Military Units on American Soil- Unbelievable

[springhill]

COLUMNIST


Sun, February 6, 2005

Paranoia grips the U.S. capital

By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor


The film Seven Days In May is one of my all-time favourites. The gripping 1964 drama, starring Burt Lancaster, depicts an attempted coup by far rightists in Washington using a top-secret Pentagon anti-terrorist unit called something like "Contelinpro."

Life imitates art. This week, former military intelligence analyst William Arkin revealed a hitherto unknown directive, with the Orwellian name "JCS Conplan 0300-97," authorizing the Pentagon to employ special, ultra-secret "anti-terrorist" military units on American soil for what the author claims are "extra-legal missions."

In other words, using U.S. soldiers to kill or arrest Americans, acts that have been illegal since the U.S. Civil War

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2005/02/06/922316.html

[phusion]

1. sigh...

Now THAT is scary.

[nashville_brook]

2. wow -- a quick google revealed this on the homelandsecurity.org website

right on the official homeland security website, an article claiming possee comitatus is not worth the paper it is written on.


http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve

October 2000

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.

[phusion]

4. Not sure what that site is...

homelandsecurity.ORG doesn't look like satire, but it's definitely not the "official" DHS website.

http://www.dhs.gov is what you're looking for.

[Zynx]

7. Site is wrong

That's not the government site. That's an anti-government site.

[phusion]

9. ???

I don't think so...it's some kind of non-profit policy group on homeland security.

If you do a search for "homelandsecurity.org" on google,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&sa=G&q=%22homelandsecurity.org%22

you'll see a lot of .gov and .mil websites linking to homelandsecurity.org

[Zhade]

13. The Anser Institute for Homeland Security...

...is where the idea of "homeland security" came from.

From CooperativeResearch.Org (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1099anser) :

'October 1999'

The ANSER Institute for Homeland Security is founded. This institute claims to be “leading the debate through executive-level education, public awareness programs, workshops for policy makers and online publications: a weekly newsletter and the Journal of Homeland Security, which features articles by senior government leaders and leading homeland security experts.” As their webpage makes clear, the first mention of the phrase “homeland security” in a US context came only one month earlier. This institute, which has deep roots in the Air Force, has received tens of millions of government dollars in support. They talked about a “second Pearl Harbor” long before 9/11. Their own website touts their role in the creation of this department, but the media has completely failed to cover the story.

[Zhade]

14. See post #13.

NT!

[DoNotRefill]

22. so because it's an anti-government site, it must be wrong?

Anybody remember MOVE in Philly? Remember what was dropped on their roof? It was a homemade bomb comprising of a full gasoline can and a big-assed chunk of C-4 rigged with military detonators taped to it. Ever wonder how a bunch of Philly cops got their hands on a couple of kilograms of highly restricted military explosives?

How about Waco? Besides BATF having it's own fucking private air force (of OV-10 aircraft, IIRC, complete with "hard points" on the wings....you know, those things they hang BOMBS off of...nobody ever explained to me why ATF needed a fleet of bombers...) there were TONS of military vehicles rolling around there. Not military-style vehicles owned by BATF, but armor and armed aircraft that was US military property and was LOANED to ATF along with personnel to operate them.

Posse Comitatus is deader than Lenin, and it's been dead about as long.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Just one more insult to the body public

drip .... drip .... drip .....

[Conservativesux]

5. D.C. used US Army troops during the 1932 Bonus Veterans march.......

.....Cripes sakes, doesnt ever anyone read history books anymore?

Here's a good link to a site that describes the 1932 Bonus March:

http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/bonus.html

[Zhade]

15. Right, and who was on the Bonus Marchers' side? Smedley Butler.

The guy who stopped the right-wing coup attempt against FDR.

HELL of a guy.

[Conservativesux]

18. Yeah, but the question is: Do we have any Smedley Butler's anymore?

[oneighty]

28. And MacArthur

was leading the military against the bonus marchers.

"Blank cartridges should never be used against a mob"

Yes; General MacArthur of "I shall return" fame.

