Welcome to the police state!

[mj278]

20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011!

So says the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html?sub=AR). But it is for our own good...at least that is what we will be told. Um...is this really necessary? Me thinks not.

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

[bla bla]

On principle I don't like the sound of it either, but if terrorists pull something
like they just did in India the local SWAT team aint gunna cut it.

It is however worrysome it should happen under a socialist President...

[4Reaganomics]

don't we have a national guard to deal with such issues, between homeland security and the national guard we should be able to defend ourselves

I don't want to give up liberty in order to have the security of 20k more troops in the domestic U.S.

[PostmodernProphet]

20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011!
just out of curiosity, did you assume all the soldiers we have had in the US for the last 250 years were naked?......

A total of 1,083,027 personnel are on active duty within the United States and its territories (including those afloat):[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States#cite_note-26) The vast majority, 883,430 of them, are stationed at various bases within the Continental United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_United_States). There are an additional 36,827 in Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii) and 19,828 in Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska). 90,218 are at sea while there are 2,970 in Guam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam) and 137 in Puerto Rico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

[IndieVisible]

Not sure how 20,000 blend in to every 50 states. 400 per state? Is that too many? Not sure. Jury is still out for me on this.

[william the wierd]

I wonder if they will back up the proposed National Service Corps?

[mj278]

just out of curiosity, did you assume all the soldiers we have had in the US for the last 250 years were naked?.....

No, I didn't. I wonder if the author of the article thought that?

I find it kinda funny that we do nothing about illegal immigration and we don't take seriously the matter of securing our borders. But yet, we will do this for our safety?

[Osborn F. Enready]

MJ278 said:
I find it kinda funny that we do nothing about illegal immigration and we don't take seriously the matter of securing our borders. But yet, we will do this for our safety?

Shame on you for observing the obvious logical fallacy involved.

[apdst]

In case ya'll haven't noticed, there are over 20,000 federal troops in the US, already.

Right now, there are 12 regular army divisions, 8 NG divisions and 12 army reserve divisions. No reason to get the squirts over one more.

[bla bla]

No, I didn't. I wonder if the author of the article thought that?

I find it kinda funny that we do nothing about illegal immigration and we don't take seriously the matter of securing our borders. But yet, we will do this for our safety?

Border security is a glaring incongruity with the stated focus on National
Security by our government.

[brien]

We already have a police state...so some people are merely noticing now? Where have all of Rip Van Winkles been lately?

[apdst]

There's no way we can have a police state, when criminals have more rights and constitutional protections than the cops do.

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
There's no way we can have a police state, when criminals have more rights and constitutional protections than the cops do.

LOL... sure you can. Criminals and politicians have more rights than citizens, because they are the same group.

[brien]

LOL... sure you can. Criminals and politicians have more rights than citizens, because they are the same group.

I couldn't have said it better..

[brien]

There's no way we can have a police state, when criminals have more rights and constitutional protections than the cops do.

Well then, try and get in your car and drive through a small suburban town in any Northeastern state at 2 am or 3 am in the morning after the bars have been closed for about an hour. See if you don't get pulled over by a cop just waitng to pounce. Drunk or not, probable cause or not, you will be detained and investigated until they determine if you are drunk or even have been consuming alcoholic beverages. They also use the opportunity to run a background check on you as well.

Btw, what's the first thing a cop asks you when you are "blue lighted" by a patrol car?

"Drivers license, registration, and Insurance card, please".... same as "Where are your papers"?

Try telling the cop you have no ID even if he stops you walking on the street. You may likely end up in the police station if the cop so chooses to bring you in, even if you haven't violated any law.

I understand what you are writing with regard to illegal immigrants, but it is a hypocritical fact that they are given preferential treatment by local and state police b/c they aren't turned over to ICE. This doesn't really make it any less of a police state. It merely makes the police look more crooked in that police state.

[apdst]

Criminals and politicians have more rights than citizens, because they are the same group.

