For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina).
If only Gene Debs woulda known this back in 1894!
The absolutely brilliant part of the article is that the language he's so concerned about was repealed nearly a year ago.
Yes, well... Given that:
- NorCom is in Colorado Springs, which is Armageddon-Fundie central
- the Armageddon-Fundies have been busy coopting the military command for the last 30 years or so, which suggests that there may not be much resistance to orders to act against "enemies of the [Christianist] state"
- the Bush Administration has taken the position that the Preznit has supreme authority to do anything he wants if he utters the magic words "national security"
- the Bush Administration has declared that the entire world, including the US, is a battlefield in the "War on Terror"
- the proliferation of "fusion centers" around the country has combined civilian law enforcement and military intelligence to an extraordinary degree
- we've seen highly-militarized local police forces engaged in pre-emptive raids and arrests before both conventions and any similar events
- we've seen mercenaries deployed in New Orleans
Maybe, just maybe it's not *entirely* paranoid to be concerned about actual military deployment under NorCom.
Maybe, just maybe it's not *entirely* paranoid to be concerned about actual military deployment under NorCom.
You have a point--I mean, it's not as if there were any other units of the actve duty military present in the United States, and as the army's experience in Iraq shows, a brigade is more than ample to control a civilian popultation in excess of 300,000,000.
What the Army could do domestically, is what we already have a National Guard for. It is a military, but under the control, nominally, of the state Governor. Regular Army and other military can, and have been, detached to work under civilian authority domestically in prior emergencies.
The military already runs various (overly broad) security services to maintain their own domestic personnel, knowledge and facility safety.
There is no benefit to the populace from having US military, under military control based in the US and tasked to respond to US situations. There is much to fear.
@ rea, I'm not saying that there's an immediate threat. One thing you might consider however, is that the US is not Iraq, that our military would not be an occupying army from a foreign country and culture.
Further, there is a not-insubstantial portion of our population which will be more than happy to see Army boots in the streets of San Francisco and Seattle. Coincidentally, that population has most of the guns.
Paperwight has it exactly. Remember, is you believe that the federal govenrment is neutral regarding the behavior of citizen, I would call to your attention COINTELPRO--and it's apparent offspring, operating currently.
We have problems enough with regular cops. Soldiers? No thanks.
This posts masquerades under the language of superior historical knowledge, but it's almost completely bereft of any substance. You dismiss Alan Bock's lengthy and well-documented history of the Posse Comitatus Act and what gave rise to it with one short, conclusory, substance-free decree (Bock "badly botches the history") -- as though your saying so makes it true -- without bothering to dispute a single fact he cited.
I find well-documented, detailed claims (Bock's article) infinitely more preferable than smug, angry self-satisfied rhetoric devoid of anything substantive (your post).
Your central assertion -- that a desire to protect Southern racism was an impetus behind the ban on using the military for domestic law enforcement purposes -- may be perfectly true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point Bock made or which I endorse: namely, that having the President have the power to have a standing military force at his command, to use against his own citizens inside the country for standard law enforcement functions, is uniquely dangerous and anti-democratic in the extreme. There are unique dangers from having the military serve as the principal law enforcement force domestically and it's the hallmark of a military dictatorship.
What is most deficient about your rant is the anti-intellectual premise at its core. The fact that Tyrannical Power X was once used for some good purpose doesn't mean that we should all desire Tyrannical Power X or that it isn't dangerous.
It may be true -- it probably is -- that free speech abridgements have achieved some pragmatic good in the past -- by, say, suppressing some "dangerous" ideas. It may be true that if we vest the President with the right to detain people without charges, he might use that power to get some really bad and dangerous people off the street and achieve good results.
By your "logic" -- "hey, this power was once used for some Good, therefore there is no reason to ban it or fear it" -- those are powers that can't legitimately be described as "anti-democratic." I find that reasoning soaked with the very ignorance and shallowness that you claim permeates my post and Bock's article.
There is no good reason for the President to have a standing military force at his disposal to use domestically, and plenty of reasons why that would be anti-democratic (and that is hardly some new or exotic view -- it permeates American political writing for centuries). Nothing you've said addresses that, let alone refutes it.
Rob, touche', I had overlooked that little issue and actually I was unaware of the actual origin of Posse Comitatus. Very amusing.
Paperwright, DocAmazing, please read my post that Rob has linked to at the top of his post. This is not a deployment. This is an "on-call" mission to support DHS in the event of a disaster or man-made incident. THAT'S ALL. And the ironic thing is, it's still a horrible execution of policy but not because of any intentions of putting boots in cities.
Get a grip. The Army's not that separated from civil society that it would sign up for what Glen postulates.
Two words: "whiskey rebellion." Also, what is the evidence that the army is really really good at organizing shit? As far as I know the army has, essentially, privatized all that stuff including the organizational capacity to move X number of blankets and clean water to location Z. Would "the army" have been any use after Katrina? Hardly. Although the National guard might have been.
aimai
I should have paused in my writing - the mighty Glenn has spoken. Glenn, were you awake when federal agencies responded to the Katrina hurricane? Did you see the slow motion of FEMA and other agencies? The military gets stuff done quickly. This policy of having active duty military support to respond to catastrophies and incidents IS NOT NEW. And the President has every right to ensure that the active duty military is prepared to support these federal responses. They aren't planning a coup, no one wants to replace local and state law enforcement. There is no junta planning on suppressing American voices. Move along now.
Moreover, the Army is useful in crisis situations (such as the aftermath of Katrina) not because of its ability to shoot people, but rather because of its tremendous organizational capacity. It's good at responding to crises because it's an organization designed to respond to really big crises.
Nope.
Their the boys with our toys.
Jason, my point was that it's not all that paranoid to be concerned about this, given what we're seeing in terms of the claimed authority of the executive, fundification of the military chain of command and the militarization of the civilian police force.
Or did I misunderstand the news reports over the last few years where the *military* has been holding prisoners designated as unpersons, er, "enemy combatants" (including at least one American citizen arrested on American soil) in indefinite detention on the President's say-so?
They're the boys with our toys.
(Slaps head)
And one other thing - this is pure, unadulterated dishonesty:
Jason ably dismantles Greenwald's terror that the Army is coming to repress us
I said nothing of the sort. I said the exact opposite:
There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.
That's a correction-worthy inaccuracy in an attempt to depict my argument as being something that it's not in order for you to then refute it ("Greenwald is saying that the Army is coming to get us!!! LOL!").
And you sound like the Bush followers circa 2002 and 2003 -- mocking those who sounded the alarm about Bush's tyrannical theories of executive power based on the dismissive claim that people weren't being rounded up or subjected to anything extreme, so what's all the "handwringing" about? -- as though one has to wait for an anti-democratic power to be abused systematically before objecting to its seizure.
Jason -
Glenn, were you awake when federal agencies responded to the Katrina hurricane? Did you see the slow motion of FEMA and other agencies? The military gets stuff done quickly.
Imprisoning people without trials "gets stuff done quickly," too.
Getting "stuff done quickly" isn't the only consideration for non-authoritarians.
