Author Topic: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?  (Read 10963 times)

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6769
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 06:07:25 PM »
I would think, though there would be some "boots on the ground" that the 20,000 troops would really be a management team and that troops would be easily transferred under the command of the new Pentagon focus.  Meaning, the ranks can swell immediately and have command and control so 20,000 is really only a token (red herring?) of what could actually be deployed.

I think it's really a matter of who do you want to do this.  An advanced type of police force or the military.  If we're going to get the military in this...it's time to pare back on the police-type agencies and relegate them to traffic control and domestic-type disputes in the so stated emergencies....????.....????  No need to pay for two people doing the same thing.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6424
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2008, 06:27:43 PM »
I would think, though there would be some "boots on the ground" that the 20,000 troops would really be a management team and that troops would be easily transferred under the command of the new Pentagon focus.  Meaning, the ranks can swell immediately and have command and control so 20,000 is really only a token (red herring?) of what could actually be deployed.

I think it's really a matter of who do you want to do this.  An advanced type of police force or the military.  If we're going to get the military in this...it's time to pare back on the police-type agencies and relegate them to traffic control and domestic-type disputes in the so stated emergencies....????.....????  No need to pay for two people doing the same thing.

One thought I had reading this is that there aren't that many US troops to begin with - maybe 135,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment? Total force is what, 350,00 world wide? To be effective across the country - assuming there aren't mass defections due to the blatantly illegal orders coming from higher up - that our bases around the world would be emptied. That means some really bad stuff would be happening for us to walk away from the world. Really bad stuff.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2008, 01:41:24 AM »
I would think, though there would be some "boots on the ground" that the 20,000 troops would really be a management team and that troops would be easily transferred under the command of the new Pentagon focus.  Meaning, the ranks can swell immediately and have command and control so 20,000 is really only a token (red herring?) of what could actually be deployed.

I think it's really a matter of who do you want to do this.  An advanced type of police force or the military.  If we're going to get the military in this...it's time to pare back on the police-type agencies and relegate them to traffic control and domestic-type disputes in the so stated emergencies....????.....????  No need to pay for two people doing the same thing.


Did you look at what the Other units are? they are all NBC, or logistics units, we went over all this a couple months ago when they announced that the were assigning the infantry Brigade. If you READ the OOB and thought about it you would sleep better instead of going batshit with misplaced paranoia.
There are plenty of VALID reasons for not trusting the Gov. with out freaking out about something that actually should have been done YEARS ago. Remember Aum and the Tokyo subway ?
Haz I'm shocked at YOU of all people since you should KNOW what those units are .

PS Washington sent Army in to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Va., Lincoln or his predecessor used Marines under command of Army Capt. R.E.Lee (yes, That Lee) to retake the arsenal at Harper's Ferry, 82nd  in Little Rock, had NOTHING to do with rebellion, or insurrection, neither did using the Army at Wounded Knee in 1973. Oh, I almost forgot about 1946, when they used Marines to put down a riot at Alcatraz. The whole PURPOSE of the Army is to operate on US soil, Whether defending from foriegn invaders or suppressing indians or chasing bandits like Pancho Villa.

USSA-1

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 202
    • US Shooting Academy
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2008, 07:49:19 AM »
Quote
Could you provide info on how a President can suspend the Constitution? I suspect that this is urban myth.


Sorry about that, I got a little ahead of myself.  The President can not suspend the Constitution per se, as in saying, "I am suspending the Constitution."  The imposition of Martial Law suspends parts of the Constitution, like your example of Habeas Corpus.  Although after doing some research, it most likely won't be called Martial Law.  The new PC term is State of Emergency.  While the Constitution supposedly gives limited powers to the Executive Branch under Martial Law or States of Emergency, there are several Executive Orders in effect which provide the President almost unlimited power and since the Courts, by definition of Martial Law, are incapable of operating, there is no way to challange the EO's during the time a State of Emergency is declared.  This is very similar to what happened during Katrina where Ray Nagin ordered Martial Law and suspended certain civil rights, including the 2nd Amendment and authorized LE to confiscate weapons.  It wasn't until well after Katrina was over that the lawsuits were filed (when the Courts were operational again.)  Nagin and the City lost the lawsuits and will have to pay some damages for violating Civil Rights eventually, but this is little comfort that first night they took away your firearms and you had no way to defend yourself or your family from the roving gangs (who they never seemed able to disarm.)

Here are a few EO's I found to make you say WTF!

 Martial law is defined as: military rule or authority imposed on a civilian population when the civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as in a time of war or during an emergency.