No argument here.

How can there be a police state when one convicted felon gets re-elected, and another congressman that is under indictment gets re-elected?

Cops go to jail for clamping the handcuffs too tight, but an Ohio bureaucrat can violate a citizen's civil rights for political reasons and she gets suspended for a month.

I'm just not see'n it, fellas.

[brien]

No argument here.

How can there be a police state when one convicted felon gets re-elected, and another congressman that is under indictment gets re-elected?

Cops go to jail for clamping the handcuffs too tight, but an Ohio bureaucrat can violate a citizen's civil rights for political reasons and she gets suspended for a month.

I'm just not see'n it, fellas.

Do you think Hitler's SS and his circle of support, were ever forced into the concentration camps, even if they broke the law, excepting doing anything to harm the Fuerer himself?

[apdst]

Well then, try and get in your car and drive through a small suburban town in any Northeastern state at 2 am or 3 am in the morning after the bars have been closed for about an hour. See if you don't get pulled over by a cop just waitng to pounce. Drunk or not, probable cause or not, you will be detained and investigated until they determine if you are drunk or even have been consuming alcoholic beverages.

Everytime I've been pulled over; small town, big town, whichever, it was because I had fucked up. I drive trucks for a living. I've driven them all over the country and I've enver once been harrassed, by anyone. And, hey, I live in Louisiana; the state that is percieved to be one of, if not the most corrupt state in the union.

The New Orleans police department is one of the most brutal in the country. They've earned that reputation. Of all the times that I've been drunker than a shithouse rat, in New Orleans, I've never been harrassed. Why? Because I didn't so things to attract their attention. A little piece of advice, in case you ever attend Mardi Gras in the French Quarter: if a NOPD cops tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it. They don't ask twice, the second option will be to leave you bleeding in the gutter.

Are there bad cops? Sure there are. I'll never say there aren't, but it's been my observation that people who get "harrassed" by the cops, bring it upon themselves.

[brien]

Everytime I've been pulled over; small town, big town, whichever, it was because I had fucked up. I drive trucks for a living. I've driven them all over the country and I've enver once been harrassed, by anyone. And, hey, I live in Louisiana; the state that is percieved to be one of, if not the most corrupt state in the union.

The New Orleans police department is one of the most brutal in the country. They've earned that reputation. Of all the times that I've been drunker than a shithouse rat, in New Orleans, I've never been harrassed. Why? Because I didn't so things to attract their attention. A little piece of advice, in case you ever attend Mardi Gras in the French Quarter: if a NOPD cops tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it. They don't ask twice, the second option will be to leave you bleeding in the gutter.

Are there bad cops? Sure there are. I'll never say there aren't, but it's been my observation that people who get "harrassed" by the cops, bring it upon themselves.

Hey I am in trucking also but when we are talking about driver professionals, and the cops know that drivers need their license for a living, they generally leave them alone unless there are moving violations observed by the cop or you are going through a DOT inspection or a scale house.

I am talking about the general John Q citizen in a four wheeler. Here in the Northeast you can't drive through a small town at 2am without usually being followed and eventually stopped by the cops just to check you out. They invent the probable cause and say you failed to keep right. I am not saying it happens to everyone, everytime, but it happens more often than not here. I knew a guy who was stone cold sober every night coming off the night shift at General Dynamics in New London and it never failed; he was usually pulled over a few times a week on his way home. It gets annoying after a while..

[apdst]

Here in the Northeast you can't drive through a small town at 2am without usually being followed and eventually stopped by the cops just to check you out.

That's not a police state, that's a Liberal state. You can thank MADD for all that. I'm not surprised to hear that the cops are forced to waste their time on that kind of shit, instead of fighting real crime. I bet they only pullover white folks like that, too, huh?