This policy of having active duty military support to respond to catastrophies and incidents IS NOT NEW.
You should learn to read. I made that point expressly in my post. What IS new is the permanent assignment of U.S. Army brigades inside the U.S.
There are lots of people who want to radically change how our country works. Many of them are honest enough to admit that's what they're advocating. Too bad you're not.
The Army is good at responding to disasters because it's organized... yes, but mostly because it alreadyhas its own supplies. Sending military units to provide humanitarian or emergency services doesn't require a drain on already-overstretched and disrupted food/medical/water/sewage needs in an area. So, an Army unit may be totally incompetent, but at least they can hand out food without having to eat the supplies itself.
Glen, though you're right that there's a danger of a military dictatorship... keep in mind that the US military is probably the only reason the Cheney-ites haven't already taken over. Sure, the Air Force is lousy with nutjobs, but most of the rest are patriots.
A military dictatorship is more likely to have to use Blackwater than the US military to do its dirty work.
Glenn, you're not being clearheaded. Do you know that the 3rd Division's 1st BCT is already "permanently assigned" to Fort Stewart Georgia? It's not going anywhere unless the President authorizes DOD to support DHS in a catastrophy. What the hell are you thinking, that the 1st BCT is going to set up field tents on the Washington DC mall? Or pick any other park in any major city.
Amazingly, there are a number of "permanently assigned" BCTs within the United States, at least 15 I think. We call it "home duty station." Talk to some people who work homeland security issues within DOD or DHS. I'll accept your apology in advance of when you admit that you were wrong.
On the other hand, people could look at the way a non-disturbance was handled at the St. Paul convention as a clue to what to expect should actual disturbances happen. St. Paul was militarized police with Guard backup, but hat isn't necessarily the long-term plan. Wasn't something mentioned in Greenwald's piece about the Army using techniques at home which they'd learned in Iraq?
The question as to the degree of alienation between the military and civilian society is a very central and important one, and an unanswered one. Some of the sects prosyletizing in the Army are off in the Dominionist zone (as is Palin's church, I think). Recently I talked to two anti-war mothers of Iraq Vets who had had horrible experiences trying to talk to their sons, who they spoke of as having been brainwashed.
The Reconstruction context is interesting, but that was then. Even today I'd be glad to send the military to the South to wreak havoc, but that's not a realistic hope. Glenn's fears are more realistic.
Right now we have a planned economic crash and a planned government fiscal disaster, (possibly) a disgruntled returning Army, increased and increasingly-unrestricted police powers, and a fair-sized militant right wing. I'm with Neuwert and Greenwald.
C'mon Glenn, if we've learned anything in the past 8 years, it is that new powers assumed by the federal government are never abused. Besides, only a paranoid freak could possibly be concerned about the US Army being used for "crowd control" here in the US.
If there's a crowd of Americans that needs controlling, I'm sure we can trust President Bush and all future presidents to be judicious in using American military power against American citizens. No worries!
Following up to John Emerson:
1) There has been a concerted effort to paint non-wingnuts as the enemies of the military.
2) People who think that the command structure of the military overall is not as fundie-corrupted as the AF seems to be are probably right, but they really should take a look at the reports from Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Jason -- From the Army Times article I cited at the beginning:
3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
If you think the it's so normal for the Army to be deployed as a standing force inside the U.S., what do you think the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act prohibit, exactly?
Rob & Jason, you may have perfectly valid points to make but your smart-ass, smirking attitudes toward Glenn's concerns really does you no favors, nor your readers for that matter.
Jason, I suggest you read a bit about the neo-Praetorianist rhetoric coming out of Fort Bragg. Perhaps you remember the threats against Bill Clinton? Their are pockets of coup enthusiasts among the lifers in the elite units--y'know, the guys who thought Starship Troopers was a political treatise. Add to that the penetration of the military by white supremacy groups and jihadist Jesus freaks, and yeah, they're potentially very dangerous to democracy, especially because they have an effective monopoly on artillery, air power, and heavy weapons. (The folks collecting Barrett .50BMG rifles mostly wouldn't object to a li'l white supremacy.)
But we're willing to accept your apology. Big of us, I know.
Glenn G:
The PCA probits military personnel from acting as law enforcement officers, to wit, they cannot arrest civilians. They can, under martial law, protect the peace by stopping looters, crowd control, etc etc.
Re: your bolded statements - the MISSION of "helping people at home" is becoming a permanent part of the active Army. Traditionally that's been a Guard function. As for NORTHCOM, it's been a headquarters without any assigned troops since it stood up. Traditionally, the services have had headquarters units and assign units temporarily to the COCOMs for deployment.
This is new, but note that the 1st BCT is a temporary assignment to NORTHCOM and it is the CCMRF that is going to be the future active duty unit that is permanently assigned to NORTHCOM, given that its sole purpose in life is DSCA.
Glenn2 @1255, sorry, I missed where Glenn G became knighted by the Queen. Regrets.
Oh Noes! The Army is Coming to Take Our Democracy!!!!!
That's OK, we weren't using it anyway
Glenn (not Greenwald)'s absolutely right here. When somebody calls me a "simplistic throwback to Woodstock," I tend to think he's both a moron and a cock. If you really want to educate, educate. Save the derision for those that deserve it.
Get a grip. The Army's not that separated from civil society that it would sign up for what Glen postulates.
two words: "bonus army".
This is a really good and important post. Thank you, Rob.
-- but I'd like to know if other major democracies have anything on their books even resembling this prohibition. --
Any chance any of you can help me research this?
I'd be interested to know the results.
Did you see the slow motion of FEMA and other agencies? The military gets stuff done quickly.
Uh, FEMA used to work just fine. It was a model, professional agency under Clinton. Under Bush, not so much.
use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina
Am I the only one who is not as sanguine about a Katrina-style military response to disasters and "events"? Every level of government essentially imposed martial law, confiscating weapons, restricting movement, cordoning off the press. New Orleans was a civil-rights-free zone. I have no doubt that this is what we have to look forward to. The only question is what the provocation or pretext will be.
I'm not suggesting there's a coup in the works. I'm suggesting that there's no plan in place to deal with a crisis -- real or imagined -- other than to go authoritarian for the duration. And if all you have is a hammer ...
Robert Farley wrote:
Glenn calls it "an important democratic safeguard", but I'd like to know if other major democracies have anything on their books even resembling this prohibition.
Yes, Germany. Assuming I understand your "Posse Comitatus" right.
The German Armed forces don´t have any law enforcement rights (outside guarding their bases).
They can help during natural disasters if asked by the state government and if the federal government agrees. But even then they can´t be used in any police-like function (patrolling streets, arresting looters and the like).
The only time they can assume such duties (assisting the police) is during a state of war or an armed insurrection, officially declared by the German government and parliament. Even then as soon as a majority in one of the two houses ("Bundestag" comparable to the house of representatives, "Bundesrat" = representing the states) disagrees with that assistance, they have to be removed.
Glenn2 @1255, sorry, I missed where Glenn G became knighted by the Queen. Regrets.
