Soldiers Deployed Within U.S. Testing Tasers for Use on Us.

3rd world United States (0.00 / 0)

We will all know what is it like to live in a 3rd world country soon. Teach your children well...

-$1.50
-8.25,-5.33
How do you inform your countrymen that the nation is on fire when they're too busy roasting marshmallows?

---

by: AmirBukfifti @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 13:50:34 PM CDT

Is there a taser antecdote? (0.00 / 0)

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 14:03:55 PM CDT

antidote (0.00 / 0)

doh!

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 15:41:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

voting out the criminals the only one I know (0.00 / 0)

It's so hard to change the momentum of government once these sorts of things get started.  Ironically, the only solution may be the one attempted by the GOP, starve the beast (before it eats us).

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

---

by: jfrankparnell @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:22:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Starve the beast (0.00 / 0)

The problem is that Defense and Law Enforcement are the last budgets to ever get cut by either party. You would have to do a lot of starving before those money streams are affected.

-$1.50
-8.25,-5.33
How do you inform your countrymen that the nation is on fire when they're too busy roasting marshmallows?

---

by: AmirBukfifti @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:28:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have no illusions we'll be starving that beast anytime soon (0.00 / 0)

The Thugs will be screaming to high heaven that that Muslim Manchurian is using Satanic magic to channel Marx for advice on how to rape babies, feed Israel to the  Saudis  Iraqis  Lebanese  Nazis Iranians, and give our precious tax cuts to dog-marrying ho-muh-seks-you-ul com-muh-nists.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

---

by: jfrankparnell @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:46:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's some more bailout bullshit (0.00 / 0)

but keep your cool when you read it because I'd hate to sick the taser team on you.

More bailout bullshit

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 14:18:00 PM CDT

This could be much worse (0.00 / 0)

As a soldier recently returned from 2nd tour in Iraq, I think this is probably a good idea.

It's ALWAYS better to have units that are prepared for the mission rather than units that make it up as they go along.  If you don't trust the government's decision making in declaring martial law, that's a different issue.  Also, a CIVILIAN issue.  Don't fault the unit for preparing.

A few comments:
1.  You have a choice between lethal escalation and non-lethal escalation.  If you are expecting home front uses of soldiers (which we have seen for the past 8 years), which would you rather have them trained on?  I speak from personal experience when I say that the defensive habits learned in Iraq are ABSOLUTELY inappropriate for use in America.  The alternative to non-lethal training is our well-ingrained LETHAL habits.  Tasering is much better than shooting.

2.  This isn't new.  All of our police are already trained this way.  Calling it 'brutal and macabre' is silly.  Cops have to know what it feels like, to know what they are doing.  Knowing what the victim is going through is the definition of sympathy.  I can virtually guarantee you that you know personally someone who has gone through or had very close family or friends go through this training (esp. if you know my dad, and me by proxy), and implying that they are uniformly inured and callous is annoying.  If I was given this mission I would order the same training, specifically NOT to inure my soldiers.  Making soldiers brutal and callous is accomplished by shielding them from consequences, not jamming them in their hips and shocking them with them.

3.  This training is specifically for a unit assigned to a specific nuclear/chemical response mission.  This is not for national guard soldiers, who are the first line for civil unrest.  If the crisis is at the point that the national guard cannot handle it and the active duty is called in, then the unpleasantness of tasering will be paltry compared to the ambient unpleasantness.

---

by: RBehrman @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:35:32 PM CDT

training, in general, is a good idea (0.00 / 0)

I will also buy your point that the method of training is applicable. It is the mission that I have a problem with.

-$1.50
-8.25,-5.33
How do you inform your countrymen that the nation is on fire when they're too busy roasting marshmallows?

---

by: AmirBukfifti @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:56:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do not agree with you here (0.00 / 0)

We have the National Guard that is supposed to serve this purpose. The Army is not supposed to be deployed against citizens.

The silliness of calling it "brutal and macabre" remains to be seen and depends on how it is used. If it is used against citizens who are protesting a stolen election or the economic crisis as speculated in more than one article, then it goes beyond "brutal and macabre."

After the past 8 years, I do not trust or take lightly anything this government does!

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two complaints - pick one. (4.00 / 1)

I think that some of the fear yall pointed out is due to a misconception of how the military works.  But I can't write anything that I feel is a useful clarification if you change the topic.

Please be clear what you're actually afraid of.  There's two arguments here - 1. That the unit is conducting 'brutal and macabre' training; 2. That the unit is being misused or given an illegitimate mission.  From the comments below, I think more people are worried about #2.  But the articles are about #1, not #2.

I took your post, at the start, to be about #1.  I strongly disagree that this is bad training.  Also, in context, getting tasered is NOWHERE NEAR as unpleasant as some of the training we routinely conduct and nobody takes issue with.  

