This is a pretty old article, but worth a read

What of 'Posse Comitatus'?
by Gene Healy


Gene Healy is a senior editor at the libertarian Cato Institute and author of the Cato study "Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front."

This article appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal on October 7, 2005.

Having already wrecked a legendary American city, Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law: When it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder.

On Sept. 26, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, noting that "it may require change of law."

The law the president seems to be referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act, the longstanding federal statute that restricts the government's ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

Sen. John Warner, R.-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also has signaled his desire to change the law.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita called Posse Comitatus a "very archaic" statute that hampers the president's ability to respond to a crisis.

Not so. The Posse Comitatus Act is no barrier to federal troops providing logistical support during natural disasters. Nor does it prohibit the president from using the Army to restore order in extraordinary circumstances -- even over the objection of a state governor.

What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role. That reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified.

There are good reasons to resist any push toward domestic militarization.

As one federal court has explained: "Military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation. The Posse Comitatus statute is intended to meet that danger."

Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, commander of the federal troops helping out in New Orleans, seemed to recognize that danger when he ordered his soldiers to keep their guns pointed down: "This isn't Iraq," he said.

Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers -- which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.

It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That's what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the report, "While on domestic military missions, combat units are unable to maintain proficiency because these missions provide less opportunity to practice the varied skills required for combat and consequently offer little training value."

The GAO also concluded that such missions put a serious strain on a military already heavily committed abroad.

American law calls for civilian peace officers to keep the peace, or, failing that, National Guard troops under the command of their state governors. So perhaps we should stop treating the National Guard as if it's no different than the Army Reserve.

As Katrina made landfall, there were 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops deployed in Iraq. Among them were 3,700 members of Louisiana's 256th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, who took with them high-water vehicles and other equipment that could have been put to better use in New Orleans.

The Guard personnel at home had only one satellite phone for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast when Katrina initially hit -- because the others were in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, noted that had the Louisiana Guard "been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear."

Disaster relief and responding to civil disturbances are core missions for the Guard; attempting to establish democracy in the Middle East is not.

The Katrina tragedy ought to be an occasion for rethinking a number of federal policies, including our promiscuous use of the Guard abroad. Instead, Washington seems poised to embrace further centralization and militarization at home.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5115#

Great article March Mellow!

Here's something I found while poking around the web looking for more on Posse Comitatus. This blogger had plenty to say about the most recent changes to the law, how they came about through Presidential Directives and not through Congressional Acts as they should, and what it all could mean to us later on...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Why 20,000 troops in U.S. could be our disaster
Ben Nelms

Putting 20,000 troops on American soil for purposes of domestic (emergency) response would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable prior to 9/11. Those were the words of homeland defense assistant defense secretary Paul McHale in November.

But that is exactly what is happening by September 2011; and 4,700 of that number are already on the ground at Ft. Stewart near Savannah.

The reason: the threat of in-country terrorist attacks.

The problem: federal law established in 1878 essentially prohibits such action for your protection against a government gone wild.

If, or likely when, such an attack occurs, the police will not be able to handle it. Nor apparently will the National Guard in the 50 states.

Now the Bush administration, already performing well as a closet socialist in the recent $750 billion bail-out, and previously with some aspects of the Patriot Act, has given U.S. a going-away present. He has upped the ante on the obliteration of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

So what is this pesky, 130-year-old piece of legislation? The Posse Comitatus Act prohibited search, seizure and arrest powers by the American military on U.S. soil.

Changes to the law began in 1981 when the act was amended by Congress to include “drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities.” And now it changes again.

And as with Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, presidents can enact sweeping changes without Congressional approval. Witness the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that was born with the stroke of President Carter’s pen via Executive Order 12148. And before that, President Ford created the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency with Executive Order 11921.

Get the picture? Budgets in the countless billions. Direct control over our lives if or when a national emergency is declared by the same person that executes the order.

Obama will have to work overtime to top some of these. But give him time. He’s not on the job for a few more weeks.