Heh, well, that's such a nonsequitur, Jason, that I think you're only proving my point -- you're not only an insufferable prick, you're not terribly bright either.
Just to spell it out for you: I complained about your smirking attitude toward "Glenn Greenwald's concerns" -- I don't give a rat's ass how nasty you are to GG himself, because frankly he's a big boy and I know he can more than take it. My issue was the attitude you and Rob are taking to concerns over an apparent expansion of executive authority. Disputing that's what it is is, of course, perfectly fine (if you have the data to back it up). Acting as if being concerned about such matters is only for silly nits, however, is unconscionable. Particularly after the past 7 years or so, it's more than unconscionable, it's both willfully obtuse and dangerous.
I have really come to expect better than that from LG&M, but I guess we all have our little disappointments occasionally.
Amid all the rhetoric about how much the Army can help with this and that, perhaps it's time to remember that the Army's primary function is to employ deadly force against an enemy.
That's it.
Sure, it CAN help put out fires, distribute food, or shore up levees - but that is not the Army's function. These are functions that an army needs to be capable of in order to pursue its real function.
Yes, the Army can do things more efficiently than FEMA right now - but the answer to that is to make FEMA more efficient - which shouldn't be that hard to do. In addition, a more efficient FEMA would do a better job of dealing with disasters that the ARMY, since 100% of its personnel, equipment, and supplies would be devoted to the purpose of dealing with disasters.
Bringing home an army unit to help FEMA is horribly inefficient. Beefing up FEMA would be far preferable.
Well, in my case, I got accused of "hand-wringing" and was called a ridiculous ninny because I asked the threatening question "How is this legal?" before then stating I think it is probably a good idea that the active duty military prepare for such contingencies.
Since insults apparently don't discredit your argument (not that he even read my post- probably just saw the link from Glenn and then chucked my site in for good measure), allow me to take the time to call Siggars an asshole.
BTW, sissified "hand-wringing" aside, I was right. The deployment was going to raise a lot of eyebrows.
Memo to DocAmazing: Starship Troopers *was* a political treatise; many of Heinlein's later novels were and, in fact, they became progressively more political and less readable as the years went by.
Great point, esp. in re: the purposes of protecting states against federal military power.
In addition, a more efficient FEMA would do a better job of dealing with disasters that the ARMY, since 100% of its personnel, equipment, and supplies would be devoted to the purpose of dealing with disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew, both FEMA and the Army did well with the cleanup, setting up shelters, etc. There's no reason both can't work together in disasters like that. Indeed, they have done so in the past.
The point is that no governmental agency is going to work if the civilian leadership is going to run it badly.
Second what Glenn (not Greenwald) said -- the level of hostility directed at Greenwald is kind of baffling. It's not like he's Derek Jeter or anything.
Well, in my case, I got accused of "hand-wringing" and was called a ridiculous ninny because I asked the threatening question "How is this legal?" before then stating I think it is probably a good idea that the active duty military prepare for such contingencies.
To follow up on this, I add the important caveat that this is a good point; it doesn't bother me in the contemporary U.S. to have the military prepare for those things but if it's illegal it's crucial to change the law, not just ignore the law.
John Cole:
I read your post, as short as it was, and was unimpressed. Your question: "How is this legal?" seemed to be amazement that such an act should take place in America, instead of a serious inquiry as to its legality. It will not raise any eyebrows outside of the few who have absolutely no experience with the military and believe that military units are all being secretly given orders to fix bayonets and bring on the tear gas a la Kent State.
Yurs truly,
An Asshole who hopes that progressives will actually find out that the military does serve a purpose benefiting the country
Thomas Jefferson, like other prominent founders and framers of this country and its constitution, was vehemently opposed to standing armies...period.
Standing armies *occupying* our own nation would have been something which, to Jefferson, indicated a fundamental failing of our great democratic experiment.
The Bush Authoritarian Regime apologists on the liberal side are as much to blame for our current lawless state as the right wing-nuts. Perhaps more so, because they should know better.
When will we stop excusing each unprecedented power grab by the worst president in American history, just because he is The Leader?
Detlef,
Thanks; anyone have a sense of what the rules are in UK, France, Canada?
Yurs truly,
An Asshole who hopes that progressives will actually find out that the military does serve a purpose benefiting the country
A.) I am sorry you were unimpressed with my wondering how this was legal.
B.) I am not a progressive and have never considered myself to be one.
C.) I will show you my DD-214 if you show me yours.
Care to be a petulant ass about anything else?
Isn't the real issue here that the Pentagon saw fit to create a NORTHCOM to begin with? If I understand correctly, before 2002, the rest of the world was divided into military commands, just not the U.S.
Putting a military command on the "Homeland" suggests that the Pentagon expects there to be targets here. A brigade or any other sized force permanently assigned to the command is a logical and necessary subsequent event to the creation of a military command.
The thing that should be objected to is the existence of NORTHCOM. Objecting to the brigade being assigned there is useful, but misses the point.
Jason, I'll have to take your word about the part of your tag line describing you as someone "who hopes that progressives will actually find out that the military does serve a purpose benefiting the country".
As a progressive who came from a highschool that fed a lot of kids into the military, and had a friend serving in Iraq, I guess I fulfilled your hope -- I think that a military can benefit a country.
But I think I'd have to be a dunce not to have noticed the downsides and possible consequences of a huge military industrial complex, an ever-increasing militarization of our internal security state, and the last 7+ years of an executive branch that claims the authority to do whatever the fuck it wants as long as it invokes "national security" and which has fired generals over and over again until it gets kindred souls.
Jason, I'm fairly sure that Cole has not been shy about discussing his experiences as a tanker (stationed in Germany, IIRC). Don't get snarky with him about his reaction to your calling him an Army-hating hippie.
Scott, I believe that in the UK the military is not restricted from wielding law enforcement powers in emergencies -- some Googling suggests that it's termed "Military Aid to the Civil Power" in the UK. I confess that I know this thanks to Spooks rather than any reading on the subject, so I'll happily defer to anyone with more exact knowledge.
Er, by "Scott" I obviously meant "Rob".
James, actually prior to 2002, JFCOM and its precedessor Atlantic Command had the job of taking care of the US homeland - just no real doctrine or laid out concepts but it made all the decisions on assigning forces to task forces, etc. Only regions that are not in a COCOM AOR are Russia and Antartica.
Paperwight, if you visit my homepage, you'll see that I deeply share your views. My irritation is that Glenn G and John C do not disassociate the White House's motives and actions from those of the military. It's my belief that much of the military has chaffed (maybe perhaps the Air Force) under this administration and when we transition, we need the military to be working with us and not have a repeat of the early Clinton years (when certain people in the admin were disrespectful and dismissive of military leadership).
I do agree with Scott's point that obviously yes, the law should be changed and not simply ignored if it's bad. And of course, there are good points on either side about the utility of the law; it turns out that I'm less worried than Glenn about the deployment of force for repressive purposes (the President and the various governors already have vast repressive powers at their disposal, even without using the US Army), but I'll acknowledge that's a value judgment.