#2 is a squishier issue, and seem to be the thing that yall are actually taking offense to, as opposed to the tasering itself.  The articles cited aren't much help on this, either: don't really investigate this, and spend much more time on the scariness of the #1 issue.  My comments on this:

 1.  If the mission of the unit is to act as a quick response force for chemical attack (the stated mission of the unit) then it would be very hard to do this in the National Guard.  It would require activating units (who are all probably either resetting from or preparing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan) to sit around and wait for disaster.  You'd have to mobilize the unit to do that, which no NG commander wants to do because that takes soldiers away from their lives and jobs.  You CAN do that with active duty units (it is their life and job), in fact, we do all the time with the 82nd airborne.  

 2.  If the commander's intent of the unit is for them to help out in cases of national emergency (disasters and big riots and stuff), then that's good, but squishier.  I don't think anybody has a problem with helping out in case of disaster - active duty did it in Katrina, we did it to force integration (same units!), and we do it VERY OFTEN in other emergencies both at home and abroad.  However, it does lead to the touchy concern of active duty units responding to riots, and rules of engagement in case of POTENTIAL riots when you're responding to other disasters.  This is tricky, and requires prior planning and clear legislative oversight.

 3.  If the secret intent of this unit is to provide a quick response force to quell civil unrest, then that's bad.  I have the same problem with that yall do.  But the articles aren't about that.  The missions given don't say that at all.  If any of the soldiers in the unit (4,000 AMERICANS, 75% of whom are under the age of 24 and talk to their wives, girlfriends and families) were told to prepare for that secret mission, someone would have leaked it.  

 4. If you want the National Guard to be better able to do this kind of thing, rather than the Active Duty, then you would have MORE of this tasering training being conducted by more NG soldiers and you would have to have more recruiters recruiting more NG folks.  I don't think that's bad, we need more reserve component folks (like me) and us RC folks need more training and equipment.  I like non-lethal and escalation of force options.

 5.  I would also restate, that it would still require a declaration of martial law.  The CIVILIAN government has ALWAYS had this power, and I'm happy that congress repealed the provision to make it easier, like the Wired News article points out.  

Summary - Designating a unit as a CBRN response force seems reasonable.  Authorizing to help out in other cases seems reasonable, but needs legislation and oversight.  Secret military police are bad, but not pointed to by this article.  However, if any other president (including your and my candidate, Obama) did this same thing there's still the same potential for repression.

The fear of misuse of the unit boils down to trust in the administration and mistrust in the regulatory and enabling capacity of congress.  JimmyJackEarl gave a very good point about unrelated issues (but ones I'm sympathetic to), that provide reasons for us to have less trust of unbridled executive power.  Those points are good points about trust.  But this article is not.  Has so much less to do with it.

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm worried about both (4.00 / 1)

The articles I linked to are about both 1 and 2. There is also the ACLU article and Democracy Now has covered both these issues. #3 is what worries me most.

I am more worried about the misuse of the military, but to be perfectly honest, I am afraid of 4000 soldiers, fresh from Iraq, where they do combat in neighborhoods. Just this week, there was another case of a soldier, fresh from Iraq, who hit his wife in the head, severely injuring her, then shot himself. If that makes me unAmerican or a bad person, then OK. But, that is the way I feel. Much has been written about the brutal nature of the combat in Iraq and the problems with untreated PTSD so I don't think my fears have no basis.

My preference is that the NG handle these type missions and that they stay home rather than go to war.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 13:35:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if there were only some sort of NATIONAL protection to GUARD us (0.00 / 0)

Why didn't our forefathers have the foresight to see that we might need a part-time defensive entity composed of civilians, yet with military training to handle a variety of emergency situations?  You know, a kind of civilian militia, "always ready, always there".

If we go in, we're going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it's kind of a different role," said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Yes, a "different role" to be sure, enabled by revoking Posse Comitatus. Fascism in a pretty wrapper of moral superiority. The defacto police state becomes a literal police state.  For George Bush so loved Democracy that he gave his oldest begotten son to kill America for daddy's sins.


There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

---

by: jfrankparnell @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:38:09 PM CDT

Glenn Greenwald has a great interview... (4.00 / 1)

with Jonathan Hafetz of the ACLU's National Security Project.

As long-time FBI agent and current ACLU national security policy counsel Mike German put it:

   This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law.  Our Founding Fathers understood the threat that a standing army could pose to American liberty. While future generations recognized the need for a strong military to defend against increasingly capable foreign threats, they also passed statutory protections to ensure that the Army could not be turned against the American people. The erosion of these protections should concern every American.

