I have been giving a "good think" over what I have read about the military's "Operation Urban Warrior and Last Dance" You know, all that stuff in Texas and the 120 cities around the country. All concerns the training of relatively small special units assaulting fixed positions. If there is an emergency regarding biological or chemical or cyber terrorism, what the hell is the need for assault troops? I can understand crowd control, looter control and even containment of a city or area. Who are they training to assault? Certainly not a platoon of Iraqui, Chinese or Mexiacan soldiers. It would appear that the government is very worried about domestic terrorism, revolution or civil war. C-Span yesterday had a few hours on WMD and terrorism. Much of the discussion by the experts from think tanks and government, revolved around domestic terrorism. Is there something in the wind that I have not picked up on? All of this training can't be just for another Waco or Ruby Ridge, can it? The military is being, "Obviously" secretive. Like they are delivering a message. Much like conducting war games along the border of a country that is challenging us. Any thoughts?

Bill in South Carolina

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), February 18, 1999

Answers

However, If they are practicing just so those in authority can declare martial law at the appropriate time to maintain power that is another thing. I am not, I repeat, not, obsessed with governmental conspiricy theories. However, I am managing Y2k projects and can read enough between the lines to know the American people are being lied to by the government. I assume this is strickly to prevent a panic for fear that they will lose control. I can tell also by the steps they are taking that are less well published, they know what to expect. This is what happens when you accept what we have for our government. They can not be trusted and will do ANYTHING to maintain power. They no longer care about the people who went them.

-- Steve Watson (swatson1@gte.net), February 18, 1999.

Bill, the moniker "Last Dance" worries the sh^%$^%t out of me. Why on earth would they be so blatant............................

-- Lisa (lisa@work.again), February 18, 1999.

The military training is definately changing. The military claims that they need to start practicing in cities now, because they expect future wars to be fought in cities (mostly outside the US, they claim), unlike the desert conflict in Iraq last time.

If they are telling the truth (Government lies in the Clinton era - naaaa), this is different from the guys in full-body-suits fighting biolical/chemical terrorism, or a post-nuclear scenario. Unlike "fighting in cities outside the US", biological, chemical & nuclear preparations are purely domestic issues (as far as US training goes).

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), February 18, 1999.

Most of the Military today have a job to do, and they do it. Most, however, do not really support the current people in the government. They do support the Constitution of the good ol U.S. of A. Have you thought that they possibly are just doing their job (what they are told to do)? Let's all be good little soldiers NOW. But think about them.... they have a family as well. If the SWTHTF, I think they would be on OUR side. Just my .02 worth.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), February 18, 1999.

Using live ammo in small towns?

THAT is beyond the line.

Some, are up to no good, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 18, 1999.

I'm not an expert on this point -- so please feel free to post the correct info -- but I thought it was against the law for the .gov to deploy the military against American citizens.

The National Guard, that's a different story. But the regular military, Army, Navy, AF, Marines, isn't it true that they cannot be used domestically??

AES says, "That's what the military is for....If there are a bunch of crazy antigovernment types waiting for the chance to start an uprising I for one will be glad the Army was ready."

Setting aside for the moment the idea that a citizen would WANT the military to engage fellow citizens, am I correct in thinking that it is not only NOT what the military is for, but it is also illegal??

Please reply...

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), February 18, 1999.

Yeah, I know, I know. Why should legal/illegal matter to this administration? But I'm still curious.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), February 18, 1999.

"We were just following orders," was the claim of most of the defendants during the Nuremberg war crimes trials.

Justice Jackson opens for the prosecution, Nov. 21, 1945 -- full text

It takes extraordinary grit for a soldier to refuse to obey an order in a combat situation.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 18, 1999.

Weren't there a bunch of crazy, anti-government types with guns running around this country, oh, about 225 years ago?

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 18, 1999.