Executive Order 10995: All communications media are to be seized by the Federal Government. Radio, TV, newspapers, CB, Ham, telephones, and the internet will be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will be suspended indefinitely.
 
Executive Order 10997: All electrical power, fuels, and all minerals well be seized by the federal government.
 
Executive Order 10998: All food resources, farms and farm equipment will be seized by the government. You will not be allowed to hoard food since this is regulated.

Executive Order 10999: All modes of transportation will go into government control. Any vehicle can be seized.

Executive Order 11000: All civilians can be used for work under federal supervision.
 
Executive Order 11490: Establishes presidential control over all US citizens, businesses, and churches in time of "emergency."

Executive Order 12919: Directs various Cabinet officials to be constantly ready to take over virtually all aspects of the US economy during a State of National Emergency at the direction of the president.

Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take control over all government agencies in time of emergency. FEMA is under control of executive branch of the government.

Executive Order 12656: "ASSIGNMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES", "A national emergency is any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States. Policy for national security emergency preparedness shall be established by the President." This order includes federal takeover of all local law enforcement agencies, wage and price controls, prohibits you from moving assets in or out of the United States, creates a draft, controls all travel in and out of the United States, and much more.
Martial law can be declared due to natural disasters, Y2k Crisis, Stock Market crash, no electricity, riots, biological attack, .... anything leading to the breakdown of law and order.

And these are just a few I found.  I've will continue to tell anyone who comes through our training courses.  Only YOU are responsible for your own security at all times.  Sometimes you may have help, other times you won't.  Prepare accordingly.

USSA-1
"Occupo Mens"
Win the Fight

Watch The Tactical Rifle Channel

1776 Rebel

  • Guest
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2008, 08:39:42 AM »
USSA-1, I hear ya about Martial Law and EO's.

Again I am not a lawyer but my views are as follows. Martial Law is not seperate from the Constitution. The UCMJ applies and it is governed by the Constitution. That again is what the GITMO litigation is about. Next lets use the Katrina example. Nagin LOST the lawsuits. That means he was acting ILLEGALLY. Yes they confiscated guns. (the following is my humble opinion) BUT that is because cops don't have any qualms about breaking/ignoring the law. Whether it is Bull Connor or Ray Nagin's boys most have the mentality of "they ARE THE LAW".

Yes there are lots of EO's. But that doesn't make them legal. I suspect that the collection of EO's that have accumulated over the last 50 years represent some out of date concepts of Executive power and plain over stretching. Again that doesn't mean the gov't wouldn't act on them, but I trust they haven't invoked them because they realize they will be challenged and loose. That said, I don't and never will trust any of the agencies of government. 

In sum, you are absolutely dead on when you say that "Only YOU are responsible for your own security at all times". Do what you need to do. There might be legal consequences but that is the tradeoff between life/freedom and harm.   

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #25 on: Today at 12:36:11 AM »

1776 Rebel

  • Guest
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2008, 09:06:43 AM »
Here is the National Archives website with all the EO's. Drill down on the disposition tables. You will note that some EO's like 11000 (from John Kennedy) have been superceded several times by newer EO's. That is what makes me think a lot of this stuff is not as the web says.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/

The current EO's in effect are all visible in the Codification of EO's. This describes what is included in the volume....

Documents not included in this volume
If a proclamation or Executive order had no legal effect on January 20, 1989, its text is not included in this volume. As indicated in the final disposition column, these documents are revoked or superseded; temporary, that is, effective for a period of time stated in the document, or executed and now obsolete; hortatory; or the authorities under which they were issued have been repealed or otherwise affected.



2HOW

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2008, 06:45:06 PM »
Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with
20,000 Armed Troops « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog
You see, a financial collapse in Washington is
imminent. This Federal Reserve bailout is just
short-term cover that accomplishes nothing. You can’t
save an economy from endless bad debt by creating yet
more bad debt. With the derivatives market hovering
somewhere beyond $500 trillion, it will be impossible
for the Fed to bail out all the failures without
bankrupting the U.S. taxpayers and destroying the U.S.
currency first.

With a defunct currency and the inevitable riots and
social unrest that always follows the massive theft of
money from the people, the U.S. will be ripe for
Balkanization, or the breaking up of regions that will
declare their own sovereignty. One Russian analyst
famously predicted several weeks ago that the United
States would break into seven new nations, each with
its own laws, its own military and its own political
power.

What’s the best way to prevent such a breakup? Show up
with 20,000 troops and force the member states to back
down at gunpoint.

