On April 05 2009 20:12 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't really have a problem with socialism. However, consolidating the banking system in favor of large private banks, putting troops in the streets, commandeering the internet, creating a civilian national security force just as powerful as the military is not socialist, its fascist and I do have a problem with it.
There is no civilian national security force, and it's not new for the military to run exercises in the US or serve in particular security settings
The civilian national security force is in the process of being set up and I'm pretty sure it's illegal for the US army to operate on American soil, that's what the National Guard is for.
On April 05 2009 20:12 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't really have a problem with socialism. However, consolidating the banking system in favor of large private banks, putting troops in the streets, commandeering the internet, creating a civilian national security force just as powerful as the military is not socialist, its fascist and I do have a problem with it.
There is no civilian national security force, and it's not new for the military to run exercises in the US or serve in particular security settings
and I'm pretty sure it's illegal for the US army to operate on American soil
not anymore! thank the bush administration for this one, too. + Show Spoiler +
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.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, 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.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
It's a civilian service corps, not a paramilitary. The term 'national security' can be used to describe anything from strict military procedure to economic provisions. Even something like language training (which I believe they're going to emphasize) constitutes a national security program.
It's a poor phrasing and certainly every conservative nutjob has jumped on it, but it has nothing to do with paramilitary operations. Look at the actual DoD press release and the context he uses it in.
“No technology, no matter how smart, can stop the spread of nuclear weapons,” the president said. “No army, no matter how strong, can eliminate every adversary. No weapon, no matter how powerful, can erase the hatred that lies in someone’s heart.”
Institutions like the National Defense University, with its mix of military and civilian students, are needed to help leaders understand the new world and the new threats that come with it, Obama said.
“That's how we will find new pathways to peace and security,” he said. “That is the work that we must do.”
The U.S. armed services will retain their military dominance, the president assured the students, but “we also need to look beyond this conventional advantage as we develop the new approaches and new capabilities,” he said.
The Army and Marines will grow, and the services will develop new capabilities, Obama said, and the Defense Department must invest in skills to help troops succeed in the unconventional mission that they now face.
“We must understand different languages and different cultures,” he said. “We must study determined adversaries and developing tactics.”
The president also delivered his pitch for the use of all elements of national power. “We cannot continue to push the burden onto our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability,” he said. “That's why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power, and to developing our civilian national security capabilities.”
Civilian employees of all agencies must join to help allies enhance governance, develop economies and advance opportunities, Obama said. “We have to enlist our civilians in the same way that we enlist those members of the armed services in understanding this broad mission that we have,” he added.
The Pentagon statement has nothing to do with putting a standing army in the US (although the army does obviously train in the US.) The National Guard operates under the Pentagon, even though governors are Commanders in Chief, and they're the units the new policy is actually addressing.
The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.
If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.
There are fair criticisms:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."
McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement.
But ultimately, SOMEONE has to create a plan to deal with attacks. DHS didn't have a plan to deal with Katrina and it caused a great deal of avoidable damage. The same applies here. There won't be standing armies, there will be up front training and then emergency response teams.
On April 05 2009 20:12 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't really have a problem with socialism. However, consolidating the banking system in favor of large private banks, putting troops in the streets, commandeering the internet, creating a civilian national security force just as powerful as the military is not socialist, its fascist and I do have a problem with it.
There is no civilian national security force, and it's not new for the military to run exercises in the US or serve in particular security settings
and I'm pretty sure it's illegal for the US army to operate on American soil
not anymore! thank the bush administration for this one, too. + Show Spoiler +
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.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, 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.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
On April 05 2009 20:12 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't really have a problem with socialism. However, consolidating the banking system in favor of large private banks, putting troops in the streets, commandeering the internet, creating a civilian national security force just as powerful as the military is not socialist, its fascist and I do have a problem with it.
There is no civilian national security force, and it's not new for the military to run exercises in the US or serve in particular security settings, and so far the US has been far more liberal with its internet than most other Western countries.
The only decent point you made was about consolidating the banks, but you followed it up by posting an editorial by a Fox News host.
Not yet but they are moving in that direction. Obama clearly stated his intentions on the campaign trail, and they've already passed a mandatory volunteer service for students. Its pretty clear what direction they are going.
Also it doesn't matter what editor wrote an article. The take-over of Washington Mutual was a good example of whats going on. Now we come to find that they are refusing returned TARP money....this has clear implications. Tax money is supposed to be used in emergency bailout situations, and the government should go to great lengths to recoup that money.
Also, I'll keep saying it, breaking the Posse Comitatus Act is blatantly fascist. It is a very valid point.
It's not, and the Insurrection Act was restored in 2008. gwho or rpf or one of those idiots brought up his "intentions" during the campaign and I ran over their argument back then.
It's not blatantly fascist, if you understood what national security actually means. It doesn't just mean armed forces. He specifically talks about diplomacy as a natonal security tool, and the civilian corps is to strengthen that. The Peace Corps is a national security project in that regard. Anything dangerous about Peace Corps?
On April 06 2009 06:46 Jibba wrote: It's not, and the Insurrection Act was restored in 2008. gwho or rpf or one of those idiots brought up his "intentions" during the campaign and I ran over their argument back then.
It's not blatantly fascist, if you understood what national security actually means. It doesn't just mean armed forces. He specifically talks about diplomacy as a natonal security tool, and the civilian corps is to strengthen that. The Peace Corps is a national security project in that regard. Anything dangerous about Peace Corps?
I called the 20,000 troops by 2011 blatantly fascist. The mandatory volunteer service is a completely different entity. It all depends on it this force has weapons or not.
I think its too early to know for sure what his plans are. Once the framework is in place, he could very easily write an executive order or get a small amount of additional legislation passed to allow him to draft certain people into the military. It would be less difficult than a draft or military conscription.
This is similar to the internet legislation they want. Besides giving the president control of all networks deem critical in times of emergency, it mandates running standardized security software, certification of network professionals, licensing, and standardized testing. While it seems harmless, it would be very easy to implement a national firewall and filters once everything has been standardized and the government already certifies everything. Things are always incremental.
Also, anytime there is mandatory service to the leader, of any type including sitting in an office, that is implicitly more authoritarian in nature compared to no service. I'm arguing it is a step in that direction from where we are now. Current events set future trends.
"Finland underwent severe economic depression in 1990-93. Badly managed financial deregulation of the 1980s, in particular removal of bank borrowing controls and liberation of foreign borrowing, combined with strong currency and fixed exchange rate policy led to a foreign debt financed boom. Bank borrowing increased at its peak over 100% a year and asset prices skyrocketed. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a 70% drop in trade with Russia and eventually Finland was forced to devaluate, which increased the private sector's foreign currency denominated debt burden. At the same time authorities tightened bank supervision and prudential regulation, lending dropped by 25% and asset prices halved. Combined with raising savings rate and worldwide economic troubles, this led to a sharp drop of aggregate demand and a wave of bankruptcies. Credit losses mounted and a banking crisis inevitability followed. A number of companies went down by 15%, real GDP contracted about 14% and unemployment rose from 3% to nearly 20% in four years.[2] Although economic growth has been fast since the depression, mass unemployment never really went away and fourteen years after the depression the unemployment rate still stood at 7%.[3]"
The fact that people approve such programs with the words "mandatory volunteering" makes me seriously consider moving to Singapore. At least they're honest about not letting you do anything.
On April 06 2009 10:32 Caller wrote: The fact that people approve such programs with the words "mandatory volunteering" makes me seriously consider moving to Singapore. At least they're honest about not letting you do anything.
EPT