But I do wish that folks would acknowledge that there are two sides to this story; the use of force internally isn't just about repressing the people, because there are agents of repression other than the Federal Government; states can repress and private actors can repress, and it's unclear that the Feds are going to be the most repressive of those three. Moreover, I retain deep skepticism of any innovations that came out of the South at the end of Reconstruction; while the origins of a thing do not invariably dictate its purpose, they should certainly be taken into account.
And regarding the "why snarky vs. Glenn", please; have you ever read Glenn? He responds to all criticisms at 11, and typically in the most character-disposed manner possible. I suspect it's because he fights wingnuts so regularly, but to echo a commenter above, it's clear that he's capable of taking care of himself.
'Four dead in Ohio' I'm with Glenn on this one.
Apologies to John, I was overly snarky and I regret the insinuations. But hell as a former Army guy you ought to know better as to roles and missions. NORTHCOM has a direct role for supporting DHS in disasters, and I don't understand why you didn't think it was legal for a BCT to be assigned to NORTCOM for a temporary joint task force.
Maybe you could lay out your argument in a more expansive fashion instead of just shooting off "hey is this legal" statements. We both read the Army Times story, so spell it out. Where is the DOD going wrong here by policy, and leave insinuations about White House motives out. Suggestion only.
par4,
National Guard, dude. Posse Comitatus does nothing to prevent Kent State.
I missed the place where Katrina was given as a happy example of the good that the Army can do. Partly because I find it impossible to believe that Katrina was a happy example of anything, but also because one of the things I thought I noticed during Katrina was an excessive emphasis on crowd control and policing the survivors, as opposed to rescuing them or helping them.
And I have to say, now might be the worst time in since WWI or so to give the benefit of the doubt to the Feds on civil liberties issues.
My irritation is that Glenn G and John C do not disassociate the White House's motives and actions from those of the military.
My irritation is you are just flat out making shit up about what I said.
The sum total of my post was to ask how something was legal, note that given the events of the past few months this announcement right now would rais eyebrows, and then linked to a post from 2005 in which I was supportive of this sort of mission, and in which I state (and I will quote it directly, because I am now completely convinced Siggars has not read a word of what I have writen):
Other than any friction there might be regarding Posse Comitatus, this is really not that big of a deal. This is precisely the sort of thing the military should be doing, and, if anything, this should have been done years ago.
And for that, I learn that I am relic from Woodstock and a sissified hand-wringer.
The most irritating thing about it all is that Tim and I often cite Siggars as someone reputable on certain issues, and if I remember correctly, he was one of the few people out there on the right side of the whole "White phosphorous is a chemical weapon" idiocy a few years back. I guess I need to re-check my assumptions about him.
If this were a first step to turn the imperial army into one that protects the country and not the overseas "interests" of the rich and powerful, then I would be all for it.
Except it is not. Bush and friends are content to let mercs do a lot of their work for them, but I suspect this unit exists to destroy American buildings with Americans inside. My guess would be that the thinking behind this was to use against a Beslan event. That is somewhat unlikely to happen here, however, and I am guessing it will most likely be used to prevent autonomous authority being wielded in a manufactured crisis situation.
Rob must've been channeling some type of rightwing armchair general here- the tone was pretty bellicose. He might have a point, but the law does prevent occupation and martial administration, regardless of whether it was used to screw black people or not.
John - still waiting to hear what you think is not legal ref the Army Times article - the temporary assignment of the BCT to NORTHCOM, the permanent CCMRF role, or ...?? or are you now saying that this is a good thing but just mistimed?
Can anyone tell me what the fuck this means:
"...repeat of the early Clinton years (when certain people in the admin were disrespectful and dismissive of military leadership)."
And if its true why it would be a *problem* for a country with a grand tradition of Civilian leadership? As I recall the Clinton years were a time when the army allowed itself to be used by right wing assholes to do things like *threaten a sitting president with harm* if he came to a state with a military base. Mercifully we have rules about the army/military meddling in civilian affairs so, alas, Jason, we must indeed "guess" what the military thinks about shit. The safest thing to do of course if for the military to not only keep mum about what they "think" and the "respect" they deserve but also to defer to civilians and civilian leadership. The alternative is a fucking military dictatorship. We have the rules we have because that is a real possibility at all times in a country with a large, expensive, hungry and demanding standing army. This has nothign to do with woodstock, btw, check out those crazeeee hippy romans and their laws forbidding generals to bring their armies back to Rome.
aimai
Jason:
An Asshole who hopes that progressives will actually find out that the military does serve a purpose benefiting the country
I don't know a single progressive who denies that "the military does serve a purpose benefiting the country."
That's just another stupid, trite, right-wing cartoon you trotted out in lieu of an argument ("all liberals are panties-wearing, limp-wristed Woodstock-leftists who hate the military!!!").
The point isn't that the military has no beneficial function. The point is that serving as a standing law enforcement force under the President's control to exert "crowd control" against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil isn't one of those purposes.
As far as historical precedent - hasn't W pretty much crossed the Rubicon already - a 2000 year old precent.
Glenn:
You mean like jon in above comments 1208?
"There is no benefit to the populace from having US military, under military control based in the US and tasked to respond to US situations. There is much to fear.
jon"
Yeah okaibye.
aimai, I was referring to Clinton admin officials disparaging Gen Barry McCaffrey when he wore his Class As to the White House. Very uncalled for.
We need to shake off this fallacy that Dems are not friends of the military and are not good at national security issues. Our party ought to use the full DIME range of government powers and not let the Repubs keep up the 1960s image of weak Dems addressing military topics.
aimai, I was referring to Clinton admin officials disparaging Gen Barry McCaffrey when he wore his Class As to the White House. Very uncalled for.
Is it "officials" or "one staffer"? Because the only reference I can find after some creative Googling says "one female staffer". That was in the context of a fairly interesting article about the relationship between civilian and military authority. The same article makes it clear that the military was openly hostile and insulting to the Clinton administration from day one.
Robert, my opinion of you has dropped several notches through this whole discussion. You first miss Greenwald's point, then you dismiss his arguments perfunctorily without offering sufficient counter-arguments, and then you indulge the worst kind of strawman arguments when challenged. Through it all, you are defensive, snotty and dismissive. Whether or not one agrees with Greenwald (and I am undecided) you have done neither yourself nor your readers any favors.
Heh. As someone who spent his last two years on active duty as the Plans, Training, and Operations Officer of the WMD RTF-West (back when 1st and 5th Army split the country between them for the MSCA mission) all I have to say is... um, so what?
If we needed active duty troops to meet a requirement, we picked up the phone, called DOMS at the Pentagon, gave them the requirement, and if they agreed it was a good mission, they canvassed the Services for who was available at the time, and taskers went out and people and stuff started moving.
I had a CD, updated monthly, with reams of data of what was available - because you never know when you might want to use a ship to provide on-shore power or water, etc. Or need some AF assets to move Army generators, or a battalion of infantry to do some firefighting.
The Marines at the time were standing up the CBRNE force, they and 59th Ordnance were always high on the list for those sorts of concerns.
