Use of military in quelling domestic unrest a scary sign

AMY GOODMAN
Seattle pi
Thursday, Oct 2, 2008

A little-noticed story surfaced a couple of weeks ago in the Army Times newspaper about the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team. “Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months,” reported Army Times staff writer Gina Cavallaro, “the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.” Disturbingly, she writes that “they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control” as well.

The force will be called the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive Consequence Management Response Force. Its acronym, CCMRF, is pronounced “sea-smurf.” These “sea-smurfs,” Cavallaro reports, have “spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle,” in a combat zone, and now will spend their 20-month “dwell time” — time troops are required to spend to “reset and regenerate after a deployment” — armed and ready to hit the U.S. streets.

The Army Times piece includes a correction stating that the forces would not use nonlethal weaponry domestically. I called Air Force Lt. Col. Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for Northern Command. She told me that the overall mission was humanitarian, to save lives and help communities recover from catastrophic events. Nevertheless, the military forces would have weapons on-site, “containerized,” she said — that is, stored in containers — including both lethal and so-called nonlethal weapons. They would have mostly wheeled vehicles, but would also, she said, have access to tanks. She said that use of weapons would be made at a higher level, perhaps at the secretary of defense level.

Talk of trouble on U.S. streets is omnipresent now, with the juxtaposition of Wall Street and Main Street. The financial crisis we face remains obscure to most people; titans of business and government officials assure us that the financial system is “on the brink,” that a massive bailout is necessary, immediately, to prevent a disaster. Conservative and progressive members of Congress, at the insistence of constituents, blocked the initial plan. If the economy does collapse, if people can’t go down to the bank to withdraw their savings, or get cash from an ATM, there may be serious “civil unrest,” and the “sea-smurfs” may be called upon sooner than we imagine to assist with “crowd control.”

The political and financial establishments seem completely galled that people would actually oppose their massive bailout, which rewards financiers for gambling. Normal people worry about paying their bills, buying groceries and gas, and paying rent or a mortgage in increasingly uncertain times. No one ever offers to bail them out. Wall Street’s house of cards has collapsed, and the rich bankers are getting little sympathy from working people.

That's where the sea-smurfs come in. Officially formed to respond to major disasters, like a nuclear or biological attack, this combat brigade falls under the U.S. Northern Command, a military structure formed on Oct, 1, 2002, to "provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts." Military participation in domestic operations was originally outlawed with the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, however, included a section that allowed the president to deploy the armed forces to "restore public order" or to suppress "any insurrection." While a later bill repealed this, President Bush attached a signing statement that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

We are in a time of increasing economic disparity, with the largest gap between rich and poor of any wealthy industrialized country. We are witnessing a crackdown on dissent, most recently with $100 million spent on "security" at the Democratic and Republican national conventions. The massive paramilitary police forces deployed at the RNC in St. Paul, Minn., were complete overkill, discouraging protests and conducting mass arrests (National Guard troops just back from Fallujah were there). The arrest there of almost 50 journalists (myself included) showed a clear escalation in attempting to control the message (akin to the ban on photos of flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers). There are two ongoing, unpopular wars that are costing lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Nobel- winning economist Joe Stiglitz estimates that Iraq alone will cost more than $3 trillion.

In December 2001, in the midst of restricted access to bank accounts due to a financial crisis, respectable, middle-class Argentinians rose up, took to the streets, smashed bank windows and ultimately forced the government out of power, despite a massive police crackdown and a failed attempt to control the media. Here in the U.S., with the prospect of a complete failure of our financial system, the people have spoken and do not want an unprecedented act of corporate welfare. We don't know how close the system is to collapse, nor do we know how close the people are to taking to the streets. The creation of an active-duty military force, the sea-smurfs, that could be used to suppress public protest here at home is a very bad sign

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour. Denis Moynihan contributed to this column.

NorthCom Denies Troops To Be Used For Crowd Control

But admits that Army will have access to weapons and tanks during homeland patrols

Paul Joseph Watson

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Following the alarming admission that active duty U.S. Army would be on call to deal with “civil unrest” inside the United States from October 1st, the US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has publicly denied that troops will engage in law enforcement duties, but concedes that forces will be armed with both non-lethal and lethal weapons as well as having access to tanks.

As we highlighted last week, a September 8 Army Times report stated that active duty troops from the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returning from Iraq would be on call as a “federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks,” for a period of 12 months from October 1st.

The purpose of the unit’s patrols, according to the article, includes helping “with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”

However, a NorthCom official, presumably responding to reports featured on this website and others, publicly denies that troops will be used to police Americans.

“This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control, but will be used to support lead agencies involved in saving lives, relieving suffering and meeting the needs of communities affected by weapons of mass destruction attacks, accidents or even natural disasters,” Army Col. Michael Boatner, USNORTHCOM future operations division chief, told Homeland Security Today.

We also learn that the troops will be under the operational control of USNORTHCOM’s Joint Force Land Component Command under US Army North, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. The operational headquarters of the response force is at Fort Monroe, Virginia.

The original Army Times report also stated that the use of non-lethal weapons against Americans would be a possibility, but a retraction has now been issued stating that the forces would not use nonlethal weaponry domestically.

However, Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was told by Air Force Lt. Col. Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for Northern Command, that “Military forces would have weapons on-site, “containerized,” she said — that is, stored in containers — including both lethal and so-called nonlethal weapons. They would have mostly wheeled vehicles, but would also, she said, have access to tanks. She said that use of weapons would be made at a higher level, perhaps at the secretary of defense level.”