To explain its concerns, the ACLU cited this fact:  "Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Department of Defense has dramatically expanded its role in domestic law enforcement and intelligence operations, including the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping programs, the Department of Homeland Security's use of military spy satellites, and the participation of military personnel in state and local intelligence fusion centers."

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 17:12:32 PM CDT

recommended reading, even if depressing (0.00 / 0)

My hope is that if Obama makes it into office, this heinous shit is the first on the agenda, regardless of the economy.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

---

by: jfrankparnell @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 18:29:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One thing! (4.00 / 1)

I just realized the root of my disagreement with this conception, after I posted my big-a** message.

We have the National Guard that is supposed to serve this purpose. The Army is not supposed to be deployed against citizens.

1.  THE NATIONAL GUARD IS ARMY.  Using the national guard against/for/with civilians EQUALS using the Army against civilians.  They are not different.

2.  THE UNIT THAT IS CONDUCTING THIS TRAINING ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE DEPLOYED AGAINST CIVILIANS.  Saying that it "could be" is true for every unit.  

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM CDT

It is my understanding (0.00 / 0)

that the NG is meant to guard US soil and not for combat missions away from home. That would be my preference. This should be a NG mission.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 13:38:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We can't quit after the election... (0.00 / 0)

If for no other reason that the one we are speaking to here, today.  The wars, the economy, and so many other things are going to take years to recover from and to make the changes needed.  

They won't be able to use Marshall Law if we use and make the coalitions to create block voting through our legislators who will commit themselves to these changes.  One right at the top of my head is to bring back the Usuary Laws concerning credit cards and banking.  

Another is to promote Peace throughout the world by selling off,and/or/ abandoning our bases.  An interesting read on this is here: http://www.alternet.org/workpl...

The bottom line is this, we can no longer leave it up to the people in charge.  They don't always have, "We the people", on their priority list and have proven time and time again that their objectives don't match ours.  

We are going to have to stay involved at a very high level in order to keep and promote our progressive ideals.

---

by: krwheaton @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 13:43:06 PM CDT

Thanks! (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for the clarification, Sharon.

but to be perfectly honest, I am afraid of 4000 soldiers, fresh from Iraq, where they do combat in neighborhoods. Just this week, there was another case of a soldier, fresh from Iraq, who hit his wife in the head, severely injuring her, then shot himself. If that makes me unAmerican or a bad person, then OK.

You're right on.  This is neither unamerican nor bad.  Being worried about it is a good thing.  Every soldier I know has stories about trouble reintegrating.  It's hard. NG or Reserve soldiers have the same problems or worse - every soldier in my unit who owned their own business is out of business, for example.

[it is my understanding that] the NG is meant to guard US soil and not for combat missions away from home. That would be my preference. This should be a NG mission.

We haven't had that since we ended the draft.  We have three choices - isloationist or noninterventionist foreign policy (which nobody is advocating); use the military the way we are (including the NG or Reserve); or significantly grow the size of the military so we can have an NG who can stay home.  Right now the NG can't.  This is a civilian decision, and a complicated one.

We are going to have to stay involved at a very high level in order to keep and promote our progressive ideals.

Thanks, KRWheaton.  I agree - we differ on details, but that's fine.

Just one thing - It's far more productive to work with the military than be afraid of it.  You're mostly talking about normal, proud, patriotic folks.  I know COL Cloutier ('the first guy in the brigade to get tasered,' and also the guy who ordered it) from my last tour.  Normal guy, high ranking, made time to run the division wrestling club in his spare time.

I feel that far more often that it's civilians who refuse to work with the military than the other way around.  I've stressed which decisions are civilian decisions in my posts, because they are positions that our party needs to have useful positions on rather critiques and fear.  we're getting better at this, but sustaining that requires a culture in the party that encourages the military's involvement and takes military issues (like this one seriously), rather than with reflexive fear.

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 15:20:22 PM CDT

Point of view (0.00 / 0)

I feel that far more often that it's civilians who refuse to work with the military than the other way around.

I guess it would all depend on the mission of the military. Would it be fair to say that generally the military is used to make people do things they don't want to do? I remember some disturbing stories from New Orleans about the military.

Here's what bothers me most: It's the whole culture of the military. Please forgive me if I offend because I don't mean to. I am an advocate for veterans. I care about our soldiers. But I cannot stand the abusive methods the military uses that, IMO, is dehumanizing. I don't really know how to say this correctly...

I think having 4,000 soldiers deployed for possible use against US citizens is very scary ESPECIALLY considering all the recent abuses of police power. Seems we are setting up a potentially dangerous situation.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 16:42:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point of View (4.00 / 1)

There's two things that I think are still productive to post about.

I am afraid of 4000 soldiers, fresh from Iraq, where they do combat in neighborhoods.