All this does is stick someone on active duty with the rose that is *already* stuck on Guard units.
Color me unconcerned.
Jason -
Someone who writes this:
"There is no benefit to the populace from having US military, under military control based in the US and tasked to respond to US situations. There is much to fear."
... does not necessarily think that the military does not serve a purpose benefiting the country. All you can say about such a person with any certainty is that he does not believe that this purpose is found within the borders of the United States of America.
Nice try, but you missed the mark there. Or, as you put it so eloquently, "Yeah okaibye."
Jason, could we drop the imbecile DLC bullshit about Democrats losing votes because they're not nice to the poor suffering military? That's really a different issue, a polcy issue and not a public opinion issue or a campaign issue. We aren't The Democratic Party Central Committee here, we're a bunch of people talking about the ramifications a specific event.
"THAT'S really a different issue, THIS is a policy issue, not an electoral issue...."
clearly moving a couple thousand troops to Colorado isn't in itself a big deal, but if they are once again pushing the envelope of executive branch power (and it appears they are, although I admit a high degree of ignorance of the legal issues involved) that is worth getting worked up over. It's like locking up Jose Padilla, not in itself a huge deal, but the precedent is ENORMOUS.
The military we have now kind of scares me in its political outlook. I think eight years of Bush probably made a lot of these guys a lot more hesitant to think rightwing administrations are great, but there has been a widespread culling of "conservative" strategic thinkers and replacement of them with rightwing radicals.
Petraeus isn't an idiot but he is one gigantic brown noser. He developed a strategy that would be good PR and nothing else. This is evidenced by his throwing away of the COIN manual he helped author. Of course good PR will fool American celebrity journalists everytime, and so the drop in violence in Iraq against occupation soldiers is triumphed as the greatest single victory since the defeat of the Moors.
It's a bit off topic but you only need a certain amount of political officers to keep a military unit in line. And they grow the crazies out here by where I love like its going out of style.
I find the reaction of Rob and some of the commenters almost hilariously OTT. Given the checkered history of this administration's abuse of its powers, is it so unreasonable to be concerned about this development and to question its legitimacy? Or have we gone so far in the direction of uncritical worship of state power that (in the "liberal" blogosphere) we have to treat those concerns with derision and try to marginalize them? Unfortunately, I've noticed that when Rob and Scott become viscerally, emotionally engaged on a given issue, detachment goes out the window, and discussion by smear and insult governs. Disappointingly petty high school-style backbiting that you'd think they'd avoid.
"You first miss Greenwald's point, then you dismiss his arguments perfunctorily without offering sufficient counter-arguments...."
I frequently enjoy Glenn Greenwald, but he had no legitimate point here. The Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the deployment of American troops inside the US; it provides criminal penalties for anyone who orders troops to engage in law enforcement activities, except as authorized by act of Congress. There is already Congressional authorization for posse comitatus actions within the United States, pursuant to the 1807 Insurrection Act. There was an amendment to the Insurrection Act in the FY 2007 defense funding bill; the language greatly broadened the types of situations in which the use of the military as posse comitatus was authorized. That language was repealed almost immediately after the Democrats took control of Congress.
Greenwald noted the transfer of the BCT to a different command, coupled that fact with the no-longer-in-force amendments to the Insurrection Act, and started shouting "fire!"
'Four dead in Ohio' I'm with Glenn on this one.
Those were ill-trained National Guard units that panicked and started shooting. Active military are much less likely to do that.
There's a disturbing amount of apologia for the Confederacy in a great deal of historical accounts, especially concerning reconstruction and the period immediately following reconstruction. Bock (who also writes for the wingnut site World News Daily), is actively participating in this ongoing historical whitewash. I don't have any real opinions on the citing of CENTCOM, having not given it a first or second thought until 45 minutes ago, but I'm pretty instinctively distrustful of anyone who needs to participate the historical whitewash of the late 19th century victory of terrorists for white supremacy in the American South.
I gotta admit I'm somewhat torn here. On the one hand, I have deep respect for Rob and his opinions, particularly about the military, while I see Glenn as melodramatic and manipulative (seriously, have you ever watched him on Bloggingheads? He's like an ambulance chaser making his case). Plus, this deployment doesn't sound that unusual.
On the other hand, I read that bit about crowd control etc., and my thoughts immediately go to Patton his (the military's) response to the Bonus Army).
So I think there may be valid points on Glenn's side of this issue, and it's probably a mistake to glibly dismiss them.
I suppose we can be comforted by the fact that the outrage and motivation to perform large-scale, long-term, and even desperate acts of protest like the Bonus Army are all but dead in this country, rendering some of Glenn et al.'s fears irrelevant
This whole “contentious comments” issue is hi-larious. It seems to me that we have what we always have here, and that is a bunch of miscommunication and defensiveness and protection of ones sacred cows and all the rest. We can never have an adult conversation about things because people get all up in arms about their own pet issues and causes. It’s ridicuous. I am a progressive, true. And I am no fan of the military. True. But I certainly see that our military is still a necessary and indispensable tool, and that the world is not ready to be demilitirized.
But am I concerned about the general concept of “standing armies in the US”? OF COURSE.... While you are all debating back and forth about whether this move is unprecedented or whether this move is necessary, etc., the basic questions remain, and are being tangentially addressed by lobbing insults and intentionally misunderstanding what other people are saying. I don’t know a single progressive in this day and age who would say that the military is unnecessary, or that they “hate” or “loathe” the military or the people in it. Perhaps they mis-speak. I loathe the need for a military, I loathe the structure of the military, I loathe the indescriminant killing of innocents and the ramifications to societies whenever the military is deployed; and so when this is done without due reluctance, it is a disgusting, revolting spectacle that everyone should loathe.
So let’s get to it. Following is what can be read between the lines of comments here from military “enthusiasts”. The intimation here is that having the military in the US performing functions that could be performed by other agencies is no big deal; the intimation further seems to be that the military leadership would never order violence to be perpetrated on the American populace. The further intimation is that if so ordered, the actual members would not perform the action. These are the questions that have to be asked and answered, and everyone here knows the answers already because precedents have been set and history can be our guide.
Now, I don’t know where anyone would get these ideas that “it couldn’t happen here”. And that’s what we’re talking about – the scenarios that MAY happen and which a “systemic change” in the way we do things could expose – which is what Glenn writes about – systemic/structural problems. The military is a blunt instrument, trained to be used for very few things. The leadership of this instrument has been compromised in so many ways, documented by so many people, it’s not worth reviewing here (philosophically, religiously, ideologically). And the actual personnel? Well, I was an “academic monitor” for a flight in the AF a while back, and I can surely tell you that the dim bulbs I helped pass their tests would not flinch if ordered to do something that many would call “questionable”.
So that leaves me with the question of whether, if riots (or some other citizen-oriented re
John - still waiting to hear what you think is not legal ref the Army Times article - the temporary assignment of the BCT to NORTHCOM, the permanent CCMRF role, or ...?? or are you now saying that this is a good thing but just mistimed?
