Pentagon Plans To Keep 20,000 Troops Inside US To Bolster Domestic Security

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Michale32086]

@chaos4700

}}}}}}]
As it happens, there are three versions of Benjamin Franklin's quote, taken from different writings. I imagine you don't really have the sort of training or expertise in scholarship to sort that out, though, so I'll cut you some slack there.
{{{{{{

Nice recovery.. I'll cut you a break here and won't ask that you cite your sources for the "three versions"...

}}}}}
We were safe for 7+ years /before/ 9/11. We might have even been safe /from/ 9/11 if Condoleeza Rice had bothered to read the CIA's reports on potential al Qaeda attacks instead of putting together invasion plans for Iraq from day one.
{{{{{{

Hindsite is always 20/20.. I can just as easily state and that we would have been safe from 9/11 if Clinton had taken out BinLaden when he had the chance. Same 20/20 hindsite that has little bearing on the here and now...

}}}}
"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. "
{{{{

That's a good quote.. It applies to the hysterical Left as easily as it applies to the hysterical Right...

Michale.....

[chaos4700]

1) I'll cite my sources if you cite yours first. After all, you shouldn't be putting out a challenge if you can't back yourself up in the first place.

2) Meaning, you'll forgive Bush because you voted for him. And you don't want to look like a fool for doing so. The notion that Clinton had an opportunity to apprehend bin Laden that he passed up on is a right-wing myth. Because you can blame /everything/ on Bill Clinton if you're a Republican! Or any Democratic President, for that matter. The Repubs are already calling this the "Obama Recession" and he isn't even President yet.

3) And which one are you? Well, you're certainly not on the left, so...

[Michale32086]

@chaos4700

}}}}}
If terrorist attacks are as purely random as you're suggesting, then it would be more logical to prepare for terrorist attacks in the same way as we prepare for natural disasters.
{{{{{

Hello??? McFly????

Why do you think these troops are being rotated stateside? To deal with terrorists attacks AND natural disasters..

}}}}}
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " -- Benjamin Franklin
{{{{{{

You would think that, after the come-uppance I gave you last time when you misquoted Franklin, you would learn and quote him properly...

The actual quote is:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As we have established, you haven't given up ANY liberty, essential or otherwise.. And 7+ years without a terrorist attack is a FAR CRY from "temporary" safety..

But, since you like quotes so much here is one for you.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

Michale.....

[chaos4700]

As it happens, there are three versions of Benjamin Franklin's quote, taken from different writings. I imagine you don't really have the sort of training or expertise in scholarship to sort that out, though, so I'll cut you some slack there.

We were safe for 7+ years /before/ 9/11. We might have even been safe /from/ 9/11 if Condoleeza Rice had bothered to read the CIA's reports on potential al Qaeda attacks instead of putting together invasion plans for Iraq from day one.

Oh? You don't believe me? Well, then, maybe you aren't familiar with a little something called "the 9/11 Commission." Why not review the Dr. Rice's testimony yourself? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ri1i6nAGOE (3:20 onward is especially relevant)

George Orwell? Oh, he has a lot of nice quotes, indeed.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. "

"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. "

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. "

[Michale32086]

@blindjester

}}}}
Straw man. Nobody thinks that. Of course terrorism is a threat.
{{{{

You just stated yesterday that the threat of terrorism is nothing but fear-mongering..

Nearly your exact words..

}}}}}
But that's not a good enough reason to trash the constitution.
{{{{{

No one has "trashed" the Constitution.. What FDR (A Democrat, I might add) did in the 1940s, THAT was trashing the Constitution.. Bush has done nothing even CLOSE to that...

As you yourself have conceded, you haven't lost any rights...

}}}}
In any case, explain how 20,000 troops could have prevented 9/11. Describe how troops could have anticipated and stopped Timothy McVeigh. Tell how troops could stop your hypothetical biological attack. Can you shoot pathogens?
{{{{

Prevention is only a small part of this scenario. The idea is to have the troops on hand to handle the aftermath.. If you had any military experience, you would understand this..

}}}}
Speaking of hypothetical, aren't you the one who said disparagingly "You are simply talking about maybes or possibilities or might bes or theories...."?
{{{{

As has been shown, a terrorist attack is a LOT likelier than you being dragged out of your home in the middle of the night for absolutely no reason whatsoever...

}}}}}
That begs the question: Have you been attacked by terrorists? Or are you talking, in your own words, simply maybes, or possibilities or might bes or theories?
{{{{{

Yes I have.. On several occasions....

Michale.....

[chaos4700]

LOL! "Nearly your exact words." You have no qualms about quoting his posts directly -- why don't you go back and fetch us his exact words, and /then/ there can be an honest discussion.

[JoeLib]

Well, look at it this way. At least Bush can induce PTSD on the troops closer to home. They won't have to travel as far to get substandard care. News of their homes being foreclosed on while in service will get to them faster!

[Michale32086]

@sticksnstones

}}}}}
" Free citizens will not give up freedom for very many reasons, but it is human nature to be willing to trade freedom for security. " Naomi Wolf from THE END OF AMERICA
{{{{{{

But, as has already been established, Americans HAVEN'T traded any freedoms.