AES... If you're going to attempt to contribute to this forum, you need to know whereof you speak. " ... but it's still the duty of our armed forces to protect our borders from foreign and domestic threats." Foreign, yes. Domestic, no. Your ignorance in this regard renders your other observations suspect.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 18, 1999.

"Thats what the military is for."-AES

I was born Canadian, you can't have less suspicious of their government than a Canadian. But this statement is so blatantly...I don't know, maybe not stupid, maybe AES was planted here by the gov.

Yah right AES, we'll sit there and say nothing while the military takes over and establish a dictatorship in this great country that is the USA.

Another one who was born with a shade but no light bulb.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

Slick Willie IS a domestic threat. A security breach. An amoral Character that has ALL the loaded weapons. Selling the rights and lands of the US to the powers that be. I don't see the army doing anything about HIM?

-- Constitutionalist (Guns@Hand.com), February 18, 1999.

If I remember correctly (it was a long time ago) part of the oath you take when you enter the armed forces says "protect against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic".

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 18, 1999.

U.S. armed forces are statutorily prohibited from taking action against U.S. citizens. It's called Posse Comitatus.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 18, 1999.

Deano,

Good to see you back here! What troll have you been posting as lately?

AES,

"Your comparing today's government to the English monarchy of the 1700's ???"

No, Vic wasn't comparing Clinton to King George. Clinton and his bunch are MUCH worse...

-- *!@#$% (noone@all.com), February 18, 1999.

Why would I try to hide myself from anyone? I just haven't been posting lately. Been real busy and, more or less, got tired of all the gloom on this forum.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 18, 1999.

folks, for what it's worth in AES you are seeing exactly the type of totally dependent personality that the big government power mongers are attempting to produce. Note the lack of trust of people and the all-encompassing trust of the government. socialist ideology pure and simple.

as for myself, I figure that with the entire senate purjuring itself by failing to convict billy jeff of purjury, this government has pretty much sacrificed it's legitimacy on the altar of expediency...

God have mercy on us all!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 18, 1999.

Amen, Arlin.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 18, 1999.

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's cominig

We're finally on our own

Last summer I hear the drumming

Four dead in OHIO

Man - you people have short memories!

-- Maxx (clueless@bartertown.com), February 18, 1999.

I keep saying I'm not going to respond to you, AES, so I promise this is the last time. I would gladly settle for a return to the ways of the early Republic where government is concerned. If you will study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you will notice that very few responsibilities were assigned to the federal government. Protecting the shores is one of those. Those responsibilities not given to the federal government were reserved for the states, and they include virtually every aspect of our society where the federal government not intrudes. As a nation, we would be a lot better off if we returned to a government operating as it was intended by the Founding Fathers.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 18, 1999.

Sticks and stones may hurt my bones ...

But bullets will kill me.

-- Maxx (clueless@bartertown.com), February 18, 1999.

Here we go again into another military and bad government taking over the world scenario. Military have been practicing their mission since their inception. I've know a few special forces guys in the military, nothing new here. Vic you're almost right, the military can't attack innocent citizens (both US and foreign, Nam being an example of this) but they can attack citizens who stand in the way of their mission, ultimately to defend the constitution. If you really want to know about your freedoms being taken away, go visit communist countries. We may not have a perfect government but it's the best I know about.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 18, 1999.

Bill,

Y2k may disrupt the communications and organizational systems now in place to gather intelligence on and monitor terrorism.

Plans that are now being nipped in the bud, perhaps early and quietly enough to avoid public notice, might not be so consistently caught in an early stage if there are significant Y2k disruptions. That alone would raise the number of incidents or attempts that have to be dealt with at later stages.

Networks now in place to monitor the whereabouts of potential terrorists may suffer Y2k impairment. If so, it may be easier for both domestic and foreign terrorists to move into and around the U.S. undetected.

Of course, taking care of these domestic threats has been a civilian matter (FBI, state, local law enforcement). The Posse Comitatus Act sees to that. The principle that the military does not participate in domestic law enforcement is very important and to be protected.