What it do not understand is precisely what I asked- how is it legal to establish a permanent unit of this nature? I thought that was what the spirit and letter of PC outlawed, although I fully acknowledge I may (prbably) be wrong.
On the other hand, what I will say is that I think at this point in the Bush administration, it is ridiculous to label folks like Glenn as hysterical or hand-wringing. Why not just disagree with him and state why? I mean, you can if you want, but given my own personal experiences, you won't catch me doing it.
I spent 2002-2004 parroting administration rhetoric and mocking folks like Glenn. Dirty hippies and their nonsense about a war for oil.
I spent 2005 slowing starting to realize how stupid I have been.
I have spent 2006 on pissed off at the mess I helped create. I learned my lesson. I may not agree with the skeptics, but I am not going to mock them or marginalize them. Not again.
After listening to military spin-meisters regarding WMD, after watching the nonsense regarding the rescue of Jessica Lynch, after listening to how we had turned corner after corner in Iraq, after watching the military pr flacks leak crap about Beauchamp to the Weekly Standard and the wingnuts, after hearing it was nothing but a few bad apples at Abu Gharaib, after watching the proselytization at the Air Force Academy and the subsequent rhetoric from Peter Pace and others, after watching the antics of Petraeus's pr goon Col. Boylan, after all that, just off the top of my head, who looks foolish right now?
You for calling skeptics sissified hand-wringers, or Glenn for asking questions?
And that last comment was a disaster.
First sentence, "it" should be "I."
Second paragraph, I meant you won't catch me mocking people for raising these sorts of question.
Also some verb tense issues throughout, but I am too lazy to document it right now.
I think watching the Sarah Palin/ Katie Couric interview may have made me dumber.
Those were ill-trained National Guard units that panicked and started shooting. Active military are much less likely to do that.
As a side note, after active duty, I was in the guard, and all the m-16's in my unit had a piece of metal attached to them keeping them from going full-auto. These were referred to as 'Kent State Stoppers.'
Of course, as we learned during Beauchamp, I must be making that up because our soldiers never use off color humor. Plus, shooting civilians is not SOP.
I notice the dissing of Heinlein and Starship Troopers I would be much more sanguine about the future of our democracy if all our voters had served a tour in service to the country. Note that the franchise in the novel was not restricted to ex-military: any service was acceptable, and all comers had to be accepted. Note also that current government employees did not have the vote.
People I know who have served in the Peace Corps, Americorps, the military services, ex-civil servants, etc. seem to me, on the whole, to be more concerned, more informed, overall better citizens.
Note also that Heinlein's novels had strong political components from the beginning, and that very rarely were the political setups in his novels those that he would personally have endorsed. Note also that if even 5% of our citizens were half as competent as Heinlein, we'd probably be in much better shape as a country than we are currently. These are the crazy years.
What john cole said. And if it makes some dude in his "class A's" cry count me unimpressed.
aimai
You know, something that is getting lost in all this is that I thought before we put the army into Iraq that people were bitching about how the army was a really bad choice for "painting the schools" and stuff? So can someone explain to me what social situations other than crowd control, for which armies are famously untrained, we are to imagine enjoying the army taking part in the good old us of a? I ask because as someone who actually got out and went to an anti war march or two in my day I see crowds of protestors as a natural and legal part of american life. The army is trained to disperse, shoot, herd, or confine crowds of people. Hell the police are too and they should be used to civil protest--so if the army isn't receiving special training (and I have to expect they are rather stretched) and if they don't have any special authority over me except in delcared situations of martial law can someone explain to me how it would*ever* be a good idea to put the military on the street for any purposes when the military, and I, and the constitution are so at odds about who has the authority to do what?
aimai
Only dirty hippies who hate our troops would object to the permanent assignment of military units to domestic law enforcement.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Glenn Greenwald only objects because he's a hysterical fag, which I won't say explicitly, I'll just outsource it to Jason Snigger.
John Cole-
Totally tangential to what's being debated here, and you're countless times more familiar with your own writing than I am, but I'm surprised you tell the story of your changing views without the word "Schiavo."
coming late to the game here,,,but I side with Glenn G.
For the benefit of our strange, hostile neighbours to the south, I inform that a truely decent democracy only uses its military forces against real national threats: i.e. that white shit that falls from the skies, attempting to smother and immobilize all in its reach.
And the call rang out: "Gentlemen, man your shovels!" And to this day Toronto abides!
Washerdreyer:
Careful how you use that word around John Cole. If he actually hears you say it out loud, his eyes roll back in his head and he starts speaking in tongues.
The whole affair seems to have affected him badly. (Me, too, as it happens, but I don't have a million-dollar blog.)
Since historical arguments seem to be important here, my question is on topic:
If the posse comitatus act is useful regarding the limits of military force against civilians why did the bonus army situation happen?
Was that legal? If it was legal, isn't the posse comitatus act useless anyway?
I hide behind a Shorter Rob Farley name simply because I know that it is over-the-top simplistic, and have no evidence to back it up. This way I can be snarky!
--Will
IM -- I suppose one could argue that having the regular Army crush the Bonus Marchers was putting down an insurrection, and therefore not a police operation.
Thanks static, but if one side in a fight has zero losses I don`t think you can talk about a insurrection. As far as I know the "bonus army" was same kind of permanent demonstration striking a camp and not armed.
Perhaps it has something to do with status of the district.
I suppose one could argue that having the regular Army crush the Bonus Marchers was putting down an insurrection, and therefore not a police operation.
Well alrighty then.
You know, I'd feel a lot more sanguine about the good intentions of our military overlords if they weren't pumping Rush Limbaugh to the troops over the Armed Services Network every day.
Or if those stories about the creeping Christopath influence in our military wouldn't keep cropping up so persistently.
If history's any guide, an all-volunteer standing army is a particularly fertile Petri dish for cultivating such pathologies. For one thing, it's very much a captive audience for propaganda and peer pressure, in an environment that has a built-in "us vs. them" outlook and an essentially authoritarian bent.
I take the Army Times article at its word, and the word that most stands out is control, enforced by supposedly "non-lethal" weaponry (a fine piece of deceptive labeling, that). Really, what magnitude of disasters are our leaders expecting, which will exceed the ability of the police and National Guard to "control"?
I freely admit this is just speculation, to which I can only point to every other extralegal and authoritarian action of the last few years for support. Cynic that I am, this looks too much like a foot in the door to me. I don't expect this to stop with one brigade, and I believe it's fairly plain how they'll end up being employed, if we have a major economic meltdown coupled with a government too crippled with debt to provide any meaningful relief.
@Margarita:
Well alrighty then.
*shrug* Didn't say that *I* saw it that way...
Geez, Farley...Greenwald's right about one thing: you are a smug asshole.
rob and jason are a pair of jerkoff jagoff wankers.
for some reason, atrios @ eschaton links to this pos blog from time to time - i tried to 'get into' this blog (lgm) but man, it just kept sucking.
and this is the first time that i have been back in a while - and guess whut ?! IT STILL SUCKS !! LOL
and now this armchair dummass jason - jeebus what a wanking jagoff. christ.
later wankers. go wanking on your merry wankfest. wankers.
oh yeah
rob & jason - what were your MOSs when you were on Active Duty ??