And, considering there hasn't been a terrorist attack in 7+ years, I would say we got a pretty damn good bargain on a "trade" where we didn't have to give up anything.. Except carrying hair gel on an aircraft.

As for terrorists giving up freedoms and rights? Hay, I have absolutely NO problem with that whatsoever.....

Michale......

[chaos4700]

LOL! Bush can snap up any human being on the face of the Earth, whether or not they are a US citizen, declare them an "enemy combatant," and ship them off to Gitmo (or worse, some black prison among our erstwhile allies in Eastern Europe) and we haven't traded any freedoms for our false sense of security.

When's the last time you've traveled by airplane? You tell me we haven't lost any freedoms when someone's picking through your carry-on luggage, asking you why you have this bottle of pills with you or telling you you can't take that bottle of Diet Coke on the plane with you. Or better yet, tell me that while you're watching someone get blocked from boarding a plane because their name appears on a no-fly list that has over a million names on it.

You know, before 9/11 we hadn't had a foreign terrorist attack on our soul for eight years. Or did you forget that? Did you also forget that the only weapons those terrorists had on the planes were box cutters?

[JoeLib]

Nope. No freedoms lost at all... unless you count 9 of the 10 items on the Bill of Rights. Your phones are tapped, your e-mail read, your snail mail opened, you can be denied a trial, a lawyer, a jury, the right to face your accuser, protection from undue search and seizure... all on the say so of the President. If he says you're a terrorist Michale, guess what? You are.

Have you read Ms. Wolf's excellent book beyond the dust jacket? An important point of her essay is that our justice system has been so undermined and circumvented that if I were to turn you over to the authorities as a terrorist, and you're labeled an "enemy combatant" there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise. How can you even prove your identity when you're shipped to Gitmo and denied access to any documentation or legal counsel who can assist you?

I will give you this: Americans have not traded any freedoms... that would imply we received something in return. No. Americans just had their freedoms stripped away from us in the name of Homeland Security.

[Michale32086]

Panel warns biological attack likely by 2013
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUyE5I8VhkRBbg-TO_uNKcBVtJOQD94Q93F00

For those of you who think that terrorism isn't a real threat.

Of course, when there IS an attack, those same people will be the ones screaming and whining hysterically about how their government failed them...

For those people, terrorism isn't a threat. Until it is... And then they will wonder why their government didn't take steps to prepare for it.

There is a word for people like that.

They are called hypocrites...

Michale.....

[blindjester]

"For those of you who think that terrorism isn't a real threat."

Straw man. Nobody thinks that. Of course terrorism is a threat.

But that's not a good enough reason to trash the constitution.

In any case, explain how 20,000 troops could have prevented 9/11. Describe how troops could have anticipated and stopped Timothy McVeigh. Tell how troops could stop your hypothetical biological attack. Can you shoot pathogens?

Speaking of hypothetical, aren't you the one who said disparagingly "You are simply talking about maybes or possibilities or might bes or theories...."?

That begs the question: Have you been attacked by terrorists? Or are you talking, in your own words, simply maybes, or possibilities or might bes or theories?

[blindjester]

"So, in other words, you really HAVEN'T lost any rights..
You are simply talking about maybes or possibilities or might bes or theories...."

Ignoring injustice because it isn't your own is sociopathic. By definition.

Wolves tell sheep "Don't worry; it'll be fine."

They shouldn't listen, because when they do... that's what makes them sheep.

[Michale32086]

But the point is, YOU haven't lost any freedoms or rights.

Yet, you whine and cry and moan about the rights YOU have lost..

So, either you are completely ignorant of the world around you or you are a liar.

Which is it?

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Sorry, that came out a LOT more harshly than I intended...

My sincerest apologies..

Michale......

[blindjester]

re: Michale

"Really!!??? You have been spied upon without a warrant??
Habeas Corpus rights have never been suspended for Americans in over 70 years...
You've been tortured!!?? REALLY!!!! Why???"

Michale believes that our rights are safe and everything is fine as long as he personally hasn't been held in jail for years without charges, and he hasn't personally been tortured, and he hasn't personally (as far as he knows) been spied on without a warrant.

The United States of Michale. Where injustice is fine, as long as it's against "those people" and not him.

[sticksnstones]

" Free citizens will not give up freedom for very many reasons, but it is human nature to be willing to trade freedom for security. " Naomi Wolf from THE END OF AMERICA

[Michale32086]

So, in other words, you really HAVEN'T lost any rights..

You are simply talking about maybes or possibilities or might bes or theories....

That's about what I figured...

Michale......

[chaos4700]

Excuse me? You talk in "maybes" and "possibilities" and "might bes" all the time. Suddenly it's a bad thing when someone else does it? Which of course, blindjester isn't doing -- we know pretty much for a fact that the Bush Administration has been committing crimes in violation of both US and international standards. It's just that people like you don't care -- like blindjester said -- as long as it happens to "those people."

