 11.
Some lawmakers have expressed concern about rushing decisions on far-reaching changes in the bureaucracy, but Armey said: ``It's time to move forward with this. The president's got a good plan.''
Bush planned to give a speech Monday about his proposed new department and view demonstrations of high-technology devices for combatting terrorism that are being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.
U.S. military's domestic role debated Reuters
WASHINGTON - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat said on Sunday he supported expanding military police powers at home on a limited basis to protect the country against terrorist strikes.
The question was discussed on a number of Sunday talk shows in light of the administration request last week for a review of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement. Any changes would be subject to congressional approval.
Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he had previously backed legislation to allow the military, which has expertise in such matters as weapons of mass destruction, to be called in.
"I think it is time to revisit it," he told the "Fox News Sunday" program. "We have to take a look at it, and I think it has to be amended. But we're not talking about general police power. ... We shouldn't go overboard."
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge told CNN's "Late Edition" that there has been no discussion of giving military authorities additional arrest powers "as a part of the homeland security future."
"What has been discussed is the civilian support by the military in the event of rather unusual circumstances," Ridge said, not unlike authority he exercised as governor of Pennsylvania to call in the National Guard in emergency.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sounded a note of reservation, telling the CNN program while "it's never a problem to study something ... that law has served us well."
"We should not assume that we are going to need to change it," Levin said.
Established after the Civil War in response to federal troops enforcing laws in the South, the law restricts military forces from performing domestic law enforcement duties, such as policing. It has been amended over the years to allow the military to lend equipment to domestic authorities, assist in drug interdiction, protect national parks and execute health quarantines.
ARREST POWERS
Critics worry it could be expanded to give Army or Air Force personnel or the National Guard arrest powers like local policemen. As the law stands, Biden said military officers called in for an emergency like a weapon of mass destruction in an Amtrak tunnel would not be allowed to use their weapons.
Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, who will be heading the new North American Command, told The New York Times on Sunday he would favor changes in the law to give greater domestic powers to the military to protect against terrorist attacks. The general said he had no specific changes in mind.
"We should always be reviewing things like the Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people," Eberhart told the Times in a seeming break with long-standing reservations in the military to take on such expanded roles.
As recently as May, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would not seek changes in the law and the legal review contained in President Bush's new plan for domestic security announced last week surprised many senior officers and Pentagon officials, the Times said.
Ridge told Fox the general was "basically saying that we need to go back and revisit how the Department of Defense supports the civilian authorities in times of crisis."
Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican, said no one was suggesting the military be engaged in making arrests, rather that they be used for better surveillance along the borders and other such tasks.
"It might be an idea whose time has come," Thompson said.
Did it ever occur to you that this is a major reason for this discussion?.
Make him the next Magaw - or Red Nation should dump Bush in 2004.
What did Ridge say?
On military basis in San Diego and Nevada.
Would you rather our military didn't have exercises like this and should we be attacked again, possibly with WMD, they wouldn't be prepared to defend us here at home?
I thought that's what they did, (training), when they weren't deployed.
Depositions of two U.S. Army Delta Force technicians offer the first detailed public accounts of the secret unit's role in the 1993 Branch Davidian siege.
The special forces soldiers testified that their primary mission was helping the FBI use sophisticated surveillance gear from their unit and that they had no direct knowledge that any Delta Force personnel participated in the FBI assault that ended the standoff.
Transcripts of the depositions, taken last month in Washington, were released this week by lawyers for the sect. Under an agreement with the government, all names of government personnel involved in Waco and most references to the Fort Bragg, N.C.-based special operations unit were blacked out before the transcripts were released.
FBI agents testified in separate depositions that they knew of no active Delta Force involvement or shooting by anyone on the government side during the FBI's tank-and-tear gas assault. By law, the military cannot directly participate in civilian law enforcement.
"To the best of my knowledge, nobody inside - nobody . . . nobody that I was there with ever entered nor ever even came very close to the compound," said one soldier, a 32-year-old sergeant who described himself as one of only three special forces personnel in Waco in the last five days of the standoff.