But Y2k disruptions have the potential to exceed the capability of civilian law enforment to handle the resulting extraordinary situations. There could be coordination between multiple terrorist groups to take advantage of Y2k disruptions to launch a more serious attack or widespread series of attacks than any one group could under normal circumstances.

It is prudent to prepare for such possibilities.

One has to weigh the dangers posed by suspension of certain laws and rights during an emergency situation against the dangers of experiencing massive casualties and damage from terrorist action that could have been prevented or contained by extraordinary measures not appropriate to normal peacetime.

It is entirely right and proper that there are calls of alarm about dangers to our rights and liberties posed by potential governmental emergency measures. But it is also necessary and responsible that there are plans and preparations taken to be able to respond to the extraordinary emergency situations that have to potential to arrive in the near future. Strong debate and effort on both sides will help ensure that the proper balance is struck between these two opposing sets of danger.

>All concerns the training of relatively small special units assaulting fixed positions. If there is an emergency regarding biological or chemical or cyber terrorism, what the hell is the need for assault troops?

I can imagine scenarios in which a precise attack by assault troops is one ingredient in the most effective response. There may temporarily not be enough time available for civilian law enforcement methods (i.e., "waiting them out", negotiations) to prevail in a situation where there are an extraordinary number of demands on law enforcement.

>domestic terrorism,

... yes, possibly ...

>revolution or civil war.

There is no basis for either in the U.S. today, and Y2k wouldn't trigger such if the preconditions were absent.

>All of this training can't be just for another Waco or Ruby Ridge, can it?

No. But Waco and Ruby Ridge were minor situations with no significant terrorism factor.

Give the Waco group antrax or an A-bomb, a Manhattan hotel suite, three car bombs for diversions, a rational leader with serious terrorist training, and a linkage to a powerful anti-American interest -- then maybe you've got something.

>The military is being, "Obviously" secretive. Like they are delivering a message.

"We are prepared for terror attacks on U.S. soil."

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 18, 1999.

"but they can attack citizens who stand in the way of their mission, ultimately to defend the constitution."

But the question remains, what has become of the constitution now? This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, go back to old threads. The constitution is only a paper relic, shadow of itself and an ideoligic dream held fondly in the minds of people. The reality is that presidents past and now Clinton have eaten away at it, with EO's and such.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

Good point NoSpam, in that light things have a new perspective. But we're still back at square one; trust the government to have the citizen's best interest in mind and uphold true liberty and freedom.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

I'll be glad when the military stop posting things on their web sites. EOs have been around for a long time, they come and they go. (I keep thinking of the cop on South Park: "move on people, nothing to see here") The paper that everyone defends has grown, not eaten away. It was originally written by men who wanted to protect their wealth. I'm not saying that was a bad thing, just the way it was. We all have our delusions and see things through these delusions. I happen to believe that even though Billy is a sick, demented, intelligent, vindictive person, he cannot bleed this country the way some of you predict. Nothing to see here.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 18, 1999.

Hmmm. Interesting discussion, also interesting the amounts of emotion, logic, paranoia, illogic, intellect etc. on display.

The best reason for government to exist I ever heard comes from the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(Emphasis mine) THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...

Not much of the noise coming from Texas sounds like "the consent of the governed" to me. Yet it goes on still. And the duly elected governor of the state (and Presidential hopeful??) gives the Salute of the '90's (shrugged shoulders) and says "Not my problem, call the Army." Fascinating, isn't it?

I once spent a good number of years working with some of "those people" who are currently training in Texas and elsewhere. I know a certain amount about what they are doing and why. I do not generally find their individual motives something to distrust, though there are more and more "yes men" in the ranks as time goes on, and the experienced old-timers who would tell someone in authority over them where to get off even at the expense of their careers are much fewer and further between. Since 1994 at the least the focus and thrust of a lot of special ops training has changed subtly in ways I frankly do not like, and there has been much discussion on ways to "get around" posse comitatus, at least in certain circles.