As Goodman writes in an editorial for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Talk of trouble on U.S. streets is omnipresent now, with the juxtaposition of Wall Street and Main Street. The financial crisis we face remains obscure to most people; titans of business and government officials assure us that the financial system is “on the brink,” that a massive bailout is necessary, immediately, to prevent a disaster. Conservative and progressive members of Congress, at the insistence of constituents, blocked the initial plan. If the economy does collapse, if people can’t go down to the bank to withdraw their savings, or get cash from an ATM, there may be serious “civil unrest,” and the “sea-smurfs” may be called upon sooner than we imagine to assist with “crowd control.”

The use of U.S. troops in law enforcment duties is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Yes, but on the other hand it gives me a good excuse to grease up my gun. *evil grin, walks off greasing up gun*

I read a good book that details the things that were going on in occupied Germany during the holocast(?), if you compare what was going on there ,then, to many of the things going in the U.S. now, it is very alarming. The name of the book was "The Goulage Archipeligo" (not sure about spelling) the author went through the concentration camps and survived to write about it. It's rather a hard read but worth it.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

The Mann Act, as law and judicial precedent with regards to limitations to state's rights vs. federal rights doesn't apply equally under the law.

Forget that the "condition" of the Mann Act was prostitution and such, but remember that it affected states rights and uniform commercial trade practices under the law, not always intrastatutory.

In the case of insurance policies, there are state imposed limitations on insurance carriers and their responsibilities and fiduciary duties in accountability to insureds, and also that out of state underwriters are not liable to honor declared indemnity of the insured enforceable under compulsion of the state.

A "conditon" within any state may include statutory discrimination based on the variance of economic conditions of the citizenry within any state.

In such a case, an insured may be uninsured, for all intents and purposes despite the appear of a contrary expectation.

It comes down to civil litigation of law and award of liability.

Civil unrest, however, is a different matter.

The state has no authority to qualify the Federal Government as bound to state law.

What "condition" could exist to infer that the states are denying equal protection of the laws secured by the US Constitution?

That "condition" can be "Martial Law" declared by the President.

That is a slippery slope.

Slippery, because the president may arbitrarily choose to decree that the states "are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;"


The Insurrection Act has not been tested to that degree, heretofore.


With this much attention given this Act, I doubt it is merely a whimsical contemplation of inquiring minds.


A call to arms may be a call to disarm by tyrannical authorities.

Now why would Bush want to challenge the repeal?


hmmm........


good post, war.

wouldn't be the first civil war! lets hope and pray our leaders get there act together before a bunch of people act out on there angers with them!

mmm. copy and paste is a powerful tool.

here ye, here ye, it does get kinda monotinous!

yeah, go ahead and compare what is happening in the us today, to the holocaust. we prevented a modern day holocaust when we brought iraqs tyrant/dictator to justice. in fact hes guilty of genocide. tell me where people are being mass murdered in the us. stop reading every book msnbc advertises.

The military has always had that right. Have you heard of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion?

Hitler didn't just wake up one day and start slaughtering people, it was incremental. Can you say what this Federal Government has done with the banking system isn't a form of National Socialism?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=naomi+wolf+the+end+of+america&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0&aq=0&oq=naomi+wolf+t#

That's exactly what it is..but Hitler's version took a totally destroyed economy and turned it into one of the strongest in the world at its time. His idea to unify the people was to choose a common enemy for them to be against. The jews were his unlucky choice but basically he was going to do the same to anyone else if given time.
Start waving the flag and give the country a common enemy and see what happens.

We didn't give a rats ass when Saddam started gassing the Kurds. That was an after the fact justification for the invasion.

Somewhere in the bowels of this forum is an article I posted regarding the redeployment of a division that had served in Iraq to the southwestern United States. It's been some time since I posted it so I am not going to even attempt to find it. If I have it bookmarked I will re-post.

This sort of activity alarms me. As does most peoples apathy.

If you think it can't happen here you are or may be dead wrong.

No doubt, but the sad part is, give the people some tax relief, lower gas prices, give them new electronic toys once in a while, and the social narcotic effect will make all things right with the world. Self-interest prevails. Happy days are here again. The way to conquer the world is to put a Wal-Mart in everytown and make them all as smug and self-indulgent as everyone else. Don't let any books into the schools that would criticize the status quo (oops too late). Rewrite history so that truth doesn't matter as long as everyone feels good about themselves. (oops too late). Oh well, you get the point. We are already under attack and they don't need the troops.

We've been under attack for awhile, they just hadn't done anything nearly as blatant as activating NorthCom against the American people and ram rod a bill that ensures the indentured slavery of the next 3 or 4 generations?

Thats too blatant for even the most apathetic and brain dead.

I think the idea that the goodies will placate the masses, might work some, but not nearly as well now. People are waking up, they are pissed and they are searching for the guilty parties that have perpetrated such horrible offenses agaisnt them and the Republic.

I hope you are right. I'm old and lived through the Viet Nam era when we were full of hope that things had been set right and would never happen again. It didn't even take one generation for that to pass, apathy and complacency can replace the lessons of history. Patriotic conservatism came back strong as ever and Nixon/McNamara had nothing on Reagan and Bush. Nixon actually was fighting against socialism (communism)taking over America.. irony of ironies? So when you expect people to take to the streets, take my advice and try not to be the first one out the door.

Everyone just running out the front door, pitchforks and torches in hand, will fail horribly.

I think those controlling this mess in FedZilla know what's coming, which is why they're ramping it up.

Signs to watch for:
1. The rats are always first to desert a sinking ship.
2. Those in the know will cash in their chips before the crash.
3. Oh well, I think all the other signs have already happened.

#3 would be absolutely correct.