[mj278]

Well then, try and get in your car and drive through a small suburban town in any Northeastern state at 2 am or 3 am in the morning after the bars have been closed for about an hour. See if you don't get pulled over by a cop just waitng to pounce. Drunk or not, probable cause or not, you will be detained and investigated until they determine if you are drunk or even have been consuming alcoholic beverages. They also use the opportunity to run a background check on you as well.

What does a suburb in the NE have to do with anything? I grew up in the city, and now live in a suburb in the NE, and I don't experience what your describing here. I am more likely to get pulled over or stopped by a cop in the city.

Anyway, isn't this what the National Guard is for? Or am I wrong? Why do we need to have troops for domestic security?

[bla bla]

Anyway, isn't this what the National Guard is for? Or am I wrong? Why do we need to have troops for domestic security?

Nothing our government does makes much sense.

There have been regular incursions across our border by armed Mexican troops,
and no matter how many Mexicans and Americans are killed by drug runners or
'Coyotes' they refuse to use the Guard to patrol the border with the permission
to use force...
but they will send National Guard to Iraq to fight in a war even though that is
NOT THEIR ROLE.

They use Guard to fight a war but do not choose to use them when forming a
domestic National force trained to respond to terrorism.

Apparently making sense isn't high on their list of things to do.


I had no problem with the formation of a terror response team because I do
not inherent distrust our military as some do, but it should be the Guard.

[PostmodernProphet]

you guys just don't get it....this is just reality following art.....in every horror/disaster movie I have ever seen, when the aliens invade, when the monsters climb the building, when the rampant disease or terrorist released radioactivity occur......then the military comes rolling down the road with jeeps and tanks and wearing Army uniforms, not NG.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

All I can say is that the writing is all over the wall in big, double-thick, graffitti letters applied by spray can in a gang motif.

[lily]

I'm confused....isn't our army suppose to protect us? Personally I'd rather have them on US soil, than Iraqi or Afghan......but hey, some politicians think that building a wall is going to do the job.:thumbsup:

[brien]

What does a suburb in the NE have to do with anything? I grew up in the city, and now live in a suburb in the NE, and I don't experience what your describing here. I am more likely to get pulled over or stopped by a cop in the city.

Anyway, isn't this what the National Guard is for? Or am I wrong? Why do we need to have troops for domestic security?


The suburb example is only one facet of the police state that I used as an example. It isn't the "shinnig example" by any means. It was only merely one example of how the Police state affects the ordinary citizen in suburbia. As far as your own experience, so be it. I have seen different in my 40 years of driving. Furthermore, I have a very close friend who is a cop and beleive me, they can do just about anything they want to a suspect before they take them into custody and virtually get away with it b/c courts believe cops before they believe the accused. You ever know anyone who has spent time in custody or in a penetentiary? Tell them we don't live in a police state and you may get a different point of view.

As far as cities, have you ever been to DC. You can't get into any government owned building w/o going through a metal detector. I am talking about museums, public buildings, and other government owned buildings. They are all guarded by men in uniforms with guns and there are metal detectors at all entrances. In NYC, every museum has a metal detector and are also guarded by men in uniforms w/ guns. I guess the increased threats on the Manet's, the Monet's, and the Van Gogh's are serious enough to warrant this now.

All of this aside, in my experience in the US, I have seen an increased presence of the police, and the expansion of every level of the police. Local police, County sherrifs, State Police, some states like GA have their own "investigative units like the GBI. On the Federal level there are the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, ICE, the Border Patrol, etc..

I don't think we need "special troops" for domestic security. We have the National Guard and the US military along with the Coast Guard, and all of the Federal agencies I mentioned, who can do the job of guarding and securing the borders if the government in charge directs them to do it. So far, we haven't seen anything that faintly resembles border security in the US, and this will eventually come home to harm the US in a way that may make 911 look like child's play.

[brien]

That's not a police state, that's a Liberal state. You can thank MADD for all that. I'm not surprised to hear that the cops are forced to waste their time on that kind of shit, instead of fighting real crime. I bet they only pullover white folks like that, too, huh?


