soc.veterans

On Mar 18, 3:43=A0pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
> U.S. Military Headed For The Border To Protect Us Or What?
>
> By Michael Webster: Investigative Reporter:
>
> As reported by this writer recently a special U.S. Military Task Force has=

> been created to protect our Michael Webstersouthern border with Mexico.
>
> Members of this task force are reported to be preparing to secure our
> southern border with Mexico by responding with specially trained fast
> response U.S. Army task force military units. These forces are already in
> place according to eye witness, with the heart of the power being
> concentrated in El Paso and Southern New Mexico with a far reaching
> responsibility from East Texas to Southern California . They are being
> staged and immediately available as emergency =A0"on call" units for use
> against terrorist threats on the nation's border and local disasters, said=

> Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of United States Northern Command an=
d
> the North American Aerospace Defense Commander.
>
> Many Americans are applauding this action as a good move to protect our
> borders with Mexico . Hopping this action will prevent illegal aliens, hum=
an
> and drug smugglers, and terrorist from entering the U.S. undetected. They
> feel, if true this is something that is needed and way over due. One
> American who wants to remain nameless said You can't fault people for
> questioning the motives of George W. Bush. After all, he's done more than
> any other President to earn the distrust of the American people and
> demonstrate that he is a traitor.
>
> If the military is on the border to stop illegal border crossers, good. Le=
t
> George W. Bush and Co. announce it loud and clear. Otherwise, his motives
> are questionable at best.
>
> Others Americans are afraid that this is just subterfuge. That the real
> intent of this administration is to suppress decent, control the masses an=
d
> some even fear it is designed by Bush to delay the elections in the fall.
> Invade Iran imprison many Americans and designed for him to remain Preside=
nt
> for as long as he can.
>
> Before President Bush past presidents have been reluctant to use U.S. troo=
ps
> within the borders of the U.S. They have always been leery of the image of=

> armed military troops patrolling American cities or the U.S border with
> Mexico . Under the Civil War-era Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops are
> prohibited from performing law enforcement actions, such as making arrests=
,
> seizing property or searching people. No one seems to know how this would
> apply to troops patrolling the border.
>
> In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision whic=
h,
> according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage th=
e
> President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the
> Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to
> deploy troops within the United States . The Insurrection Act (10
> U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18
> U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement=

> in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has
> undo those prohibitions.
>
> Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007"=

> (H.R.5122), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th,
> 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a=

> "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control=

> of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or=

> local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
>
> Section 333, states that in "Major public emergencies; interference with
> State and Federal law" =A0"the President may employ the armed forces,
> including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order a=
nd
> enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural
> disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist
> attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
> United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurre=
d
> to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or
> possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public
> order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic
> violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
>
> Further unthority has been given the Pentagan by the U.S. Congress voting
> 252-171 to allow the Pentigon to assign military personnel under certain
> circumstances to help the Homeland Security Department with border securit=
y.
> The House added the provision to a larger military measure.
>
> In an article written by Frank Morales in the late fall of 2006 pointed ou=
t
> that the current President (Bush), "enforcement of the laws to restore
> public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the
> objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship=

> them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and s=
et
> them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those=

> who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a
> bio-terror event.
>
> The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of
> protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other
> "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and unde=
r
> construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up=

> "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern
> border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps=

> designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bus=
h
> administration.
>
> An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick,
> insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International"
> reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR
> [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and
> Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
> Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforceme=
nt
> (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total valu=
e
> of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is=

> to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing
> temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE
> Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency infl=
ux
> of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new
> programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and
> construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizin=
g
> another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion
> "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad militar=
y
> maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by t=
he
> president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the histori=
c
> divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly
> consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S=
.
> imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed"
> and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
>
> Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act
> (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and
> jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and
> under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
> Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse
> comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title=

> or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal=

> statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American
> people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best=

> protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulou=
s
> and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its
> will.
>
> Mr. Morales reported that many feel that the president dealt posse
> comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently,=

> it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this
> horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuse=
s
> and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
>
> Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been =
no
> outcry in the American media, no reaction from the current presidential
> canadates and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On
> September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's=

> Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow t=
he
> President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the
> Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future Preside=
nt
> to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the
> nation's governors."
>
> Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it=

> easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Ac=
t
> and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of=

> the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and=

> mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their
> shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the
> orders."
>
> A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the
> Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain
> provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference
> Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding pos=
se
> comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcemen=
t,
> thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This h=
ad
> been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "othe=
r
> congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chanc=
e
> to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
>
> In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "t=
he
> implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There i=
s
> good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when=

> it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforceme=
nt
> goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our
> Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier
> for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state
> sovereignty."
>
> Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks a=
go
> that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gott=
en
> to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived
> the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
>
> The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished =
in
> the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial=

> law, is now an accomplished fact.
>
> The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in marti=
al
> law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense
> Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of
> Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to
> improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for=

> identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and
> local first responders."
>
> In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in
> so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppre=
ss
> dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law
> builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements,
> specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement
> achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
>
> It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
> people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
> president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
> and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
> the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worryin=
g
> that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare
> himself dictator.
>
> Source:
> Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of United States Northern Command an=
d
> the North American Aerospace Defense Commander.
>
> http://www.borderfirereport.net/michael-webster/u.s.-military-headed-...

I don't think the government has the desire or the will to protect
America from
the flood of illegal aliens.

Alex