|
The Government's Argument for Deploying Troops in the U.S. is
Ridiculous - Even On Its Own Terms
George
Washington's Blog
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008
Everyone knows that deploying 20,000
troops on U.S. soil violates Posse
Comitatus and the Constitution.
And everyone understands that staging troops within the U.S.
to "help
out with civil unrest and crowd control" increases the danger
of overt martial law.
But no one is asking an obvious question: Does the government's
own excuse for deploying the troops make any sense?
As the Washington Post writes:
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating
20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase
in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of
unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland
defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities
may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change
in military culture," he said.
But homeland defense is doing nothing
to stop the creation of new terrorists or to prevent bad
guys from attacking.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
If They Wanted to Stop Terrorism . . .
Remember, the war on terror is a hoax
which is actually weakening
national security (see this,
this,
this
and this).
And the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting
vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include
kangaroo centers,
petting zoos and ice
cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats. And the
administration is refusing
to fill important positions at DHS so that our security can
be protected.
The government is also wasting resources harassing reporters,
children and other innocent American citizens instead
of real terrorists (see this,
this
and this).
And - even if you somehow believe that the 9/11 Commission conducted
an unbiased and thorough investigation and that the government
was honest with the Commission (in which case, I have some swampland
to sell you) - remember that the Commission made numerous recommendations
on how to prevent future terrorist attacks, many of them simple
and inexpensive to implement, but the Bush administration has
has failed to
do so (and see this
and this).
Moreover, they are actively
blocking efforts to do so.
In other words, is the government arguing that - once the horse
is out of the barn, and terrorists set off some weapons of mass
destruction - then the troops will help, but the government will
not lift a finger to prevent attacks in the first place?
If the government is really concerned about protecting U.S. citizens,
it should:
(1) Not start any more imperial wars of conquest and stop torturing
innocent people (which, for some strange reason, really pisses
off the locals and may create real terrorists)
(2) Fund law enforcement efforts to locate and arrest bad guys
(3) Take real steps to secure our country by doing things like
checking incoming cargo, protecting nuclear and other sensitive
facilities, etc.
Deploying troops on U.S. soil violates the Constitution, moves
us further down the road towards martial law, and is ridiculous
- even judged on the basis of the government's own arguments.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