A complimentary change in military presence on American soil came in February when the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) signed the Civil Assistance Plan with its northern counterpart, Canada Command. The agreement gives each military the ability to operate on each other’s soil at the request of civilian authorities.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM and North American Aerospace Command on the northcom.mil website.

This all sounds great, since we’re being told that local law enforcement and the National Guard might not have enough manpower/firepower to contain the bad guys or respond if they use one or more of the missing Soviet suitcase nuclear devices or some of the weaponized (aerosolized) biological agents processed, later buried and then abandoned in the early 1990s by the Soviets at their Vozrozhdeniye facility on the north side of the Aral Sea. Some of those agents include anthrax combined with botulin toxin and/or tularemia. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

This begs another question. Some supposedly unpatriotic Americans, including me, have been complaining for years that the Bush administration, with many Republicans and nearly all Democrats in tow, have been negligent in maintaining security at our borders. They have. Here’s how.

Aside from all the politically correct BS about not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings (I mean to ensure that Dems keep getting the Latino vote), consider this. Jane’s intelligence operatives (do a Google search for Jane’s if you don’t know who they are) since 9/11 have reported that individuals from Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries were mixing in with groups from the various Latin American countries and coming across our southern border.

Gee, do you think they might have also slipped in a suitcase or a quantity of weaponized biologicals or was that just pot they were “muling” in?

Well, now that we’ve practically invited them in, it’s only fitting that we put our military on American soil to combat their coming deeds and counteract all resulting panic that will result.

By the way, on Dec. 1 the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism predicted a “likely” attack by 2013.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Help create the problem, then change the tenure of the regulatory landscape to impose even further usurpations of our freedom.

Elected leaders whose actions put us at risk are complicit in the potential for our destruction. All in the name of freedom. This witch’s brew is a recipe for disaster.

http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/33699

I heard from Navy personnel in FL that approximately 43 percent of the personnel deployed to Iraq were National Guard--that may have been in 2004 or 2005. And I suppose, the only reason the National Guard is over there in the first place is that GWB emphasized how dangerous Iraq was with all those weapons of mass destruction, and posed a serious, immediate threat to our national security. From what I gather, until there is such a threat to this country, the Guard is deployed in all 50 states to deal with natural and "Man-created disasters", as Napolitano calls terrorism now.
IMO, we have a "man-created disaster" in this country with the border war with illegals and drug cartels, while these brave young people are in Iraq, which, IMO, is a Bush-Cheney-created disaster.


US National Guard bears Iraq burden
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Petersburg, Virginia

While the Democrats and Bush administration spar over the war spending bill, there are thousands of US families for whom it is about much more than politics.
Bound up with the question of funding for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is the issue of how many troops are deployed overseas and for how long.

Some of those most concerned are in the National Guard, the "citizen soldiers" who commit to military training on weekends and for a month a year while keeping their civilian jobs.

In the past, they have mostly been deployed to deal with civil emergencies or natural disasters.

But since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 all that has changed, with most having completed at least one tour of duty in Iraq.

While the National Guard is not affected by Defence Secretary Robert Gates' decision to extend regular army deployments to 15 months, many face quicker re-deployment than expected.

Often older than active-duty servicemen, many National Guard troops have children and have to cope with slotting back into a full-time job on their return from the battlefield.

Back to Iraq

More than 100 such soldiers gathered in Petersburg, Virginia, last week for a Freedom Salute Ceremony, one of many such events being held nationwide to recognise the efforts of National Guard soldiers and their families.


Sergeant 1st Class Thomas Morton, from Richmond, Virginia, came home to his wife and five children in January after almost 15 months away.

Since his return from Iraq, the 35-year-old has gone back to his regular job loading trucks.

He would normally have had at least a year between postings but instead has volunteered to go back to Iraq in May or June, when the new National Guard unit to which he has been transferred is deployed.

"They didn't have any senior leadership with a lot of experience," he said.