Here's what bothers me most: It's the whole culture of the military. Please forgive me if I offend because I don't mean to. I am an advocate for veterans. I care about our soldiers.

The bolded parts of those quotations (bolded by me, for emphases) are the exact same people, including me.  Same with the national guard.

The story you gave of the soldier hitting his girlfriend and shooting himself is tragic and heartbreaking, in the exact same way that it's tragic and heartbreaking when anyone else does it.  No difference between when a soldier does it and when a civilian does it, except the soldier is probably more likely to successfully kill himself with the firearm.

----

I guess it would all depend on the mission of the military. Would it be fair to say that generally the military is used to make people do things they don't want to do?

No.  The mission of the military is to win the nation's wars.  When we're not at war, the mission of the military is to provide a credible capacity to use force as a deterrent.

At some point, people not wanting to do things plays into that, but that's so not the point.

----

I've tried to make the point that the tasering thing is trivial, that the active duty quick response force is reasonable, and fear of that force is actually fear of the civilian leadership not the military.

If you want to understand which things to actually worry about, which parts are military's problem, how the culture plays into that, and how to work with these folks, I'm definitely not offended.

If you want confirmation of your bother, I won't provide it.

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 19:05:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

View Point (0.00 / 0)

I'm thinking that you, BECAUSE you are military, won't fully appreciate my/our view point. Your (also included is Bulldog, LiberalTexan, my dear friend testvet and many others) intellect and character, I believe, would prevent you from becoming as fully indoctrinated as some/most. This is still part of "my bother" that you won't confirm, but it is real and it is not mine alone.

Your points:

Tasering is trivial

Maybe, but people have died from tasering. Also, is tasering the only method of control that will be used? This is a combat unit trained in urban warfare. WHY a combat unit? Aren't there other type units that would be more suitable?

fear of that force is actually fear of the civilian leadership not the military.

Not really. It's true that I fear the civilian leadership, but please don't discount my fear from "my bother." The current military is the same one that tortured prisoners in Abu Grieb, that brutally murdered innocent civilians in Haditha, that leveled every living thing in Fallujah, and etc. Maybe these things fall under the "things to actually worry about" category.

Who am I to make such a bold statement, but here it is:

I believe there is something very wrong with the current indoctrination methods of the military. I understand the argument given that soldiers must follow orders without question, but, I believe, that will only work if the source of those orders has the highest moral integrity and the desire for the best outcome of all humanity. Additionally, the recruitment criterion has been diluted. It.is.not.working.


Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That sets an almost impossible standard (0.00 / 0)

I understand the concerns you have-and no American should be too sanguine to think that a gov't devoted to its own power will not possibly order military action against its citizens just because this is America.

However, "highest moral integrity" is proveable how?  What is there that would make you feel that your standards had been met?

Simply because someone has entered the military-been subject to this "indoctrination", is not, I believe, a reason to assume they will harm civilians.

Just as simply because one has not been so indoctrinated is a reason to assume they will not harm anyone.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

That was an over-statement. I still stand by my comment and believe that my concerns are legitimate. There is stronge evidence of a higher incidence of aggression and violence in veterans.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:08:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think this goes to the root of the problem... (0.00 / 0)

However, "highest moral integrity" is proveable how?  What is there that would make you feel that your standards had been met?

Moral integrity is relative.  Things that might be moral integrity on the battlefield might not meet that criteria on the Texas Mexico border.

"I believe, that will only work if the source of those orders has the highest moral integrity and the desire for the best outcome of all humanity."

"However, "highest moral integrity" is proveable how?  What is there that would make you feel that your standards had been met?"

Exactly why this type of deployment should be done on an as needed basis if at all to allow for oversight.   We live in a country where we don't have to worry that when Obama wins the election that if Generals don't like the results they can stage a coup.  We live in a country where the right to assemble in Tiananmen would not be met with tanks.  It is not the members of the military that worry me, it is the people who give them their orders.  There is no real case made for this deployment.

The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they're training for the same mission - with a twist - at home.

Does anybody think we really have the need for this "mission" here?  If you read the article, it really doesn't sound like there is a pressing need for this "mission" and when they casually add in:

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

So, why would this unit be training in techniques that are not legal for use against US citizens?  

Be very glad that Obama will be your next President.


"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 14:45:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is what I've been trying to say (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for putting this out.

Why is no one talking about this?

This post started with that.  I've tried to say how minor this is.

The brigade is training with this equipment because it's going back to Iraq.  This deployment doesn't involve them going anywhere, unless an emergency happens.  All this deployment constitutes is the Army preparing for an emergency.

For more on that, see below where I say 'you're acting like the mission of this unit is other than what it is.'