"I don't believe there would have been other personnel from my organization there without my knowing it," the sergeant said. Despite allegations from the Branch Davidians' lawyers that FBI agents shot into the compound during their final assault, the soldier said he had no direct knowledge of that. The two soldiers who were deposed last month testified behind screens and said their unit was so secretive that they could not divulge its name and or its commanders. Even plaintiffs' lawyers have not been provided the identities of the special operations soldiers involved in the siege.
Lawyers representing the sect in a wrongful-death lawsuit contend that the depositions of the soldiers and 19 FBI personnel raise significant questions about the government's account of what happened April 19, 1993. The Branch Davidian compound burned that day with leader David Koresh and more than 80 followers inside.
Government investigators have said that the Branch Davidians set the fires. But lawyers for the sect have alleged in the lawsuit that the government's actions contributed to the tragedy.
They contend that infrared videotapes taken that day by an airborne FBI camera show that government agents fired into the building, preventing women and children from escaping. They and some other government critics, including a former CIA employee and a former congressional investigator, have also suggested in recent months that Delta personnel may have played an active role in the final FBI assault.
Government officials have said that no FBI agents fired a shot during the 51-day standoff. The Branch Davidians' lawyers say the role of Delta Force personnel in the final FBI operation remains unclear, in part because a Delta Force combat arms specialist in Waco at the time wasn't seen by fellow special forces soldiers until hours after the assault.
The Delta Force electronics technician deposed last month testified that he did not recall anything about the combat expert's whereabouts. A second soldier, a now-retired radio technician, testified that the man showed up red-eyed, tired and somewhat disheveled several hours after the compound fire.
The radioman, who now works as a government contractor, said the combat sergeant reported getting drunk the night before, oversleeping and missing everything. "He looked like he had been drinking the night before and looked like he had just got out of bed," the former radioman said of his combat colleague, who has retired.
The technician said he did not question the sergeant's story because he "was known as a pretty heavy drinker" and appeared to be hung over.
Defense Department officials have confirmed that three special forces soldiers were in Waco to watch FBI operations April 19. But defense officials have declined to name their unit or even to acknowledge the existence of Delta Force.
But Defense Department documents indicate that the soldiers sent to Waco were from Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, the U.S. military's elite counterterrorism combat team known as Delta Force.
The December depositions suggest that the Delta Force soldiers worked closely with FBI technicians and electronics experts but had little contact with FBI commanders - even those who ran the bureau's elite paramilitary hostage rescue team, or HRT.
Asked, "What interaction was there between these observers and the HRT command structure?" the electronics technician replied: "We were largely ignored." The soldiers testified that they were among 10 members of their unit who rotated in and out of Waco beginning March 2, just after the standoff began.
The siege was touched off by a gunbattle that erupted as agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tried to search the compound and arrest Mr. Koresh on weapons charges. Four agents and several sect members died. The FBI was then asked to try to resolve the standoff.
Senior U.S. military leaders immediately sent equipment and special forces advisers to assist the FBI. The two soldiers testified that most of the personnel sent from the secret military unit were technicians assigned to advise the FBI on how to use borrowed military motion sensors, microwave transmitters, thermal-imaging cameras and specialized video and optical equipment.
The two soldiers acknowledged that one sergeant sent in initially and a sergeant there at the end were combat arms specialists.
Joining us from Erie, Penn., to discuss the politics of security is Governor Tom Ridge, director of the White House Office of Homeland Security.
Governor Ridge, the first thing I want to do is to show you a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll question. You can't see it, but I'll read it out loud. It has to do with people's misgivings about what's going on.
We asked, are you worried that terrorists might attack where you work or live? Now, in October of last year, 56 percent -- keep in mind, this is just a few weeks after the attacks -- 56 percent said that they were not very worried. The number has increased now. We have 64 percent who think the terrorists may or may not attack where they work and live.
My question to you is, it seems that we have growing misgiving about our security right now. Why should Americans feel reassured?