"The unit I'm going with will all be my troops. I didn't want to say 'see you in a year'."

His wife Whitney admits it is difficult running the household on her own and working full time but says she supports her husband "110%".

Her own childhood in Cambodia has shown her how important it is that peace and stability are brought to Iraq, she says.

Job fears

Capt Lowell Nevill commanded Virginia's National Guard troops in Iraq as the 654th Military Police Company, a unit specially formed to train Iraqi police officers and protect top government officials.


He points out that only three or four of the 157 soldiers in the company opted not to re-enlist while they were deployed in Baghdad and Ramadi. Ten decided to sign up for active duty.

But, he adds, he fears some younger National Guard troops are volunteering to return early to Iraq because it is becoming harder to start careers while signed up.

While most employers are understanding, some - particularly smaller firms - find it hard to cover for troops on long deployments and so are reluctant to take them on, he says.

Keeping the servicemen's families on board with ceremonies such as the Freedom Salute is obviously an important part of maintaining troop morale.


The US defence department is adding a financial incentive by offering more and bigger bonuses to those who re-enlist.

'Heavy toll'

Renee Harris's husband, a combat engineer in the Virginia National Guard, has been sent to Iraq twice in as many years.

She says the biggest challenge is staying upbeat for their three children.


“ As a spouse, I think there's only so much a human can endure, whether it's active duty or National Guard ”
Renee Harris
"The youngest one was five the first time he deployed, so he didn't have a lot of questions, but he's got a year-and-a-half older now so he's asking 'what happens if something happens to Daddy and he doesn't come back'."

And while Mrs Harris, from Virginia Beach, has resolved to support her husband, backing his decision to re-enlist was not easy.


"As a spouse, I think there's only so much a human can endure, whether it's active duty or National Guard.

"A 12-15 month deployment is a long time away from home, and it takes its toll not just on the servicemen overseas but on the home too."



When 26-year-old twins Brad and Chris Fisher were posted together to Iraq last year, it meant half their tiny family was in a war zone.

"It brings a whole new meaning to having all your eggs in one basket," says older sister Angeline Butterman. "I'm just glad they're home."

For Chris's wife, Jessica, the deployment meant saying goodbye to her husband for a year, less than a month after their wedding.

"As you can imagine, that was pretty difficult. You have to adjust to being married without having your husband there day to day."

So what motivates National Guard members to sign up and re-enlist despite the obvious dangers?


Sergeant Todd Boyer, 38 and married with three children, says: "It's hard to explain - it's a sense of pride, a sense of accomplishment.

"It's hard going back to a civilian job but you have a sense of accomplishment to put towards that."

His wife, Brenda, supports him because "he's doing it for his country, it's what you have to do" but says she worries about his safety every day that he is away.

With the news that some 13,000 National Guard troops from Ohio, Arkansas, Indiana and Oklahoma are likely to be deployed in 2008 or before, many more families may soon face a similar test.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6585217.stm

May I urge you to check out the website http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm It is a complete history of how long this law changing has been going on for our military to become domestic troops. It also lists all the places FEMA has set up in all the states. It's scary because these places could be CONCENTRATION CAMPS. The barbed wire surrounding these places has the wire turned in so no one can get out!

The articles above seems like the "National Service" that will be mandated and has already been passed.

Here is the site to sign up for it, I know I won't be signing up!!

http://www.serve.gov/

The National Service was presented to us in one of Obama's speech's like this:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our Military to achieve our objectives that we set, we've got to have a civilian national security force, that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Chief of Staff Ron Manual, said everyone between the ages of 18 -25 will have to attend 3 mos of basic training and understanding of civil defense!

My son is serving his 2nd deployment in Afghanistan right now, and he has told me that the last thing our soldiers want, is to have to do the fighting they are doing over there, on U.S. soil.