---

by: RBehrman @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 15:34:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The story (0.00 / 0)

about the soldier:

The story you gave of the soldier hitting his girlfriend and shooting himself is tragic and heartbreaking, in the exact same way that it's tragic and heartbreaking when anyone else does it.  No difference between when a soldier does it and when a civilian does it,...

Not so.

Ex-Military Men More Likely to Commit Suicide.  This study does not include Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

This study includes suicides from current wars. America suffers an epidemic of suicides among traumatised army veterans

The suicide rate among Americans as a whole was 8.9 per 100,000, but the level among veterans was at least 18.7. That figure rose to a minimum of 22.9 among veterans aged 20 to 24 - almost four times the nonveteran average for people of the same age.

And Army suicide rate could top nation's this year

Veterans are more likely to commit acts of violence according to many scholarly articles.

PTSD Timeline by ePluribus Media

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The issue here is.... (0.00 / 0)

that this is a permanent assignment.  It is one thing to deploy on an as needed basis it is another thing to have a permanent deployment.  Couple this along with the fact that the mission statement of the 1st Brigade Combat Team "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control" and you have cause for nervousness.

Two words: Esequiel Hernández

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 17:42:27 PM CDT

So? (0.00 / 0)

In the articles itself it says that the soldiers of the unit will be continuing their reset period and training for their next overseas deployment.  This is the same thing as being the 'ready brigade' in the 82nd Airborne - basically all it means is that the soldiers get to train on new equipment, and that specific battalions (sub-units) rotate through ready status, which means that the soldiers can't take leave or pass and have to be available within an hour if called.

The difference between this and 'deploying on an as needed basis' from the national guard is 18-48 hours, depending on how ready the national guard unit is.  That's it.

'May be called to help in civil unrest and crowd control' is a be prepared to statement, not a mission.  These are formally defined concepts in the military, and what you're taking it to mean is NOT what THEY are taking it to mean.

Yall are focusing on such a small thing.  The entire military operates under that implicit 'be prepared to' statement.  If you are afraid of this specific tasking, then you're also 18-48 hours less afraid of the ENTIRE military.

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 19:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We probably wouldn't have had to have this conversation in a pre-BushCo world (4.00 / 1)

but sadly the last eight years have, intentionally I believe, brought doubt about, and incompetence to very foundations of our society.  

RBehrman, I generally agree with your evaluation of how the military works so understand what appears to be your scepticism of the expressed concerns.  I think the problem is that so many of the mechanisms of this country have been subverted, corrupted, damaged, crippled, or dismantled.  Combine that with the obvious criminal behavior of the Executive, it isn't hard to understand why we're worried.

There is a qualitative difference between the NG and USA.  The NG is by definition local, and that has a real bearing on overall behavior.  In simplistic terms, I believe it's more likely for a tragedy to happen with a domestic deployment of the regular Army vs Natl Guard.  

I have pushed my friends in the military on this point, and it is obviously a delicate issue.  "What would you do if given a morally questionable order?"  The typical response dodges the answer by quoting regs and procedures.  How well did that work in Cuba?  

Of course this may all be a pointed moot. Bush has his own private army, or three.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

---

by: jfrankparnell @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:30:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

so? (4.00 / 1)

The difference between this and 'deploying on an as needed basis' from the national guard is 18-48 hours, depending on how ready the national guard unit is.  That's it.

No, that's not it.  There is a huge difference in calling up National Guard Units as needed, deploying regular military on an ad hoc basis and a permanent active duty military assigned to domestic tasks.

What would you think if we abolished all domestic law enforcement and instead filled those positions with US Army personnel.  This would be vastly more efficient than the way we currently do things with City Police, State Troopers, Sheriffs, Constables, etc.  Same is true for Fire Departments, Haz-Mat teams, etc.  All of this would be much more efficient under a central command.  

You don't have to look too far to see what happens when countries blur the distinction between military and civilian control.  Chile is just one example of a country that generals have had more control of than civilians.

If the only difference is really 18-48 hours than it is not really too much of a stretch to think that we could accomplish the same goal without violating principles that go back to the posse comitatus act.

No.  The mission of the military is to win the nation's wars.  When we're not at war, the mission of the military is to provide a credible capacity to use force as a deterrent.

I agree.  We should keep the military on task.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:48:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Air Force Colonel Antoon: Posse Comitatus is essential as Military could be ordered to attack Congress or Media or Us (0.00 / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Naomi Wolf:

According to Amnesty International, more than 300 people in the United States have died since 2001 as the result of being Tasered by law enforcement authorities. According to the first reports, the mission includes subduing 'unruly individuals.' After an outcry, more recent statements from military spokesmen have backed off from identifying those tasks as being the ones the troops will be charged with. Why worry about the deployment of troops in our nation?