But you might ask why wouldn’t the federal government
just use the National Guard to accomplish this? Why
does it need Pentagon troops? The answer is simple:
Because the National Guard troops are controlled by
the STATES.. It is, in fact, the National Guard troops
that will be fighting for the freedom of their
regions, fighting to break off from the tyrannical
federal government that has already engineered the
greatest financial swindle in history and now wants to
maintain power over all the states, too.

This is the new civil war that will be shaping up:
National Guard troops vs. the Pentagon’s troops. And
that is why the Pentagon is calling 20,000 troops into
the homeland right now: It’s preparing for a civil war
and the potential breakup of the nation.


AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Ulmus

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • DRTV Ranger
    • Gunslinger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2008, 07:49:06 PM »
I don't see the nation splitting up.  Too many different types of people living together in the same cities and states to allow that.  Riots possible?  Yes.  Higher crime?  Yep.  Wyoming threatening to succeed.  Possible.  It happening, not likely.  (Not enough tax base.)

I'm going with the theory that these troops are going in where-ever a terrorist strike hits.  Why?  Because after going through a devestating hurricane, I've seen first hand how swamped FEMA and the National Guard are with the handing out water, and food, and trying to help coordinate security with the local police.  (And this was a realtively small community of roughly 70,000 people that helped each other out.) 

Now we all saw the chaos that happened in New Orleans during Katrina.  Imagine if there is a boioogical or (God Forbid) a Nuclear attack in New York, D.C., L.A. or any large city.  Just think of the PANIC that would bring!  The National Guard is going to need back up and those 20,000 troops are the best choice to provide it.  (You don't want Blackwater do you?)  How long would it take to get troops from Iraq or Afghanistan over here in a hurry and are they trained for such an event?  Having a group of soldiers specifically trained for this event will allow the National Guard to do what they were trained to do.  (As for local police,  If their equipment is destroyed, they are going to be spending half their time and resources trying to get up and running before they can get out and help.)

You might say I'm being polyanaish, but I'd rather have our soldiers help us than a group like Blackwater anyday.

You can't stop a storm, but you can be ready to clean up the mess it leaves behind.

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2008, 02:11:48 AM »
Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with
20,000 Armed Troops « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog
You see, a financial collapse in Washington is
imminent. This Federal Reserve bailout is just
short-term cover that accomplishes nothing. You can’t
save an economy from endless bad debt by creating yet
more bad debt. With the derivatives market hovering
somewhere beyond $500 trillion, it will be impossible
for the Fed to bail out all the failures without
bankrupting the U.S. taxpayers and destroying the U.S.
currency first.

With a defunct currency and the inevitable riots and
social unrest that always follows the massive theft of
money from the people, the U.S. will be ripe for
Balkanization, or the breaking up of regions that will
declare their own sovereignty. One Russian analyst
famously predicted several weeks ago that the United
States would break into seven new nations, each with
its own laws, its own military and its own political
power.

What’s the best way to prevent such a breakup? Show up
with 20,000 troops and force the member states to back
down at gunpoint.

But you might ask why wouldn’t the federal government
just use the National Guard to accomplish this? Why
does it need Pentagon troops? The answer is simple:
Because the National Guard troops are controlled by
the STATES.. It is, in fact, the National Guard troops
that will be fighting for the freedom of their
regions, fighting to break off from the tyrannical
federal government that has already engineered the
greatest financial swindle in history and now wants to
maintain power over all the states, too.

This is the new civil war that will be shaping up:
National Guard troops vs. the Pentagon’s troops. And
that is why the Pentagon is calling 20,000 troops into
the homeland right now: It’s preparing for a civil war
and the potential breakup of the nation.




You've GOT to be f&$#@ng joking.
Don't you understand what a militarily insignificant force 20,000 troops are in a country of 300 MILLION.
There are more than 20,000 STREET CORNERS in a city like LA. They would be out numbered by gang bangers. This whole thread is asinine paranoia.  (My spell check just taught me there is only ONE s in asinine, HUH, 2 made sense)

USSA-1

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 202
    • US Shooting Academy
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deploying US Military inside US - WTF?
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2008, 08:05:38 AM »
1776,

Good catch on the EO's.  I only did a quick search and the site I used did not have effective dates for the EO's. 

I still think the issue regarding the EO's is valid.  Regardless of whether of not the Supreme Courts rules the EO's Constitutional, they won't be challanged until after the incident that caused the State of Emergency is over.  During the actual emergency, the Govt. will be acting under the authority of those orders and there won't be time or possibly a Court available to challange the Constitutionality of the EO's until much later.

Until then, you are on your own.

USSA-1
"Occupo Mens"
Win the Fight

Watch The Tactical Rifle Channel

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk