Still...the timing.

Yes, like tiananmen square.

Terrorists don't have large forces. They aren't armies. You don't need large numbers of armed soldiers to fight them.

I think it's great if the military is doing disaster preparedness and disaster response, as long as they leave their weapons at home.

If you were around in 1999, we had World Net Daily saying that the National Guard was getting equipment upgrades so that Clinton could declare martial law in order to stay in office after the disaster of Y2K.

When the Conspiracy takes over, you won't be frightened... because you won't even know it. Buhahahaha!!!!

If enough citizens are deemed terrorists that the military would be needed, then whoever is doing the deeming is probably the real problem.

Come to think of it, the last time military gear was used against civilians was 1994.

The President was Clinton. The Attorney General was Reno. And there was a little town called Waco...

!!!libertarian crisis noticed red alert all hands on deck!!! Man the guns -- over our dead bodies which they will surely be taken!!!

What is posted is here is merely my informed opinion, with assumptions based on my knowledge of the Army and our mission sets. The main mission of this infantry unit in support of NORTHCOM will be an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. Title 10 US Code is very specific about the use and the limitations on using US Military forces in the United States. I can think of two times soldiers have been deployed in the states during my service, the L.A. riots in the 90's and Katrina. Fire fighting missions happen every year; I have participated while on active duty...I'm wild land fire certified. I personally think that the setting up of a response to disaster and terror attacks is a good thing, and should be done. Especially in this day and age with the current climate in the world. Military Commanders, as well as the NCO corps are very aware of our role in most circumstances. I'd say more so then the civilians who are sometimes appointed as our top leadership. For instance the Armies policy, training and doctrine on interrogation seem to be quite a bit different than the current civilian leadership. I think that you can trust most commanders and SR level NCO's judgment. Can and will mistakes be made at the human level on the ground? Yes. Is it possible in an L.A. Riots scenario for a US Soldier to shoot a civilian? Yes. Is it orders of magnitude more likely to confront a terrorist cell composed of foreign national combatants on U.S. soil right now? Yes, I think so. I think the need for a unit prepared for that fight is paramount.

I appreciate your honesty on this.

I think that depends entirely on the civilian leaders directing the mission, and I also think that confronting terrorist cells on US soil is better left to law enforcement. The FBI, ATF, and local SWAT teams can handle that job.

Evidently the military was there, but they were not armed.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bl090599.htm

So.... the brigade is deployed in the US.

They will be issued a new weapons package. (yes, nonlethal, yes, some of which have been used before.)

However these weapons are only to be used in a war zone.

I say it's time to start the pool for the first US civilian death by taser at the hands of a US soldier.

Joe, I would tend to agree with this,
but does that really help when those commanders and NCOs get their marching orders to move in on a crowd? I'm not usually an anti-government conspiracy nut, but this is profoundly disturbing to me.

Right, but was it not a military tank (operated by fbi i suppose) that breeched the back walls to insert the (flammable) tear gas?

Goddammit. I'm not going to be able to keep up today, I can tell.

We've had our f*cking fill of being "deemed" this or that. We have a system of LAW with rules. Abandon or ignore those rules, and we're back in the freakin jungle. Who rules there? The dudes in the camos with the guns. Just stop it.

Whose doing the "deeming"?! Oh my god, we've been down this road before. What are you afraid of? You can't PREVENT something bad from ever happening. It's not possible.

Besides, who's job is it to maintain law and order? Hmm? The police. Local and state police. An army is for war, not for policing. Sure, you can just call in an air strike and settle those fuckers' hash post haste, but it is a momentary pleasure at best and bound to get you talked about.

And to whom shall the military troops report? Naturally, their commander in chief is the president. You, classicman, are showing far more confidence in the officeholder's ability to handle such responsibilities than I can summon or even imagine. For a disaster that has already happened? Ok. I can handle that. Walking around, like a cop on a beat, "handle civil unrest or crowd control". You're kidding right? How can handling civil unrest be anything other than I have a gun so you better lie down and put your hands on your head? Civil did you see what I did thar? That means "applying to ordinary citizens as contrasted with the military; "civil authorities" " NOT military. So what, you got machine guns and tanks and planes and... Ok, good point. I surrender.

Is that what you think should happen? That the army should handle this kind of stuff? If you had a badass junkyard dawg you let roam your property, you'd have some good protection of your turf. But would you let the dog patrol the house, negotiating who is taking too long in the bathroom or who forgot to put the dishes in the machine?

glatt is right on at least one important point. At a minimum, no weapons. Nope, no. This topic blows my mind. Best we don't start down this path.

Or, if you want to train for humanitarian relief efforts, don't be the Army. Be something else. I don't want soldiers on my street, lookin at me like a perp. Dammit.

Esp. if the current "laws" for homegrown terrorism are especially loose. It isn't lawless anymore. It's all laid out.

Hey thanks, Big.

Texas National Guard?

It is neat how freaked the right was about Clinton violating posse but it couldn't possibly be a problem with Bush. Of course Clinton only burned right-wing nuts so Bush is expected only to seek symmetry.

Well, I'm not in favor of deploying troops in the US. My first post was an off the cuff opinion of the possibility of confronting terrorists here, reacting to a large emergency, and possibly using troops to do so. I don't think it's something we should rule out, the criteria for doing so should be very strict. Domestic law agencies are the first go to agencies for this work. I agree whole heartedly.