First, the founding generation set a bright line to keep military from policing our streets in 1807 because they knew from their own experience how easily military forces -- King George's -- could subdue civilian society. The First Brigade is Bush's force: they are not answerable to Congress or to the Governors of states: they are answerable to the Commander in Chief. In an Alternet posting, I interviewed Air Force Colonel (retired) David Antoon who noted that the troops must obey the president, even if he asks them to arrest Congress or fire on civilians or attack media outlets. If they do not obey orders, he notes, they face five years in prison.

snip

The Bush administration has unilaterally decided to defy federal laws that have kept the military off our streets since 1807, almost since the birth of this nation: The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 expanded the president's authority to deploy troops within the United States. The people raised a hue and cry -- and this power was then substantially limited by a new provision in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. But Bush signaled, with a signing statement, that he would not recognize these new limitations. We may be called unpatriotic for fearing these soldiers on our streets. We should see through this. Our military are indeed brave and overwhelmingly decent. And, as I note, they can be prosecuted for refusing to follow orders. But history -- and the Zimbardo experiments, and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- has taught us clearly that decent kids under duress and following strict orders can do appalling things. Our men and women in uniform over there have followed many orders that are still giving them PTSD and nightmares at home.

Air Force Colonel Antoon notes further:

   I am not a constitutional scholar. But history, which we as Americans ignore at our own peril, clearly suggests that martial law trumps civil law. As I said, and as you have written, I believe we are in great peril if we have American troops who have been trained to "destroy the enemy ... in close combat" patrolling American streets. Posse Comitatus is essential because American soldiers are not trained for such things as civil disobedience -- they are trained to kill. The US military "Warrior's Creed" clearly states: "I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

........

NO

---

by: Help Gore Reverse Climate Collapse @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 14:20:15 PM CDT

Bother! (4.00 / 1)

Not really. It's true that I fear the civilian leadership, but please don't discount my fear from "my bother."

- Hey, I'm not discounting your fear from your bother.  Your bother, and my concern with it, is the only reason I'm still posting to this thread.

Learning about your bother is important to me.  One of the phenomena that most military people in Iraq go through, is we forget how intimidating we are; especially while we're there, because Iraqis are significantly less afraid of the US military than they are of their own.

However, please do me the favor, and use this debate to reexamine your own conceptions.

---

So, with respect to the content:

The orginal point, 1.  Tasering.  I'm sticking to my point on this one.  You're talking about the Army, including the national guard.  The alternative to tasering is killing.  In ANY circumstance where the army is used to quell domestic violence, Tasering is the FAR LESS REPRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE.

JimmyJackEarl's point, 2. The National Guard.  The National Guard is part of the military.  The national guard is not law enforcement.  

In order to use them, you have to suspend posse comitatus due to emergency.  You have to declare martial law.  Same as the rest of the military.  The difference between the national guard and the active duty is that ONLY the president can order the active duty, while BOTH the president AND the governors can order the national guard.

I've already said how hard it would be to use the National Guard for this mission.  Read my post earlier.  If you want to do that to those soldiers, that's fine, it's within the civilian government's power.  They sure as hell won't like it, because they have jobs.

Yall are acting like the mission of this unit is something other than what it is.

Yall are forgetting that the mission of this unit is to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks.  Fundamental in that mission is the ability to respond in less than 18 hours.  Fundamental to that mission is controlling the potential for widespread panic, rioting, and looting.

Yall are reading into the 'possibly' as if that is the point.  Yall are acting like this is creating some new repressive capability that didn't already exist.  The ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne has been called for domestic purposes before!!!  The repressive capability that you are afraid of exists and is illegal and has existed your, and my, whole life.  

You are not protected from the military by making the military suck at repression, you're protected by the laws that make it illegal for it to be repressive.  CIVILAN LAWS.

And, 3, TXSharon's bother.

I believe there is something very wrong with the current indoctrination methods of the military. I understand the argument given that soldiers must follow orders without question, but, I believe, that will only work if the source of those orders has the highest moral integrity and the desire for the best outcome of all humanity. Additionally, the recruitment criterion has been diluted. It.is.not.working.

Name me a single better indoctrination method.  Show me a country that does it better.  Our military is still the best in the world, and still one of the least violent.

You look for disturbing stories about the military in New Orleans, or in Iraq, you will find them.  Responding to disasters, with panicked people, rioting, looting, all that sucks.  Going to war sucks.  You look for heroic stories coming out of New Orleans or Iraq, you'll find a LOT more of them.

Finally, the source of our orders is the president.  A civilian.

This is a combat unit trained in urban warfare. WHY a combat unit? Aren't there other type units that would be more suitable?