And the 'militarization' of law enforcement has increased and spread to literally frightening degrees as far as I'm concerned. Every burg with a traffic signal seems to have a SWAT team ready to hup-hup out at the drop of a hat to go kickin' and shootin'. Every alphabet agency of the federal government does too.

I know that a certain amount of this is necessary. I have written and had published articles in support of proper organization, training and deployment of groups adequately prepared to face the various threats we as a nation and a people may have to contend with today. Yet it seems to me there is a visible and growing schism between government and population, dangerous levels of distrust on both sides of the divide, and increasingly dangerous verbiage being thrown around willy-nilly by all sides.

The days of "trust me" are evidently over. Some work is going to have to be done by responsible people on both sides of this issue, or it seems likely that the situation will continue to worsen. I have been saying that privately for some time now, and I think it's time to say it publicly.

The key issue in any political dispute is that of legitimacy. That's where the "just powers" of government come from. All sides in a political contest strive to gain political legitimacy, and its status is never static. Someone is always gaining political legitimacy and someone else is always losing it. The proper progression always takes the same path, at the risk of sounding trite- from the soapbox to the ballot box to the jury box. I hope this discussion continues to shed more light than heat on this important issue.

And for the record- military forces exist to kill people and break things, period. If you don't need people killed and things broken, call someone else like the Peace Corps. Using a military force for anything else quickly blunts its edge and will result in it suffering greater losses when it is finally called on for its Real Mission In Life. Police forces exist to arrest suspects, investigate crimes and accidents, protect and serve. It disturbs me to see troops serving as policemen in America. It disturbs me to see cops dressed like and acting like military troops. And the prospect of the continued blurring of what should be a clear line disturbs me most of all. There are those who say that the current "civil authorities" can't handle significant acts of terror, that only the military can. I say they are seriously misguided in not constructing a civil response apparatus that can handle WHATEVER happens. And the people responding need to be firemen, EMTs and cops, not soldiers.

-- nemo... (nemo@deepsix.com), February 18, 1999.

The Posse Commitatus Act...drafted and enacted in the 1870s by the US congress, prohibits the US government from using military forces against US citizens.

Doesn't seem to me as if any of these "old" prohibitions have much teeth if Executive branch can do E.O. any old time. Wasn't one of the more recent Exec. orders one that indicated that in the event of "national catastrophe" the Pentagon would be 'in charge'?

A web search of Posse Commitatus Act, and numbers of times since the 1870s it's been violated, is in order. I'll have a look.

In the meantime,...patriot-types out there might have a passing familiarity with it.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 18, 1999.

AES2010!!!! Why do you iNsist on HURTING MY EARS WITH YOUR FOOLIsHNESS???What makes ONE whoIS SO LACKING IN HIsTORICAL PERSPECTivE OPEn his mouth and SPEAK IDIOCY???? WHY DO you repeat the PABLUM That was SPOON FED TO YOU IN ScHool???? DO YOU NOT REALize that those who WERE THE FOUNDERS OF this natION REVOLTED OVER slights far LESS THAN THoSE SUFFERED BY us today???/? WHY DID those greATMEN RESIST a lesser taXation than IS FOR US NOW????? WE ARE a shame to they're mEMORY ARE YOU SEEING THAT???? LOOK AT the CONSTitution anD SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT The proper role is for RULERS!!!! WHy are you acting FOOLISH????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), February 18, 1999.

At the rare risk of appearing to agree with Dieter (shudder) ...

AES2010@aol.com ... We need to deal with the problems created by the Feds and not the Fed itself.

That is about the stupidest statement Ive seen in a long time. (And this forum has seen many). Sheesh!

Yes, I now suspect your paycheck does come from them.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 18, 1999.