180

[satya]

6. OMFG.

:scared:

[mirandapriestly]

8. that was a great article, I want to rent that movie

of course it isn't a USA article. I wish someone from the CIA who has "left" would spill the beans on what they know. There must be some disgruntled former employee who knows something interesting. I don't understand how chimpco can get away with creating these new arms of government. It's just scary

[Pam-Moby]

10. Some people have suggested that B*sh

put military personnel on our borders in the fight against stopping illegal aliens. He has said that he would not do that and it is illegal to use our military on our soil. But he probably is so paranoid about his own country coming after him that he will find a loop hole to use the military to serve and protect him here by eliminating the threats against him. This is a scary thought if he is going to do it!!!

[Zhade]

16. Together with the "suspend all laws at will with no judicial review" law..

...this adds up to a Huge Problem.

Better arm yourselves, people.

[SodoffBush]

11. The US is in a "Kent State" frame of mind

It's going to be an "interesting" four years.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. My thought exactly. n/t

[Matriot]

12. True but . . .

Having a soldier's attitude, I couldn't shoot my own countrymen nor detain them. It goes against everything I believe in. I can also speak for many other soldiers who believe the same way I do.

To me it would be like killing my mother, father, brother and son.

No way!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. Well thank goodness for you, personally I think we are all screwed!

:scared:

[Tinoire]

19. But the military oath is pretty clear- enemies, foreign and domestic

It's creepy when you think about it.

Oath Of Office
(Officers And Army Civilians)

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter."


Oath Of Enlistment

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


When taking the oath, you accept the same demands now that American soldiers and Army civilians have Embodied since the Revolutionary War. The oath deals with values and ethics. The acceptance of and adherence to the leadership values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage will lead to successful and rewarding careers like those of the citizen soldiers who served in the early years.

These attributes are collectively referred to as the Army ethic. By instilling these values within each soldier and Army civilian, we can strengthen the professional Army ethic.

http://cpol.army.mil/library/permiss/74b.html

[Occulus]

27. What happens when the President himself is the threat?

What happens if it becomes clear that the President himself is in fact a domestic enemy of the Constitution?

[hootinholler]

34. What happened to LAWFULL orders?

I don't have the text but, as I remember the oath I swore in '77 at a tender 17 included the word lawfull before orders. I remember asking the officer administering the oath about what a lawfull order meant. I may be having a senior moment and mis-remembering the oath, but I remember the subject coming up during the recruiting process.

Otherwise, the UCMJ is rendered meaningless or at least in conflict with the oath.

On oaths, they can be difficult to find. If anyone runs across the U.S. Marshals Oath, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

-Hoot

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistantWind88]

23. What troops did they provide?

[Adelante]

32. No troops to operate tanks

Support for tanks, which were not eventually used.

This is from a letter written by Col. Richard D. Rosen (Ret.):

-snip-

I was General Clark's staff judge advocate at the 1st Cavalry Division. As such, I was his legal advisor and provided advice about military support for the FBI at Waco. In addition, I briefed the 1st Cav's tank crews before they departed Fort Hood.

The 1st Cavalry Division received orders from its higher headquarters - III Armored Corps and Fort Hood - to provide certain equipment to the FBI for its use at Waco. I learned the FBI had made a request for equipment to the Department of Defense, which ultimately sent it through Army channels to Fort Hood - the Army installation closest to Waco. The request was consistent with statute (10 U.S.C. § 372), Department of Defense directive, and Army regulation, and I advised General Clark (or, more particularly, his Chief of Staff) of that fact.

At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

-more-

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php

This is from a Fox News special report:

-snip-

Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles (search). It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division (search) supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.

However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.

Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.

Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.

-snip-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104331,00.html

A lot of people on the far left/far right wish Clark was at Waco, involved in Waco, diabolically planned Waco, is responsible for the massacre of 90 men, women and children at Waco: It's not true. But the right/left extremists like to say so and say so and say so.

This one of those neat places where rightists/leftists hug :pals: Ahhhhh.

[Matriot]

24. No they didn't, that was the ATF and FBI, where do you get

your info?

[JohnyCanuck]

26. What did Delta do?

Snip from Dallas Morning News article:

What did Delta Do?

The most dramatic example of military involvement at Waco surfaced last month when federal officials acknowledged that Delta Force commandos were present as observers.