It's the military.  Our job is combat. There is no such thing as a unit that doesn't train to fight.  Look at the names of the national guard units in your area - infantry brigades, artillery battalions, etc.  National Guard units are combat units too.

There are units that train less to fight - nurse units, finance and personnel services units, water supply units.  Those units that train less to fight would be even less qualified to respond to violence.  Units that are less trained and less experienced are MORE LIKELY to respond with violence in a civil disturbance.  Units that have never deployed before KILL MORE PEOPLE when they get to urban combat situations.  Training for urban combat involves learning how to kill fewer people.  That is fundamental to our counterinsurgency doctine.

The closest unit to disaster relief and humanitarian control missions is MY UNIT, civil affairs.  You want us to handle this mission?  Join up.  We're short of people.  I wouldn't want this job, because my soldiers have lives, and jobs, and giving them this task will rip them from them again.  

Summary:
I responded to the three points that are left over - the tasering thing.  The national guard thing.  And the Bother thing.

I am interested in this topic insofar as it helps me learn about civilian perceptions of the military.  I post because it spurs debate, but I'm not going to post if all you want is confirmation of your fears.

I'm thinking that you, BECAUSE you are military, won't fully appreciate my/our view point. Your (also included is Bulldog, LiberalTexan, my dear friend testvet and many others) intellect and character, I believe, would prevent you from becoming as fully indoctrinated as some/most.

Don't make some exception for me because I'm articulate and a democrat.  The soldiers that you speak of are FAR more important.  Your average soldier is 18-22.  Don't be afraid of them.  The suicide stories you give are tragic, not scary.

You care about veterans, care about them.  They're the ones who need it.

---

by: RBehrman @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 15:15:25 PM CDT

The mission (0.00 / 0)

Yall are acting like the mission of this unit is something other than what it is.

Tell me again what the mission in Iraq was...

I can't name you a better indoctrination method, but, just because a better one doesn't exist, if it truly doesn't, is not proof that our indoctrination method is a good one.

You mention the different units that are trained differently then you say they are less qualified to respond to violence. Tell me again what the mission is...

I think upthread you mentioned something about exploring ways to work toward improvements. I would like to hear more about that.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 15:42:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

common ground (4.00 / 1)

We don't really have enough common ground to speak meaningfully about improvements.  We disagree on, or have not articulated fundamental principles about, what the military's for and why it is the way it is.

Anybody in the military can list 100 pages of stuff that could be done better, as anybody in any big organization.  I've seen many improvements over my 8 years in.  I feel like I've contributed to some of them.

Some of the comments to this thread have indicated what seem to me deep misinterpretations of military stuff.  I've conceded some of the points that seem legit.  Since I haven't read movement towards a constructively critical viewpoint, I don't much see the point in investing time and effort on talking about the details.

---

by: RBehrman @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 15:47:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've appreciated reading your comments (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for taking the time to make them.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 20:52:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I appreciate the dialogue (0.00 / 0)

I've learned from it. Maybe you have also.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:50:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We have plenty of common ground, (4.00 / 1)

but we do seem to be lacking on a common language or framework.  I can't tell you how nice it is to be able to disagree with an intelligent and articulate person for a change!

Learning about your bother is important to me.  One of the phenomena that most military people in Iraq go through, is we forget how intimidating we are; especially while we're there, because Iraqis are significantly less afraid of the US military than they are of their own.
However, please do me the favor, and use this debate to reexamine your own conceptions.

I have been doing this and would ask that you do the same.  From my perspective this has nothing to do with feeling intimidated.  It has everything to do with militarizing our country domestically.  Just as the Roman Army was forbidden to set foot in Rome, it is wrong to use our military against its own citizens.  If there is a need for a fast response to a "chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks" this function would be better served through the department of homeland security.

Above all it is the use of the military to quell domestic violence that is the most disagreeable.

---

So, with respect to the content:

The orginal point, 1.  Tasering.  I'm sticking to my point on this one.  You're talking about the Army, including the national guard.  The alternative to tasering is killing.  In ANY circumstance where the army is used to quell domestic violence, Tasering is the FAR LESS REPRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE.

The alternative is not to use the military to quell domestic violence at all and it is hard to imagine a situation where this would be called for.

Yall are acting like the mission of this unit is something other than what it is.

I am responding to the article in the Army times which states categorically that "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control"  The term civil unrest is a term used by law enforcement to describe political demonstrations (e.g. Kent State).

Yall are forgetting that the mission of this unit is to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks.  Fundamental in that mission is the ability to respond in less than 18 hours.

Again, there is no reason that this part of the mission couldn't be better accomplished by Homeland Security.  This type of function does not require a military presence.

Fundamental to that mission is controlling the potential for widespread panic, rioting, and looting.

And here is where I will disagree with you about the need for "controlling the potential for widespread panic, rioting, and looting."