I had the same thought as Chris about AES yesterday. This guy is entirely too literate to be as stupid as he sounds.

-- RB (R@AR.COM), February 18, 1999.

Arlin: Think about reposting your comments here about why nationwide martial law is impossible. It was the most intelligent thing Ive seen in this forum on that subject.

May as well throw another log on the fire. This is now on the National Guard Associations web page. It clearly refers to incidents of domestic terrorism, (which I think is primarily what the military is concerned about).

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmag/fire199.htm

Return Fire

Posse Comitatus, the Army of the 21st Century and the Law of Unintended Consequences By Maj. Gen. William A. Navas Jr. (ret.)

I recently saw the movie "Siege." Although enjoyable -- great acting, drama and action -- the plot left me feeling uneasy. It was too real, the scenario too plausible.

The movie features FBI agents in New York City trying to stop a chain of bombings by Middle Eastern terrorists. Unable to, martial law is imposed and Bruce Willis, portraying an out-of-control, two-star Army general, rounds up Arab Americans for "safe-keeping" in local stadiums. But before all this happens something interesting takes place: There is a brief discussion with "top" Pentagon officials and congressmen who debate who should have the mission, the National Guard or the Army, and they mention the Posse Comitatus act.

Our forefathers inserted into the Constitution the Posse Comitatus act to prevent the federal military -- in particular the Army -- from getting involved in domestic law enforcement.

This portion of the Army's "support to the nation" mission fell on the Guard while in the service of the several states and territories, under the control of the governors, and in support of civil authorities.

The movie made it very clear to me that unless we establish clear policies, doctrine, techniques, tactics and procedures for dealing with domestic terrorist acts -- and follow them -- we are in danger of making shortsighted decisions because of immediate tactical or political pressures.

In the movie, most lived happily ever after in the best Hollywood tradition. That has not always been the case in real life. Fate is not always kind. Remember Kasserine Pass, Task Force Smith, The Bay of Pigs, Desert One, et al.

As the title of this article implies, we are at one of those historical junctures where there is a need to define policy and put the enablers in place to be prepared and ready when the time comes. In the case of homeland defense, this becomes more complex and requires a certain degree of dialogue in order to reach a balance and consensus.

Today, we must balance our fundamental military traditions and policies with the new realities of the 21st century. This means being very pragmatic about Army and National Guard roles. And this requires a broad policy dialogue. But like most crucial issues, time is of the essence.

Conventional wisdom claims it is more a matter of when --not if -- an event as depicted in the movie happens.

The Total Force Policy of today represents the evolution of our Founding Fathers' vision to ensure a balance between federal and state governments. It also represents an evolution of our forefathers' inherent mistrust of the "princes and armies of Europe."

As we enter the new millennium, we must review and validate our Founding Fathers' thoughts in light of new realities in order to maintain their delicate and proper balance as we have done for more than 200 years. On one hand, as we prepare to deal with the concepts of homeland defense, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we can very easily forget our ancestors' principles.

A "worse-case" scenario: The Guard becomes a quasi-federal, domestic constabulary that deals only with homeland defense issues. It therefore loses its place as the primary reserve force mirroring and expanding the Army. The Army then becomes a purely federal force of unprecedented size, threatening the economic, social and political traditions of our country. This could undermine the Total Force Policy.

We must ensure we maintain the close relationship between the Army and its reserve components, the National Guard in particular because of its combat role and formations.

In a well-articulated policy, the Guard could have the lead (be the tip of the spear) in the domestic arena supported by the active Army. And the Army would have the lead in the foreign arena supported by the Guard and Army Reserve.

Such a clearly defined division of labor will provide adequate missions for all components and facilitate establishing training and resourcing priorities for all. America's Army could, in fact, speak with one voice.

As we develop the principles and policies to deal with this very serious threat to our "domestic tranquility," we must explore the various levels of impact these decisions may have on the delicate (and sometimes stressful) balance of our fundamental tenets. If we don9t, the law of unintended consequences may not be as kind as Hollywood.