Government policy requires that Delta Force's mere existence be kept secret. Known formally as the Combat Applications Group or Special Operations Detachment-D, Delta Force is based at Fort Bragg, N.C. It specializes in urban warfare and hostage rescue.

Delta commandos are expert in the close-range use of automatic weapons and explosives to enter buildings, rescue hostages and kill terrorists.

Gene Cullen, a retired CIA officer, has said Delta Force soldiers told him that their unit participated in the FBI's final tear-gas assault on the Branch Davidian compound. Congressional investigators are checking out Mr. Cullen's story.

http://www.waco93.com/dallasmorningnews9_26_99.htm

Of course the official story is that US Army didn't particpate in the action, but just observed and offered "advice." Yeah right. Sure thing. That government reassurance puts my mind at ease as much as anything proceeding out of the official mouth of the US government within the last 20 years.

Baltimore Sun article:
POLICE DEVELOP 'MILITARY MIND SET'

Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which took control of what was to become a 51-day siege at Mount Carmel, received advice, training and equipment from the military. Delta Force advisers played a key role in the FBI's tank and chemical warfare attack on the Davidian residence April 19, 1993, and federal agents acquired military training to drive the M-60 tanks that inserted CS gas into the compound and the Bradley Fighting Vehicles that shot nearly 400 40-mm canisters of CS gas through the walls of the structure. The FBI now admits to firing pyrotechnic devices into portion of the compound.

The military's role in the Waco episode was perfectly legal. A report by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, says the standard for justifying the military's role in drug investigations has not been clearly established. Consequently, military officials have "considerable discretion" in deciding to assist civilian police agencies.

Since 1981, when Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Official Act, the military has become increasingly involved in civilian law enforcement, and has been encouraged to share equipment, training, facilities and technology with civilian enforcement agencies.

During the past 20 years, under the direct political sponsorship of elected representatives in Congress and under successive presidents, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 -- a law designed to keep the military out of civilian affairs -- has been diluted by exceptions tied to the war on drugs. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan officially designated drug trafficking as a "national security" threat. A year later, Congress set up an administrative apparatus, with a toll-free number, to encourage local civilian agencies to take advantage of military assistance.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n995.a11.html

[Matriot]

33. Thanks

[Sparkly]

29. Wrong on General Clark

The far right has always blasted the Government over Waco (rightfully, in our view.) But its new attempt ... to bring Clark into it now smacks of just another smear campaign tactic.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html

Wesley Clark's name does not surface in any of this, but one of the two officers who met with Reno was Clark's second in command, General Peter J. Schoomaker. However, it appears that Schoomaker might have been summoned to D.C. because of his past experience with "hostage rescue" situations, not because he was the second in command of the First Cavalry.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,mondo1,47252,6.html

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7369623.htm

Are you seriously calling General Clark a "jackbooted fascist?"

[neweurope]

25. I'm not saying it's not wrong and terrible but it's happened before:

IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed

IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.

DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

Of course these new "special, ultra-secret anti-terrorist military units" are a completely new "quality". They have been created for the sole use in the "homeland". (By the way - I never heard the word "homeland" ever before Bush was "elected" - is it me or does it resemble German Nazi speech?)

Some say that the new anti-terrorist laws of the EU (which the EU adopted after pressure from the US) allows soldiers being used against protesters, also. We live in interesting times.


-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[JohnyCanuck]

31. Nazi and Orwellian both.

By the way - I never heard the word "homeland" ever before Bush was "elected" - is it me or does it resemble German Nazi speech?

First thought out of my mind when I first heard the term used was, :wtf: , is George Orwell writing the script here or what? :wow:

[hootinholler]

35. 1794: The first use of U.S. Troops against its population:

WasThe Whiskey Rebellion.

From the Recurring Themes in Govenment Department: We happen to have a long tradition of it, kinda like election fraud.

;)-Hoot

[Just Me]

30. Are these,..."mercenaries",...operating in the U.S.?

I worry more about this country with each passing day. Causes me to be torn between whether to stay and fight this insanity or get the hell outta' here before it gets any worse.

:mad: or :scared:

[RT Atlanta]

36. King Assassination

There has been some thought and analysis on the King assassination that indicated those type groups (or at least members of those groups) were in Memphis and active the day he was murdered.