February 09, 2009 IssueSince Waco, I have been an ardent opponent of just such activities. I recall readily when Esequiel Hernandez was murdered by those three Marines- there was an uproar amongst a number of us here in Texas about this. However, memories fade and stories sometimes are never learned. Until we bring them up, and in fact, quite recently, I was called a liar when I related this event to a few people and when I presented the prrof, they never apologized to me, simply hung their heads. I understood thier thoughts as I had already had them myself, years before and the knowledge that more are waking up is enough for me- for now.
Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative
Homeland Offense
Washington contemplates deploying the Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Americans have become so inured to the sight of federal troops fighting fires, rescuing flood victims from rooftops, and engaging in drug interdiction on the border that few eyebrows were raised when news broke that 20,000 active-duty infantry would soon be deployed on American soil for so-called homeland defense.
But critics say this development—announced by U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in October—is unprecedented and further evidence of a military mission-creep into domestic affairs, particularly in areas for which the National Guard and Reserves are already suited.
"I don't get it. I don't understand why they are further encumbering active-duty brigades with this kind of mission," says Winslow Wheeler, author of America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress and one of Washington's few civilian experts on the Pentagon's Byzantine budget. "It sounds like someone is expanding his empire."
Pentagon officials say that having a permanent, ready-reaction force capable of responding to a catastrophic event—natural or manmade—is a sensible and necessary outgrowth of post-9/11 national security. But the move has constitutional experts, civil libertarians, and retired and active military scratching their heads. Politicians are now demanding answers, wondering how close the military is to violating the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 federal law passed after Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from conducting domestic law enforcement. A separate Department of Defense directive prohibits the Navy and Marines from engaging in such activities.
Reading the article in full brings up Craig Trebilcock who is quoted:
"These things don't happen in a vacuum," said Craig Trebilcock, an Army reservist and former JAG officer who shared his thoughts with TAC as a private citizen and attorney. The Bush administration's mindset, he added, was to chafe against "any significant restrictions on its use of active duty military forces in the continental U.S.—a tectonic shift from our previous history."He wrote an article in October of 2000, which is also referenced in the above article, titled. The Myth of Posse Comitatus and from his first paragraph, he comes out swinging:
The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense.[1] In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.His article is well researched as his footnotes demonstrate and the article can be summed up in the second to last paragraph:
The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military's role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act's erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.[12]The article, and the subsequent articles I linked to are quite on topic. Texas' latest Border War has been receiving much air time- initially, and now very little is seemingly being published or get articles blaming Texas and the States such as Felipe Calderon just did:
Mexican President Blames U.S. For Drug ViolenceCalderon is partially correct, we are the largest consumer nation (the States) of drugs, but he negates just exactly how much is actually being consumed in Mexico.
Arleene Barrios-KFOX News Reporter
Posted: 5:32 pm MST March 6, 2009
Updated: 6:22 pm MST March 6, 2009
EL PASO, Texas -- President Felipe Calderon said corruption on this side of the border has hampered Mexico's effort to combat the drug cartels. The brunt of the violence is being felt across El Paso's border in Juarez where more than 200 people have died in the past two months.
"I think Calderon is making an assessment of the situation. He said there are several people responsible for this (drug violence), the American consumer is one, and an important one. He mentioned it first," said Tony Payan, UTEP political professor.
According to AFP News Agency, Calderon said the main cause of Mexican drug gang problems was quote "...having the world's biggest consumer (of drugs) next to us."
"If the American consumer was not there, and if the U.S. controlled the flow of guns, Mexico would be much better off. He did definitely say those things," said Payan.
As for guns, a farmers not is all I have for you Felipe becuase your corrupt failed state will never get it's act together. SO many are already armed in your nation, and the weapons come from all over as I have already pointed out. You are nothing more than a puppet so the feral US governemnt can increase it's usage of the military across our land- from our great Texas borders all the way out to your prize of Mexifornia, but what more could I expect from another graudate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Things are happening so much quicker Paranoid readers, answers slip out and then are downplayed or just ignored- most of you are keenly aware of this and I do not need to point this out to most of you. However, it is for those that are not, eyes still closed and ears shut tight that I do.
The only answer I have right now is to keep preparing, keep your head down, and keep your eyes and ears open.
WP
Posts
