Rumsfeld to Katrina: "Thanks"

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Posted at 07:55 AM ET, 09/20/2005

Rumsfeld to Katrina: "Thanks"

Virginia Sen. John Warner (R.-VA) asked Donald Rumsfeld last week to conduct a "thorough review" of presidential authority to use the armed forces to "restore public order" in an emergency like Katrina. His letter (PDF) unleashed a torrent of speculation that lawmakers will soon modify or even repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, to some a thread-thin security blanket between civilian rule and martial law.

The back story? Warner, the long-standing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is either confusing the President's inadequate response with legal handcuffs that don't actually exist, or he's playing the oldest Washington game in the book: asking the Defense Department to do something it already wants to do. I'm betting the latter.

Nothing in law prevents the President from employing the military in a Katrina-like emergency if state and local government really breaks down. In fact, the 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act more symbolizes the military's subordination to civil authority than it actually restricts what the military can do.

And Warner, of all people, should be well aware that long before Katrina, the military began rewriting its policies, manuals, and war plans associated with what it now calls "defense support of civil authorities." Post 9/11 military contingency planning for "emergency" and "immediate" response by the Pentagon is already in the process of marginalizing any previously perceived legal constraints (more on this later this week.).

"The military" for its part, if there is such a monolith, also has no greater interest in taking on nation building here than it does overseas. You know the mantra: The military exists to fight and win the nation's wars, yadda, yadda. It isn't the uniformed military that's confused about its position in society. But there is a growing cadre of mostly civilian homeland security zealots in and around the Pentagon, and they, I think, are the problem....

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Why does the Pentagon need more power from Congress?

They officially took control of the response to the disaster 2 days after the storm hit and we all saw how well that went? They want nothing less then to turn this country into a police state and they almost succeeded this time.



Pentagon Coordinating Katrina Response

August 31, 2005

WASHINGTON - An additional 10,000 National Guard troops from across the country began pouring into the Gulf Coast on Wednesday, adding new soldiers and airmen to shore up security, rescue and relief operations in the region ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

The new units brought the number of troops dedicated to the effort to more than 28,000, in what may be the largest military response to a natural disaster.

Fully one-third of the 21,000 National Guard troops descending on the Gulf Coast from across the country will be used for security, to prevent looting, enforce curfews and enhance local law and order, said Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, commander of National Guard forces.

In a massive response that was still unfolding Wednesday, the
Pentagon was sending a broad contingent of ships, aircraft, trucks, medical support and other personnel to support federal agencies already providing aid to the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/katrina_pentagon;_ylt=AiZ6CRMFHt.1SAh4eLdQ9vOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1741738

[Kagemusha]

2. "The Pentagon" took over nothing.

Absolutely nothing. As for turning the country into a police state, the Pentagon (read: Rumsfeld) was afraid of the political cost of federalized troops shooting kids in the streets. So they had National Guard do it instead until there was no more shooting to be had.

What is worth all the power in the Constitution, if you're too timid to use it? And then just to make sure no one thinks that's the reason, you ask for even more power you can't accept the political cost of actually using, after the fact.

[bryant69]

3. I agree with this

This seems closer to most of the analysis I've read. I would parenthetically add that there is reason to be concerned about the regular military operating on United States soil, but in this case the problems outweigh that concern (in my opinionn).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ixion]

4. IMO, removing Posse Comitatus is the final step of the militarization

of our once CIVILIAN republic.

And people wonder why I'm not a 'fan' of the military.


Hmmmmmm... maybe because all they do is kill and maim and destroy? You think that might have something to do with it? Hmmmm?

[shance]

5. If Rumsfeld tries it, they can bet that's when the revolution WILL BEGIN.

n/t