Mandatory National Service:
It was passed by the House by a 321-105 margin and the Senate 74-14.
Proof: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-108

Now let's look at some of the language of the bill, and what sort of Civilian Service Corps this commission will be considering.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388

A closer look at 6104(b)(5 & 6)

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Looking closer, we find this:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show


H.Amdt48 Pass Amendment numbered 10 printed in House Report 111-39 to create a National Service Reserve Corps and requires an annual service requirement of at least 10 hours and/or annual training. A member of the National Service Reserve Corps is one who has completed a term of national service, fulfilled training, and will respond to national disasters and other emergencies. These individuals will be listed in a national database for the ease of immediate deployment in case of emergency.
H.Amdt49 Pass Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.

Listed in a National Registry? We have that already with Selective Service. I guess now, since service is mandatory, they'll have a database of everyone, eventually.


We also see 42 U.S.C. 12618
Section 158 is amended (B) in paragraph (6), by striking "Clothing" and inserting "Uniforms"


Other things we find, Article 1 subtitle E.
The Purpose: "It is the purpose of the subtitle to authorize the operation of and support for residential and other service programs that combine the best aspects of civilian service with the best aspects of military service."

All of this is just like the "Ameri Corps" that Bill Clinton tried to get enforced when he was Pres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps

Those executive orders in your link Sharon, are scary! How the heck did all that stuff get passed without "We the People's" knowing about it? Oh, maybe we knew and didn't care or realize what the impact would be?

For those of us that believe that any American citizen has privacy, we have to stop deluding ourselves. Our SSNs are in India, being processed; our grocery and gas station know our shopping patterns as do the credit card companies and banks (many of whom process info off-shore); paychecks and medical records are processed in foreign countries. I rent a car and the rental company can track if I took it out of state very easily. I run a red light and there are cameras to record my violation.
And who knows who has stolen my identity or is using my credit card # (Amex called one day wondering if I had suddenly visited a phone sex site to the tune of $866. They took that charge off.) Some TV program I saw was of folks being able to sit in parking lots with laptops and grab credit and debit card numbers out of the air in those few seconds on the way to the satellite and seconds for approval sent back.

March Mellow wrote:

For those of us that believe that any American citizen has privacy, we have to stop deluding ourselves. Our SSNs are in India, being processed; our grocery and gas station know our shopping patterns as do the credit card companies and banks (many of whom process info off-shore); paychecks and medical records are processed in foreign countries. I rent a car and the rental company can track if I took it out of state very easily. I run a red light and there are cameras to record my violation.
And who knows who has stolen my identity or is using my credit card # (Amex called one day wondering if I had suddenly visited a phone sex site to the tune of $866. They took that charge off.) Some TV program I saw was of folks being able to sit in parking lots with laptops and grab credit and debit card numbers out of the air in those few seconds on the way to the satellite and seconds for approval sent back.

It reminds me of a movie with Sandra Bullock called "The Net", where the bad guys took her identity and everything that had to do with her life, home, money, credit cards, job....everything! Then they gave her a new identity as a drug addict with a criminal record.

The National Service Reserve Corps may not be a bad thing, and no one will be marching around in jackboots and brown shirts, for heaven's sake.
As a resident of an island when Hurricane Charley blew through SW FL in 2004 (a couple of manatees were thrown from canals into the middle of the main road along with 4 feet of sand, and every resort swimming pool was full of sand and dead sea creatures), the restaurants opened their freezers (2 weeks without power) before the food could spoil. The Baptist church brought in bus-loads of volunteers to help us cut downed trees, and the Red Cross passed out food and drinks driving through neigborhoods. The National Guard protected the bridges from people just coming to look and guarded the water supplies that were delivered, and the fire department handed out those fashionable blue roofs tarps. People were taking in animals until their neighbors could get back home. It was a huge effort and fairly successful. (One warning--never, ever open your refrigerator after there has been no power for a week, and don't even think about flushing a toilet if the lift-stations are not working because of power loss. Don't drink the water.) Beaches were a mess and smelly and the local school kids got out there, along with the Scouts
After that hurricane, the town decided to compile a list of residents who had talents to help or equipment they could operate in case of emergency. Volunteers would attend some meetings to strategize and organize, and know how to contact the central organizer in charge of the chain-saw crews, for example.
In 2005 Hurricane Wilma skirted the island but did enough damage, and the whole system worked much more smoothly. People were warned by the reverse 911 system, generators were ready and waiting on the mainland to fix the water system, FPL hauled in crews from all over the state to work day and night to restore power (three days), mainland animal shelters and vets offered free boarding to get pets off the island, and the town's command and control center was moved off island so they could still have communications.
I refuse to believe that this is any sort of compulsive slavery of the population, but just getting Americans together to know how to respond to the Katrinas and terrorist attacks.

