Why 20,000 troops in U.S. could be our disaster

Ben Nelms's picture

Putting 20,000 troops on American soil for purposes of domestic (emergency) response would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable prior to 9/11. Those were the words of homeland defense assistant defense secretary Paul McHale in November.

But that is exactly what is happening by September 2011; and 4,700 of that number are already on the ground at Ft. Stewart near Savannah.

The reason: the threat of in-country terrorist attacks.

The problem: federal law established in 1878 essentially prohibits such action for your protection against a government gone wild.

If, or likely when, such an attack occurs, the police will not be able to handle it. Nor apparently will the National Guard in the 50 states.

Now the Bush administration, already performing well as a closet socialist in the recent $750 billion bail-out, and previously with some aspects of the Patriot Act, has given U.S. a going-away present. He has upped the ante on the obliteration of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

So what is this pesky, 130-year-old piece of legislation? The Posse Comitatus Act prohibited search, seizure and arrest powers by the American military on U.S. soil.

Changes to the law began in 1981 when the act was amended by Congress to include “drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities.” And now it changes again.

And as with Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, presidents can enact sweeping changes without Congressional approval. Witness the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that was born with the stroke of President Carter’s pen via Executive Order 12148. And before that, President Ford created the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency with Executive Order 11921.

Get the picture? Budgets in the countless billions. Direct control over our lives if or when a national emergency is declared by the same person that executes the order.

Obama will have to work overtime to top some of these. But give him time. He’s not on the job for a few more weeks.

A complimentary change in military presence on American soil came in February when the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) signed the Civil Assistance Plan with its northern counterpart, Canada Command. The agreement gives each military the ability to operate on each other’s soil at the request of civilian authorities.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM and North American Aerospace Command on the northcom.mil website.

This all sounds great, since we’re being told that local law enforcement and the National Guard might not have enough manpower/firepower to contain the bad guys or respond if they use one or more of the missing Soviet suitcase nuclear devices or some of the weaponized (aerosolized) biological agents processed, later buried and then abandoned in the early 1990s by the Soviets at their Vozrozhdeniye facility on the north side of the Aral Sea. Some of those agents include anthrax combined with botulin toxin and/or tularemia. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

This begs another question. Some supposedly unpatriotic Americans, including me, have been complaining for years that the Bush administration, with many Republicans and nearly all Democrats in tow, have been negligent in maintaining security at our borders. They have. Here’s how.

Aside from all the politically correct BS about not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings (I mean to ensure that Dems keep getting the Latino vote), consider this. Jane’s intelligence operatives (do a Google search for Jane’s if you don’t know who they are) since 9/11 have reported that individuals from Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries were mixing in with groups from the various Latin American countries and coming across our southern border.

Gee, do you think they might have also slipped in a suitcase or a quantity of weaponized biologicals or was that just pot they were “muling” in?

Well, now that we’ve practically invited them in, it’s only fitting that we put our military on American soil to combat their coming deeds and counteract all resulting panic that will result.

By the way, on Dec. 1 the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism predicted a “likely” attack by 2013.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Help create the problem, then change the tenure of the regulatory landscape to impose even further usurpations of our freedom.

Elected leaders whose actions put us at risk are complicit in the potential for our destruction. All in the name of freedom. This witch’s brew is a recipe for disaster.

login to post comments | Ben Nelms's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PTC Observer on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 7:04pm.

Supports your view

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad."

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798, (Madison, II, page 141)

Risktaker's picture
Submitted by Risktaker on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 9:40pm.

Mr. Nelms has the uncanny ability to put all the pieces of the puzzle together giving us an opportunity to think and act before the entire picture comes to pass.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.