Editor's note: The author, Maj. Gen. William A. Navas, Jr. (ret.), served as Army National Guard director from 1995 to 1998.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), February 18, 1999.

My, my, my...the TROLLS are in full bloom here. But this is the tip of the iceberg in my opinion as the dates grow nearer.

1. Refer back, oh historical experts, to a survey, still being administered to NCO's and officers within the armed services. If I remember correctly, it started in 1991 (someone please correct me if my dates and survey numbers are wrong) and the question was number 34 if I remember correctly: "If you were asked to enforce a ban on the possesion of firearms by American citizens, and individuals or groups refused to surrender their arms, would you be willing to engage in the use of deadly force to enforce this order?" 2. I trust our soldiers, not our leaders. Review the history of this country. Until the early 1900's, we had a pretty good thing going. But it took only 80 years to re-centralize our federal government, violating the principles of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Why is this important? When our nation was basically a de-centralized republic, individuals were the backbone of this country. Reviewing the 'trollisms', it has become quite apparent that the communists were quite correct; we will destroy ourselves from within by allowing our liberal social ideals to dominate our pattern of governing. Freedom is great, as long as it is bought and paid for by the "experts" who know what is best for us. 3. The pattern of telling lies to the American public has been well documented over the last 60 years. Why in God's name, at this critical moment, should we believe ANYTHING that they say now??? 4. Last, but not least in my train of thoughts, random as they may be tonight.... I respect and honor those that serve in the military. I do not honor, respect or obey those that are manipulating this segment of our society. The military has a purpose, as a famous talk show host would say, to "kill people and break things." If this weapon, and I do mean weapon in the true sense of the word, is to be used by our government, what purpose would it serve on American soil? Domestic terrorism? Clinton said he had that under control. Cyber terrorists? But I thought all of the Y2K bugs were going to be fixed by Jan 1. To defend freedom? Ah, now we are at the crux of this debate. Whose freedom will they defend? The non-productive technocrats who are destroying this country are likely candidates. But technocrat is a very polite term. And you trolls need to research 100 years of history from the Civil War to the Gulf War and more importantly, the philosphies of Hegel and Marx. Then read the patterns and policies of the current parties in power in this country and their evolution since 1932. If you can not add it up by then, then you truly will be the victims of this new and somewhat monumental shift in American society. You, the trolls, will be part of the 'new math' victims, condemned and confused because there is no government to suckle up to. But you could win. And even sadder will be the death of the individual; truly, the most powerful force in history, the force which created and defined this nation. John Galt speaking, in a very random manner. But someone has to say it.

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), February 18, 1999.

Lewis;;

Have no idea where you found it but thankyou!

Now, the guy I would REALLY like to hear (aside from Marcinko) is gen Shallikashvilli (probably a couple extra l's there but...). He is a truly thinking man, and as such is probably considered dangerous in the corridors in Wash.

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 18, 1999.

Well spoken, well said Mr. Galt.

Yes you are correct, the NCO survey you noted was issued in 1991 and it WAS question 34 that asked that numbing question of disarming the American people. When cornered about the action, the Dept of the Navy stated that the survey was a "College assignement survey" by a student, and was not policy. Either way, they got their results didn't they?

Since then military officers have been resigning or forced to retire early if they don't support the new change in military policy.

If retired military officers are worried about how the Armed forces are being trained to be used on American citizens, shouldn't we be worried too?

Nah, we're all just being paranoid. RIGHT AES?

Dipshit.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 19, 1999.

Chris,

I didn't say trust the government; I presented one view, then said let's have a vigorous discussion.

Lets' bring out the evidence on all aspects of the issue. Air out the possibilities. Where there is danger of governmental overreach, let's preempt that through vigorous public debate of the dangers.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 19, 1999.