One of the things that I have noticed in my own personal experience of disaster and one that seems almost universal in disaster experiences is that rioting and looting are never a problem within the first 18 hours and that in the midst of panic, it is amazing how people come together so fluidly to help one another.  I just don't buy into the need for this.  Pearl Harbor, 911, earthquakes, Tsunamis, hurricanes, initially result in people reaching out to one another.  I can't think of any such disaster that has created such a situation that would require this military mission.  Can you name one where it would have really helped the situation to justify this military mission?

Finally, the source of our orders is the president.  A civilian.

There are many examples around the world of civilian Presidents abusing this power.  I would prefer not to have this ability sitting on ready waiting on go for any President.  We all no now what can happen with a shoot first find weapons of mass destruction type of President.

   This is a combat unit trained in urban warfare. WHY a combat unit? Aren't there other type units that would be more suitable?

It's the military.  Our job is combat. There is no such thing as a unit that doesn't train to fight.  Look at the names of the national guard units in your area - infantry brigades, artillery battalions, etc.  National Guard units are combat units too.

Just because TXsharon asked the question in terms of 'other types of units' a balance response would acknowledge the possiblity of a response team outside of the military structure entirely.  Is there some over riding reason you believe that disaster response must fall under military control?  That is the real point.  We can get hung up on the details of the military implementation, but my opinion is that the mission is not of military nature.

There are units that train less to fight - nurse units, finance and personnel services units, water supply units.  Those units that train less to fight would be even less qualified to respond to violence.  Units that are less trained and less experienced are MORE LIKELY to respond with violence in a civil disturbance.  Units that have never deployed before KILL MORE PEOPLE when they get to urban combat situations.  Training for urban combat involves learning how to kill fewer people.  That is fundamental to our counterinsurgency doctine.

The closest unit to disaster relief and humanitarian control missions is MY UNIT, civil affairs.  You want us to handle this mission?  Join up.  We're short of people.  I wouldn't want this job, because my soldiers have lives, and jobs, and giving them this task will rip them from them again.  If you would like to make the case of why you think this is a mission best suited for the military, I haven't heard that from you.  If you would care to do so, I would like to hear it.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 17:45:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You comment (0.00 / 0)

speaks for me with only a slight divergence.

I do feel intimidated by the military, but it's the quelling of domestic violence or even civil unrest that bothers me most.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 14:38:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well said (0.00 / 0)

Jimmyjack, your comment brought me back.  Hopefully yall still check this thread.

Fundamentally, there already is a disaster response team - your local and state police and fire departments, etc.  This is the default, that is not under debate.  I, and this article (I believe), are only talking about situations which require a 'bigger-than-default' solution.

The only circumstance in which the alternative (military or non-military) would come up is if those local and preexisting alternatives are overtasked.  I will focus on the 'civil disturbance' part, because that is the most controversial, and HARDEST.

I disagree with your alternative (non-military) model for two reasons:

1.  The military has the people and organizational infrastructure on hand to respond quickly.  Creating something new would be excessive.  

2.  This is a part time mission.  Creating a dedicated organization for it would elevate its status to a full time mission.  If the situation has gotten to the point where a full-time alternative is needed, we're in really bad shape.  If you're proposing a non-full-time mission, how is that different than what we already have?

- The hard part is civil disturbance.  Note, that these don't often happen, and every professional responder shouldn't want to get that phone call.  If a riot or civil disturbance breaks out past the point of local police control, something is seriously wrong and the potential for massive loss of life and property exists.  

To respond to that kind of thing takes a lot of people, and if it's really bad, it takes the ability to do violence (note, I would agree that the decision of whether or not to use violence in controlling these situations is very tricky, and the military may be more likely to overreact).  Nobody will pretend this doesn't suck.

Creating another thing in the government that would be able to respond (potentially with violence) would be equivalent to creating another 'almost-military' brigade, with the express purpose of civil disturbance control.  I think this has the potential to become much worse than using the military.  Para-military police, at least in other countries, are terrible...

If you know what such an organization - that wouldn't rapidly fall into the para-military police category - would look like, I'd be interested to hear it.  I've never heard of one.

If you disagree with the need for such an organization, that is a different question.  I'd say it's better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.

- As far as being intimdated by the military, remember that this is an exceptional case.  I have never met anyone in the military who wanted a riot-control mission.  I would question their professionalism if they did.  Most military folks I know would resent the accusation that they wanted one.  However, like I said earlier, what they want is so not the point.  

Also, remember again that this is a substatial portion of the US population.  The military, at about 2 million people, has a larger population than 15 states (larger than wyoming, vermont, and north dakota combined).  They aren't a different kind of people.

---

by: RBehrman @ Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 17:34:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]