11BPH
and when i was in, Most if Not All of the active duty personnel Hated the amerikan civilian population and would have Loved a chance to machine gun down quite a few.
so, yeah, i think that the amerikan sheeple should rightly fear any deployment of PTSD afflicted heavily armed personnel in their neighborhoods.
now you can go and wank yourselves.
A couple of things to bear in mind:
1. Should we anticipate a domestic deployment of the "secret weapon" Bob Woodward has recently alluded to as the crucial factor in the success of the Surge in Iraq?
2. Opposition to moves subverting Posse Commitatus was much more formidable in the '90s when the shoe was on the other foot. After Waco, which demonstrated the militarization of federal agencies such as BATF, we saw the rise of the militia movement in fear of the 'Clintonistas' suspending the 2nd amendment. After the election of Bush, however, the 'wing-nuts' settled down, thinking their guns were secure.
Lefties, as this thread demonstrates, seem to have less of a problem with suspending Posse Commitatus even as the jack-boot is on the "right" foot. But they should fear it, since they are generally less prepared to protect themselves against the storm troopers, whether they be local but federalized "Joint Task Force" officers, or BATF or Army or... to entertain the more paranoid fears, UN troops.
Supposing Obama gets elected and the boot then returns to the left foot, with virtual dictatorial powers inherited from Bush (powers seized, mind you, not only because of 9/11 but also through the appeasement of the wing-nuts on the issue of guns), you can expect a resurgence of the militia movement. This time, however, what with a volatile economic situation, things could very easily escalate into an all-out shooting war, a Civil War II, which I dread.
An American Revolution II would be much more preferable, but this can happen only lefties & right-wingers together defuse the duo-polistic manipulation of their passions and join to defend according to their talents the Constitutional Republic that is The United States of America.
You know, given that one of the stated competencies of this force is "crowd control" including training with tasers, and given the way legal public demonstrations were handled in Denver and especially at the RNC in St Paul, given the fact that at least one of the past two elections was stolen by a white-collar mob, and given that last week, for some reason, Bush extended the state of emergency that was started in September of 2001 for another year, I would say that Glenzilla is being far from a nervous nellie.
In fact, I don't trust one damn thing that the Bush Administration does with our military. He went on television yesterday to tell us that the effing sky was falling and now there's efforts to postpone the effing Presidential Debates (and cancel the Vice-Pres debates).
Now, maybe you got some beef with Greenwald that I don't know or care about, but nothing he says sounds out of line to me. All of our fearful expectations of this government have been surpassed in reality. Are you guys gonna act all surprised when the election is postponed, or when martial law is in effect (to protect the banks, of course).
I would have thought that of all people you LGM boys would know well enough that when it comes to civil liberty, you just can't be too vigilant.
Wait, you mean this whole thing is nothing but a little intermural pissing contest?
I'd never watched liberal bloggers cross pork swords before. But then again, I've never really had much interest in this kind of academic chest thumping.
Real nice. Can we please save some energy for actually fighting the fascists?
The reason Farley and Snigger so blithely dismiss Greenwald's concerns is because they're both military fetishists. Anyone who reads enough Farley here can't miss his little boy fascination with all those guns and tanks and carrier battle groups and aircraft and all that cool stuff that blows shit up. Grow up, Rob. Assailing anyone who questions military deployments within the US doesn't make them sissies, but it does make you look like a moron.
One thing this little dust-up has shown me is a point that Arthur Silber often makes. On the liberal side, we often assume that we all share a common aversion to abuse of civil liberties by arbitrary state power and that we all have a common healthy skepticism of power and the people who want to wield it over the rest of us. The dirty little secret, though, is that there are plenty of so-called "progressives" who have no problem with the use of that kind of arbitrary, crushing power as long as they (or their associates, friends, etc.) are wielding it. The only problem they have with the "Trust Us" approach BushCo. has applied over the last eight years is with the second word, not the first - the "wrong" people are using this awesome power, but if the "right" people (them) are using it, the rest of us should trust them. It's actually refreshing to have this little power pathology brought out into the open and hilarious that Rob didn't see how revealing his post and the ruckus that followed could be. Too funny!
After having tried to read this thread, I think I only have one thing to say:
Sometimes I really fucking hate blogs.
Horses for courses...
It's actually refreshing to have this little power pathology brought out into the open and hilarious that Rob didn't see how revealing his post and the ruckus that followed could be.
I've always thought that Rob was worse than Stalin.
Also, it may be wrong of me but I laughed at "Robert Fartley."
All you folks that are saying don't worry about Army deployments in the US are ignoring the recent authoritarian trends using military and paramilitary force.
As recently as the Kent State shootings armed forces have used deadly force against US citizens, and the police state actions against demonstrators and the press at the recent presidential conventions show that that violent impulse has not abated.
If you wanted to be really paranoid you could speculate that the reason that the Army is being used in this case is because the National Guard is usually deployed in their home state, where the soldiers might be hesitant to use deadly force against their neighbors. Army units would likely have less of those inhibitions since they are not usually strongly connected to where they are stationed.
Well, to be frank:
The dirty little secret, though, is that there are plenty of so-called "progressives" who have no problem with the use of that kind of arbitrary, crushing power as long as they (or their associates, friends, etc.) are wielding it.
This has been true since Wilson's day. Google up the Espionage and Sedition Acts for some historical perspective.
Humans are flawed. Even progressives.
Speaking as a Staff Sergeant, US Army: Glenn is both right, and wrong, though I am afraid he is more right than not.
The claim that being based at Ft. Stewart is the same as the assignment to NORCOM is facile. The training mission for SOCOM, CENTCOM, PACCOM, etc. is to be overseas. The Training Mission for NORCOM is apparently to be inside the US.
That is a radical departure. Being called up for local emergencies, on an ad hoc humanitarian basis is quite different from being deployed CONUS to suppress riots. If the training were all about recovering bodies, decontaminting hospitals, and the like, I'd not be so concerned.
But this has mor to it. Armmy Times article tells me that TTP (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) are being developed for crowd control. This administration, has been asserting a right to use the Army in just that way, and while things like Katrina have made use of the logistical abilites of the Army, the Declaration of Independence lists:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
I don't think, as a matter of principle (when the National Guard (of which I am presently a member) is trained in this sort of thing, and has a local interest; and attachement to, the community, which acts as a a moderate check against excess (there is a reason the Russians stationed people no small distance from their homes), this is something one should be sanguine about.
As a soldier (and I like to think patriot) I think Glenn has more the right of it than not.
The people who have been trying to rip into Glenn Greenwald here have, in my humble opinion, only succeeded in showing themselves up as immature dickwads. The sort of snarking on display in some of these comments would be worthy (if that's the right word) of some of the more toxic authoritarian sites like FreeRepublic etc.
A couple of otherwise excellent authors need to take a chill pill, read some of the immature nonsense they have spouted, and then come back and start over.