I fully agree with you. So let's call it the Liberal Police state. LOL It was only one example that affects the ordinary guy or gal in suburbia.

[william the wierd]

I'm confused....isn't our army suppose to protect us? Personally I'd rather have them on US soil, than Iraqi or Afghan......but hey, some politicians think that building a wall is going to do the job.:thumbsup:
Deployment of federal troops on US soil was one of the big sticking points in getting the constitution adopted. Multiple laws going back to the Washington administration restrict when and how federal troops can be used domestically. Even in the USSR KGB troops not Red army troop were used for such functions because this idea is incredibly stupid regardless of political structure. The whys get quite involved but the basic problem is that an army is trained to maximize force while police are trained to minimize force.

[bla bla]

Like most things the Federal government does it's all ass-backward and poorly
conceived.
We have National Guard who have been for all intents and purposes drafted
to fight a war. They should be brought home, where they were meant to
serve, and trained to do this job.

[william the wierd]

Like most things the Federal government does it's all ass-backward and poorly
conceived.
We have National Guard who have been for all intents and purposes drafted
to fight a war. They should be brought home, where they were meant to
serve, and trained to do this job.
That would require thought.

[lily]

Deployment of federal troops on US soil was one of the big sticking points in getting the constitution adopted. Multiple laws going back to the Washington administration restrict when and how federal troops can be used domestically. Even in the USSR KGB troops not Red army troop were used for such functions because this idea is incredibly stupid regardless of political structure. The whys get quite involved but the basic problem is that an army is trained to maximize force while police are trained to minimize force.


What bla bla said plus if you read the entire article it's not as scary as some would want you to believe. Again, I'd rather have our soldiers here than over there and well trained, as the article states.

[apdst]

Personally I'd rather have them on US soil,

I would rather have them fighting the enemy abroad, vice waiting for the enemy to show up on our front door step. You don't want your family to become collateral damage, do you? That's what will happen, if we fight the war here, vice somewhere else.

So let's call it the Liberal Police state. LOL It was only one example that affects the ordinary guy or gal in suburbia.

Agreed!!...LOL!

[mj278]

We are becoming a more militarized, totalitarian state. This is not good.

I also came across another interesting article. There was an agreement signed earlier (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d) in the year that would allow for U.S. troops to cross into Canada, and vice versa, during "emergencies." This was done quietly without much announcement to the public.

The Canada-US civil assistance plan (http://www.canadacom.forces.gc.ca/docs/pdf/cap_e.pdf)

We are headed towards fascism, and there are people who think this is a good thing? There is no such thing as absolute security. One can never be completely safe. Our rights are fading, and many people still don't care. This has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and has the potential for the abuse of power...possibly martial law!?

The big problem I have with this is the possibility of abuse. Whose to say what they will consider an emergency?

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

What exactly defines "other domestic catastrophe"? How long before the military gets involved in non-emergency issues?

We need to connect the dots. Political correctness is killing free speech...some are suppressing speech that they don't approve of...our politicians along with the fed continue to hinder our economy...we are experiencing bailout mania, and the printing of more money, which is bringing down the value of our dollar...there is opposition to the second amendment...Do we really want to live in a society where the only people with guns are those affiliated with the government? And now this...We are moving towards fascism.

[apdst]

We are headed towards fascism, and there are people who think this is a good thing? There is no such thing as absolute security. One can never be completely safe. Our rights are fading, and many people still don't care. This has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and has the potential for the abuse of power...possibly martial law!?

That's why I would rather see our soldiers deployed abroad, fighting the enemy, rather than deployed here, waiting for the, "enemy". We might be surprised who the, "enemy", turns out to be. I'm starting to believe that anyone who speaks out against the Liberals is considered to be, "the enemy". That's why BO wants to establish his private army, so he can keep us uppity dissenters in line.

[william the wierd]

One of the understated points is that US troops tend to be recruited from less urban areas and marry women around where they are based which also tends to be away from the large urban areas. The orders given had best conform to the troops sence of duty.