I think you need to study the situation a little more March.

If you can, look into the evolution of the Chavez takeover of Venezuela and make a reasonable comparison to what has been happening here in the US of late. If you do your homework you are going to learn things that will make you think twice about this I promise!

If you have trouble finding credible information about the last four years of the Chavista Regime in English, let me know and I'll put you in direct contact with someone who can brief you. The similarities are shocking, and the Citizen Volunteers are just one alarming piece of the puzzle.

You may also remember that BO's pal Bill Ayers spent a bit of time helping "realign" Venezuela's education system for Hugo Chavez about two years ago. That was also about the same time the "Citizen Volunteers" were recruited to be Chavez' eyes and ears on the streets, monitoring and reporting dissent among the populace.

The part about the National Service that I can't stand is that it is going to be mandatory. That is a huge difference from the great services received after the hurricanes.

I do not want my kids to have to do Mandatory service ever! It has to be free choice!

This is downright scary!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94373

Posted: April 11, 2009
9:25 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
2009 WorldNetDaily





Supporters of an Americorps expansion plan pending in Congress laud its efforts to "leverage" federal dollars to boost state, local and other resources to "address national and local challenges," while critics say its fine print secretly would create an "Obama-styled army of community organizers modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations.'" So which is it?

In an era in which Congress can approve thousands of pages of legislation spending hundreds of billions of dollars without reading the proposal, there seems to be no definitive answer on what some of the vague language of H.R. 1388 means.

But there is enough in the "GIVE Act," now awaiting a conference committee in Congress after being approved by both the U.S. House and Senate, to cause critics to shiver.

For example, it certainly imposes a requirement for public service on some people, even though its original much-feared study on mandatory service for all was moved to another bill during congressional debate.

"The Audacity of Deceit" exposes exactly who Barack Obama is. He isn't pedaling "change you can believe in" – he's planning to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past.

The latest version includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "has successfully completed training" and "complete not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."

It also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.

For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."

But probably the biggest red flag for many is how the proposal fits into the overall picture painted by President Obama when he described to a Colorado Springs audience a "National Civilian Security Force" that he wants as big and well-funded as the U.S. military – a staggering suggestion that would involve hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.

Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal.

Judi McLeod wrote for Canada Free Press that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.

"Everybody means the roughly seven million people called to public duty in the $6 billion National Service effort," she said. "But members pressed into the service of the one million-strong Youth Brigade, sanctioned by 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE),' will have none of the freedoms of the community organizer who started it all.

"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."

She also describes one section with a program to introduce "service learning" as "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

The plan suggests raising the participation in such programs from 75,000 now to 250,000.

Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.

"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

He cited the Hitler Youth's launch in the 1920s. In 1933, the participants totaled 100,000, and in 1939 the membership was compulsory for those over 17. Two years later, the membership was compulsory for those over 10, and it included 90 percent of the nation's youth.

He also cited concerns it would steer volunteers away from churches, politicize charity and focus on the "education" of participants.

"The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat," he suggested.

At Washington Watch one forum participant warned, "Our republic is under attack as never before."

Said another, "This is social engineering at the very least, and could be the first step towards the reinstitution of slavery! Take heed, the New World Order (aka 'Change') draws nigh!"

WND reported when Obama delivered his Colorado Springs mandate and a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LwUbFy--A