Re: your bolded statements - the MISSION of "helping people at home" is becoming a permanent part of the active Army. Traditionally that's been a Guard function.
That's right, Jason; it has been. So why change that?
Quite frankly, I do not trust the military to "help people at home." That's not what militaries do. Militaries are trained to fight and kill. The military is not a humanitarian organization.
As several other readers have commented (and Glenn G. has pointed out), it's not terribly reassuring to read that this permanent military unit will be "helping with crowd control" in the context of natural or human-made catastrophic events. I can just imagine how they will do that. Wait, I don't have to imagine it. The St. Paul police force already showed me.
Actually, a permanent deployment of military personnel for internal security purposes is very extreme, and in a country like the U.S, ominous. Other democracies do maintain a distinction between the military and police organizations, and military personnel are not deployed internally except under exceptional circumstances. This is true in India (where military deployment internally on an extended basis requires special acts of parliament,). Feployments during times of internal emergency places militaries under command of the state government authorities. This is probably true in Britain as well.
Militaries are also not trained for law enforcement and maintaining civil order. They are trained to respond with overwhelming force, and deployment of military personnel for internal security is usually a very bad idea, unless the situation has broken down to an extent that local law enforcement cannot handle the situation. I don't know the exact context of the deployment being discussed here, but I think concern is justified if such a deployment is for active internal security duty on a permanent basis.
I'm stunned by the ignorance of some of the comments.
Do people actually believe the 3rd ID, 1st BCT is going to conduct am illegal action against US citizens? Talk about showcasing ignorance regarding the culture of a volunteer Army.
Double G can be over the top and abrasive, and as all humans can possibly be wrong at times. If Rob wanted a reasonable discussion he wouldn't have hit "post." It must have felt good to drop some bombs. Blogs aren't like being at a conference or academic event, but why is it so hard not to give in to the desire to ratchet up the flames?
Greenwald's right about one thing: you are a smug asshole.
Farley has built an entire academic career out of jock-sniffing the US military from a third-tier cow college.
It's not surprising that the best he can bring to a debate against Greenwald is a substance-free pretense of intellectual superiority, supported with sneering homophobic innuendo.
Farley has been a shitstain on this otherwise good blog for too long -- Lemeiux and Watkins should cut him loose.
Umm, I havent read all the comments, just the beginning of the exchange, but I think the blogowner might go and read the original Army Times article at http://www.armytimes.com/news/20...meland_090708w/
. In it, there are quotes like:
"The 1st BCT
’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”
Now, excuse me for maybe being paranoid, but for those of us who remember Seattle this strikes very close to home. Especially when it comes out later in the article that part of the training is to be tazered, meaning that this unit will be deployed with tasers. As we saw in the republican convention, anarchists and other demonstrators are being used as training targets already. When this unit is going to have its first live-drill, who dya think will be the target?
If you dont believe me, go to intel-dump.com where several US army veterans echo my worry that this is another example of the new "warrior culture" in the US armed forces.
P.S. Bless you, Terry Karney.
Rob: "National Guard, dude. Posse Comitatus does nothing to prevent Kent State."
Since Iraq, there is little difference between Nat'l Guard and Regular Army activities.
> I'd like to know if other major democracies have anything on their books even resembling this prohibition.
You might find educational the West Germany 1960's debate regarding Notstandsgesetze, and the various safeguards and related criticism, as well as the upheavals it contributed to in what was then an impressively authoritarian "imposed democracy".
So I learn that Greenwald tends to counterproductive hyperbole and Farley tends to distracting arrogance. Maybe the interesting question is, why are people in this here glorious nation predisposed to see the military as the solution to every problem - whether it is coup and suppression, or disaster relief and "Heimlandsicherheit".
The various parties in post-war Germany were struggling with Germany's history of pervasive militarization. I get that, and even appreciate it to some extent. YMMV.
Do people actually believe the 3rd ID, 1st BCT is going to conduct am illegal action against US citizens? Talk about showcasing ignorance regarding the culture of a volunteer Army.
A few years ago, you might have said: "Do people actually believe that congress would pass some omnibus homeland security bill that does away with habeas corpus and gives the executive branch absolute power and allows them to wiretap on an entire nation and torture people?"
If you think it's unthinkable that a George Bush or goofy, punchdrunk old service brat like McCain is above solving domestic problems with militaristic solutions, you've got another think coming.
What about Little Rock, etc.? Didn't Ike send the 101st Airborne to force the white schools to enroll black kids?
It says 'left' on this blog. How did I wander into Greater Wingnuttia? The post, I mean, not necessarily the commenters.
The PCA probits military personnel from acting as law enforcement officers, to wit, they cannot arrest civilians. They can, under martial law, protect the peace by stopping looters, crowd control, etc etc.
And how do you think they control crowds? Harsh language?
The whole point is that the military uses to force to accomplish goals. Violating posse comitatus "just in case" something happens is very ominous, because when the professional soldiers set out to solve problems like crowd control, it isn't usually pretty.
(The thread is getting a little tl;dreadful, so this may well have been stated above; if so, my apologies.)
You don't mess around with raw physical force, and the Army is its embodiment. It is an extremely useful and hence dangerous tool, and its use must be circumscribed as rigourously as we can do, for the same reason that discipline within its own heavily-armed precincts must be strong.
Once an army is in place where it shouldn't be, and feels justified in being there, there is little civilised
in response to be done, so it's a good idea to use all decent methods of avoiding that situation while we still can do.
Disagree with those of us who you feel are over-worried about this development, or should we concentrate too much on this whilst something else much worse were happening, but please do not mock us therefor.
"I find well-documented, detailed claims ... infinitely more preferable than smug, angry self-satisfied rhetoric devoid of anything substantive "
This was posted by someone claiming to be the same Glenn Greenwald who writes at Salon.com.
...can someone explain to me how it would*ever* be a good idea to put the military on the street for any purposes when the military, and I, and the constitution are so at odds about who has the authority to do what?
Personally, I *love* a good parade.
Tempest. Teapot.
The army is employing "high-energy lasers, weaponized microwave and millimeter wave beams, explosive-driven electromagnetic pulse devices, acoustic weapons, laser induced plasma channel systems, non-lethal directed energy devices, and atomic-scale and subatomic particle beam weapons."
This website and its authors are incredibly full of shit.
Col. Pat Lang back in the first week of October: "NORTHCOM? Calm Down."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/s...com-calm-
d.html
Still, it is never ill advised to be ever-vigilant but hyper-ventilating just makes you dizzy and out of breath.
"OH NOES" ??!! I think your battle - net sensibilities are crowding out actual cognitive functions there sonny.
"but I'd like to know if other major democracies have anything on their books even resembling this prohibition."
I don't know if we qualify as a major democracy, but given our history, in Germany we have a strict prohibition for the Armed Forces to be used for policing. Some conservatives - in the wake of the war on terror - are trying to introduce some measures undermining this strict prohibition, but the notion of a clear cut separation still prevails and is not as outlandish as you make it to be.
Commenting by HaloScan