RIDGE: Well, first of all, Tony, they should feel reassured because ever since 9/11, it hasn't just been the federal government that is working toward enhanced security, but the state and local governments have been doing the same thing. There's been leadership at the corporate level across this country.
Now with the president's plan to create a Department of Homeland Security, which will be the agent to implement the national strategy to enhance security, I think there's great reason to be reassured that this country, creating strategic partnerships with state and local government, with the private sector, in the years ahead, will do everything conceivable, everything humanly and technologically possible to preserve our way of life and our citizens.
But there's also that continuing sense of anxiety and concern and a recognition, a realization that the new threat of the 21st century is an enduring vulnerability. And I think America is to be commended for understanding that.
SNOW: I want to get into the fine print on the homeland security bill in a minute, but first I want to ask you about some recent news developments. Authorities, the other day, arrested a man at the Detroit airport. He was carrying $12 million in bogus checks; assumed that there is some relationship with Al Qaeda.
My question to you: The September 11th attack was very cheap, it was several thousand dollars -- basically airfare and a couple of other things to keep people in the United States. This is $12 million. What on earth could Al Qaeda or terrorists be doing with sums of money that large?
RIDGE: Well, obviously, we know that when bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan, he took several hundred million dollars with him. This is an international terrorist organization.
I think the apprehension at the airport shows just enhanced security, collaboration between the law enforcement agencies in this country. I think it -- of course, it's disconcerting and somewhat alarming that somebody is walking in with $12 million of currency, whether legit or not. But the fact of the matter is that it shows that we are -- heightened our alert internally as well.
SNOW: Well, he was on the international watch list. But once again, there has to be -- we have to have a theory about why they're spending it. For instance, there have been rumors swirling around this town that there are reports of a cell trying to construct a bomb somewhere in the United States. Is that true?
RIDGE: Well, Tony, we know that they have a very decentralized organizational structure. And I think Americans also appreciate the fact that, given our open and welcoming nature, that it is very unlikely that it was not just Moussaoui and 19 others that had penetrated our perimeter a couple of years ago. So it's very likely that there are Al Qaeda members in this country. It's very likely that they're doing surveillance and they have plans, but the fact of the matter is, is that we don't know for certain precisely where they are.
But we do know for certain that the FBI, the CIA, state and local law enforcement, INS, Coast Guard and everybody else is drilling down, following every conceivable lead to rout out every conceivable terrorist or terrorist cell in this country.
SNOW: Getting back to my question again, the rumors swirling around about bomb construction, that some people are fearful of -- and these are intelligence agents -- is there any truth to that rumor?
RIDGE: Well, I think the concern that everyone associated -- and that's the entire country, not just the federal government, but everyone associated in this effort to combat terrorism -- understands and appreciates the fact that bin Laden himself and his surrogates have said and the literature that we've apprehended and seized around the world has suggested that if they had a chance to either develop, acquire a weapon of mass destruction, a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear, they would use it.
I mean, let's make no pretensions about that. These are evil people intent on destroying this country. If they could acquire that capability, they would undoubtedly use it.
SNOW: And it would be easier to acquire it by buying the materials on American soil than trying to import them?
RIDGE: Well, I'm not sure that's accurate. And one of the things we need to understand is the globalization of science, the globalization of the market, the globalization of education generally. You know, the qualities that were unique to a few countries in the '50s and '60s -- that is, having a very rigorous scientific community and access to materials where you would be able to build one of these crude devices -- has now gone international.
And I think the enhanced capacity that the president wants to give to this country with the Department of Homeland Security, building up the Coast Guard, reforming the INS, bringing in the basic infrastructure that fortunately Republicans and Democrats have supported to date will go a long way in our effort, in a significant way, not only to do what we can at the federal level, but remember, this is a national strategy and we're going to need the folks in the local communities, the state police, the local police and the corporate sector to help us out in this effort.
SNOW: That provides a perfect way to lead into a discussion of homeland security legislation. One of the more controversial items is the TIPS program. The Justice Department would like in some way to deputize about 11,000 workers who move around in the community, whether they be postal workers, delivery people and so on.
