Domestic security! No!

The Pentagon and the current administration (yes, Bush people) have come up with this wonderful idea of how to "help" in time of crisis. They are putting together a uniformed battalion (20000 persons) to act as a "domestic security" force, especially in times of crisis, such as a terrorist attack. I have several issues with this. The first is this: why have I only seen this reported on the Drudge Report? To their credit, Drudge is quoting the Washington Post, but other than that, where is everyone? Does the media really think this is a great idea and therefore hasn't really reported on it or are they just asleep at the wheel. At any rate, my other problems are numerous. First, the founding fathers were appalled at the actions of a standing British army in the colonies and therefore preached against even having a standing army. While one could argue that a standing army is necessary in today's world, the idea of using that army domestically completely undermines our freedom. It was the presence of a standing army that made our founding fathers have to meet in secret to pass the Declaration of Independence, etc. This is not something we want to meddle with. In addition, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 expressly states that the federal armed forces should not have this power. This act is a direct result of the abuses of federal power on the southern states during reconstruction. It literally prohibits federal military troops or even National Guard units acting under federal authority from participating in law enforcement within our borders. That is a pretty clear statement and while it allows for exceptions passed by Congress, I haven't seen the Pentagon's current plan in any Congressional legislation. Not that I would support it even if I did. I tend to fall in line with the ACLU (WOW!) and the Cato Institute on this one. In the article, they are quoted: "The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority. Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security. "There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.""

So, this is me, agreeing in entirety with the ACLU on an issue! Mark your calendars people. Nonetheless, a "domestic security" force made up of federal military personnel is anathema to the constitution of this country, the intents of our founding fathers, the principles of freedom and just plain common sense. Sure, you may have a great response team for disasters, but after that disaster, what are you going to do with the troops? I submit that the expansion of executive authority and the expansion of the military's role combined with the temptation to use such a force would result in something nobody wants. Military occupation of our homeland. Can you say fascism three times quickly because that's about how long it would take for this kind of thing to be used following some crisis for exactly that purpose. Finally, I'm offended by Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense's statement in the article. He said: "National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city". Any American who would "give up the fight" after a nuclear weapon is detonated in a U.S. city isn't worth the time or effort to bother lifting them, much less to discover how far I could throw them, so who does McHale think we, as Americans, are to cut and run because of a nuclear detonation. If I were a victim of such a tragedy, I'd be appalled if the country were to "give up the fight". Give me a break. There is only one reason to have such a force operating inside our nations boundaries as an active duty unit working to help with "domestic security" and that reason is state control, pure and simple. Slice it however you want, it equals fascism.