[blindjester]

ref. Michale...
"So, over 3000 innocent people DIDN'T die on 11 Sep 2001??
Almost 300 people weren't brutally butchered in Mumbai, India??
Anyone who doesn't think that terrorism is a threat is completely ignorant of the real world..."

Yes, that is fear mongering. The danger is exaggerated to make us more afraid, so that we give up our freedoms, trash the constitution, and ignore our own laws.

40,000 people die in traffic accidents each year in the US alone. That's about 280,000 since 9/11.
About 70,000 people die of diabetes each year. That's half a million since 9/11.
About 160,000 Americans die of lung cancer each year. That's more than a million since 9/11.
About 600,000 die of heart disease. That's more than 4 million since 9/11.

These are much more likely than death by terrorist. Hundreds and thousands of times more likely. Do you feel scared?

Of course our government should protect us from terrorists. But they shouldn't violate core American principles to do it.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
The danger is exaggerated to make us more afraid,
{{{{

Could you give me an example of this exaggerated danger??

}}}}}
so that we give up our freedoms
{{{{{

What freedoms have you given up?? Do you REALLY want to carry hair gel on an airplane?? And, please... Don't give me woulda, coulda, maybe, might be, possibly type garbage..

I want to know, specifically, what freedoms you have given up...

}}}}
These are much more likely than death by terrorist.
{{{{

Those same odds were even LESS on 10 Sep 2001.. We all know what happened the next day...

}}}}}
But they shouldn't violate core American principles to do it.
{{{{{{

Which "core American principles" are being violated??

Or more accurately WHOSE "core American principles" are being violated???

Michale.....

[blindjester]

"Could you give me an example of this exaggerated danger??"
I gave you several. Look again. Terrorism is very low on the list of lethal dangers.

"What freedoms have you given up??"
Warrantless spying. Habeas corpus. Freedom from torture. (These rights aren't just for some. They must be for all of us, or they are gone.)

"Which "core American principles" are being violated??"
Posse comitatus. And more to the point, the rule of law.

[EminentGrise]

Your choice of examples weaken your argument. The health risks are very dependant on personal choices. Terrorists attacks are random acts of violence. Their purpose is to instill fear and intimidate.

[chaos4700]

If terrorist attacks are as purely random as you're suggesting, then it would be more logical to prepare for terrorist attacks in the same way as we prepare for natural disasters. Obviously, terrorist attacks are /not/ that random. Do you think the terrorists struck the World Trade Center just because it happened to be the first skyscraper they saw after taking control of the planes?

Compromising our ideals out of fear just means we've effectively surrendered to the act of terrorism. If you want to believe that al Qaeda seeks to destroy the American way of life (which is not really their goal, but that's another discussion) then destroying the American way of life -- by compromising on our commitment to human rights, let alone the principles of the Bill of Rights -- is tantamount to giving the terrorists what they wanted.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " -- Benjamin Franklin

[MaryHuff]

This is very bad news.

make sure to watch Naomi Wolf's talk on the 10 things that lead to the closing of a democracy, and to a fascist country. It happened with Mussolini, it happened with Hitler, and it's happening here in America now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

The only solution for us is mass education. And we can't rely on the mass media for it, we must undertake it one by one, person by person, in a mass education movement. Good luck to us all.

[Michale32086]

@blindjester

}}}}}
"fear-mongering" is the reason the troops are being reposted. It's fear that makes us accept it, not the reason we oppose it.

And why not? We've already allowed torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus, all because of our fear of the terrorists.
{{{{{

Really???

It's all just "fear mongering"???

So, over 3000 innocent people DIDN'T die on 11 Sep 2001??

Almost 300 people weren't brutally butchered in Mumbai, India??

Over 1000 people killed and injured at a school in Russia??

Car bombing in Indonesia. Over 500 killed and wounded??

The list goes on and on and on..

All of that never happened??

Anyone who doesn't think that terrorism is a threat is completely ignorant of the real world...

Michale.....

[tbone99]

More likely these troops are positioned to stop a run on the banks and to quell unrest when the money is found to be worthless.

[Michale32086]

Now THAT'S an interesting theory...

Michale.....

[MaryHuff]

watch this now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

[truthseeker7]

Hey, we agree on something!

[breakfast]

Where are you going and what is your business? Where are you coming from?

Get your papers in order. No back talk, and be very deferential in the presence of your superiors. And don't even think about asking questions.

And get a haircut.

[EverLastingJourney]

They are trained here, based here. Fighters and bombers are here. Ships are docked here. The National Guard uses the same equipment. What's the difference!? It's not like they are going to be performing law enforcement duties or patrolling the streets.

They should be allowed to be used in the event of a national crisis.

[Michale32086]

Thank you for a calm rational and logical post amidst all the hysteria and fear-mongering..

Michale.....

[blindjester]

"fear-mongering" is the reason the troops are being reposted. It's fear that makes us accept it, not the reason we oppose it.

And why not? We've already allowed torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus, all because of our fear of the terrorists.

The overturning of posse comitatus is just next in line.

[PSM42]

This is about Cheneyco Change of Government (COG). Peter Dale Scott, Tariq Ali, Michael Parenti. GTV - Empire, Republic & N#@!$ons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC021XGo5pg