Dick Armey has said that the problem with the program is it's poorly conceived, and therefore it was taken out of House legislation.
Is this something the president's going to insist on, or do you just sort of say, "OK, we got to find a better way to do this"?
RIDGE: Well, I think with -- first of all, Dick Armey's to be commended for his leadership in basically keeping the president's proposal intact. The Congress has, to this date, made a declaration that you need to take that back to the drawing board before we would consider supporting it and endorsing it. We'll just have to see where it goes in the weeks ahead during the debate on the floor and see whether or not the Senate embraces the same notion.
SNOW: Are you prepared to go back to the drawing board?
RIDGE: Well, I think we need to focus on the fact that, Tony, that the Congress, to date, the Select Committee in the House, with bipartisan support, even though there were a little disagreement along the fringes, gave the president the basic infrastructure that he requested a couple of months ago.
And I think that, again, through the process on the floor in the House of Representatives -- clearly Senator Lieberman's going to mark up his bill next week and take to the Senate. And there will be a lot of discussion and a lot of negotiation during the August recess. So I think there's still a lot of things on the table to be resolved.
It will obviously -- the White House will obviously be very much involved in that process.
SNOW: Let's tackle some of the other issues. You know what happens when legislation this important makes its way through Congress. People start adding on all sorts of pork-barrel stuff. As a former member of the House, you're well aware of the phenomenon.
If that happens, if a lot of extra stuff gets loaded on to this bill, will the president veto it?
RIDGE: Tony, my sense is that that may be a traditional form of support for local or statewide interests that congressmen and senators bring to their task of representing them. But my sense, to date, is that the men and women in both chambers and in both parties are going to focus on the issues that relate to enhancing our ability in this country to protect our way of life and our fellow citizens. So I really don't anticipate that.
SNOW: You keep saying "to date." So you think it's -- you think it's actually safe?
RIDGE: Well, it's conceivable that during the course of the negotiation there may be an effort to put on a special project or a pet project. But I think that the debate has been very intense. Obviously there's a great deal of -- there's a collective sense of urgency to get it done, to get it done right. And I don't think that some of the traditional means or trying to help the folks back home are necessarily going to see themselves in this piece of legislation.
SNOW: All right. 170,000, 180,000 people are going to be in the new Department of Homeland Security, and unlike all other federal employees, the president would like them to operate under different terms, not having the typical civil service protections. In other words, you want to be able to fire people who aren't doing their jobs. It seems...
RIDGE: Well, the president -- the president has asked for freedom in manage. He assures the men and women who have collective bargaining rights that they will move to the new agency with those rights, with their benefits.
There will be -- and I say this again -- civil rights protection, whistleblower protection, veterans preference. But the president is looking to give his new management team the ability to move some people around, to reorganize, not just necessarily to lay off or to discipline people, but we need to be agile, we need to be mobile.
The new secretary's going to need to reach even beyond the public sector to bring in people from the private sector. And the president is also hopeful that the Congress, in light of this new agency and the new threat, gives the management team some flexibility with a few dollars that are going to this new department.
SNOW: Air Force General Ralph Eberhart tells The New York Times today also, it be time to rethink posse comitatus, a law that prevents the military from engaging in domestic police actions. Is he right?
RIDGE: Well, I think the general, who will head up the North American Command for this country, is basically saying that we need to go back and revisit how the Department of Defense supports the civilian authorities in times of crisis. We know that they have unique resources, they have unique capabilities. I have used them as governor on many -- on several occasions to help them combat natural disasters.
And I don't think it's out of the question that, in advance of an incident that may have severe consequences to a community or region, that the secretary of defense and the new secretary of homeland security sit down and discuss, if there's ever a possibility when, in support of civilian authorities, we would give the National Guard or troops the ability -- to give them an arrest ability.
I think it's very unlikely, but I think the general is very appropriate. We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event. And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus.
SNOW: All right. Governor Tom Ridge, thanks for joining us today.
RIDGE: Tony, nice joining with you, as well. Thank you.
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.