[preservanation]

This is illegal under Posse Comitatus.
A very bad idea.
This can only lead to abuse and conflict.

I've actually had discussions about this sort of things with my veteran friends.
Their loyalty to the Gov ends when they are asked to take away the freedoms and rights of Americans which they have fought and lost comrades for.
In another words...they fought for us and will be damned if they will fight against us.
American Soldiers will not act as Brownshirts for any POTUS.
Top Brass are of similar mind as well.

Also, our police force is made up of lots of ex-military...they won't go along with this if they perceive this as "storm-trooping".

The Feds should be very wary of pitting themselves up against such a numerous, well armed...and yes, a VERY Dangerous group of individuals

[PostmodernProphet]

This is illegal under Posse Comitatus.

come on dude, get real......that act prohibits the use of federal forces to "maintain law and order" on non-federal property....it doesn't prohibit dealing with toxic or nuclear disaster any more than it prohibits the Army Corp of Engineers from dredging a harbor.......

[william the wierd]

come on dude, get real......that act prohibits the use of federal forces to "maintain law and order" on non-federal property....it doesn't prohibit dealing with toxic or nuclear disaster any more than it prohibits the Army Corp of Engineers from dredging a harbor.......
On the veterans fora I go to sometimes, the complaints about violations of PC: Waco, the weapons thefts after Katrina and so on; seem pretty pro forma. The resignations, mutinies and independent agendas (usually special ops the activity and SBS being the most notorious) are rarely, if ever talked about. I don't think anyone has more than a vague idea as to what is likely to happen with and as a result of this proposal. As mentioned in my earlier post even totalitarian regimes tend to avoid such idiocy, although Latin America is full of such cases and as we all know it is a byword of stability.

[Wndrtch]

don't we have a national guard to deal with such issues, between homeland security and the national guard we should be able to defend ourselves

I don't want to give up liberty in order to have the security of 20k more troops in the domestic U.S.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but of the 2Mln troops that make up all active duty personell, most of them are stationed at US bases, which means they are already in "domestic US".

And what liberties are you giving up, by allowing an extra 400 troops in your state? :ponder:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
And what liberties are you giving up, by allowing an extra 400 troops in your state?

I will be happy to answer after we see how they are used.....

[Grizz]

All of the HOOha about this makes mention of the attacks in Bombay and the havoc caused by a bunch of terrorists running amok. I just have to wonder why anyone would think some troops scattered about the country would protect us any better than an armed citizenry. I don't know how many Indian citizens are licensed to carry, but I suspect it isn't many. Contrast that with this country and I think you can understand why there haven't been any of these attacks here. It sure isn't because they couldn't infiltrate or obtain weapons. Rather, I suspect, it's because they know they'd be dead in short order.

[william the wierd]

All of the HOOha about this makes mention of the attacks in Bombay and the havoc caused by a bunch of terrorists running amok. I just have to wonder why anyone would think some troops scattered about the country would protect us any better than an armed citizenry. I don't know how many Indian citizens are licensed to carry, but I suspect it isn't many. Contrast that with this country and I think you can understand why there haven't been any of these attacks here. It sure isn't because they couldn't infiltrate or obtain weapons. Rather, I suspect, it's because they know they'd be dead in short order.
Such assaults in gun control areas such as Chicago, DC and New York still make excellent sense for the terrorists.

[apdst]

It sure isn't because they couldn't infiltrate or obtain weapons. Rather, I suspect, it's because they know they'd be dead in short order.

I believe it's more because they know that their cribs will get bombed to shit-n-gone.

There are enough gun free zones in this country for terrorists to attempt this same style of attack, and succeed. Imagine three terrorists, walking across any given college campus, spraying automatic weapons fire, with a thousand rounds of ammo on them. Look what one single nutjob and a pistol did at the University of Illinois.

Who is going to stop three--much less ten--guys totin' automatic weapons? Campus police?