Glenn Greenwald posts at Salon a very intriguing question, quoting an Army Times article several bloggers pointed out to him:
"beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "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." [emphasis GG]
Now Greenwald rightly doesn't go all tin hat on you, since a brigade isn't full meltdown, but it's still dangerous and possibly illegal.
The facts are starting Oct. 1st, the First Brigade Combat Team [FBC] of the 3rd Infantry Division will be under day to day orders of U.S. Army North Command.
Now what does this all mean for us civilians? GG details:
For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one." [emphasis GG]
And it's the thin edge of the wedge, arguably, since a brigade is from 3000-5000 soldiers. And
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.
Now Greenwald notes that, for the entire country, is not a huge number of troops, but it is worrisome. Er, what if voters in, say, Florida (!) rioted?
GG quotes, at length, an article from The American Conservative detailing "Section 1076" of the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" includes this:
[1076] changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . . [emphasis GG]
Many liberals supported this...maybe because it was a small part of a large bill?
But Patrick Leahy was a lone voice opposing this:
Leahy ...warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
The article notes Jeff Stein of the Congressional Quarterly stating all the governors were against this as usurping the role of the National Guard....no names in the article, but I wonder if Sarah Palin has been asked about this?! This isn't a "gotcha" question...this speaks right to her responsibilities as governor.
And as GG notes:
And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force?
This bears watching...and needs answering from Sarah Palin and the GOP. And I'm thinking it won't play well in states with a libertarian streak (hello, Montana!)