a***@scared.us
2008-10-10 01:20:42 UTC
Is Posse Comitatus Dead?
Amy Goodman
Alternet
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Amy Goodman: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army
stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry
Divisions 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for
domestic operations under the control of U.S. Army North, the Army
service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an
on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters.
Its being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or
sea-smurf for short.
Its the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated
assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to
provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense
efforts.
An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted,
in addition to emergency response, the force may be called upon to
help with civil unrest and crowd control. The Army Times has since
appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the
Northern Command states: This response force will not be called upon
to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control.
When Democracy Now! spoke to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie
Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, she said the force
would have weapons stored in containers on site, as well as access to
tanks, but the decision to use weapons would be made at a far higher
level, perhaps by Secretary of Defense, SECDEF.
Im joined now by two guests. Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future
operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from
Colorado Springs. Were also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by
journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why dont we begin with Colonel
Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time,
October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?
Col. Michael Boatner: Yes, Amy. Id be happy to. And again, there has
been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to
correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to
people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the
homeland. Its something that figures very prominently in the national
planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and thats
how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This
capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further
logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it
for that purpose.
And really, the new development is that its been assigned to
NORTHCOM, because theres an increasingly important requirement to
ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work
together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of
our services and from a variety of installations, and thats not an
ideal command and control environment. So weve been given control of
these forces so that we can train them, ensure theyre responsive and
direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called
to support civil authority, those governors or local state
jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive
and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on
the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.
They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and
another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart,
Georgia, but they wouldnt bring that stuff with them. In fact,
theyre prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual
weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland.
Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be
issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.
So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this.
Were proud to be able to provide this capability. Its all about
saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to
infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public
confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.
AG: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the
Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would
have Secretary of Defense would have would be able to preempt the
governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons
on U.S. soil?
MB: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military
force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was
inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would
allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and
unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or
civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.
AG: Matt Rothschild, youve been writing about this in The Progressive
magazine. What is your concern?
Matthew Rothschild: Well, Im very concerned on a number of fronts
about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came
into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were
concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the
United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on
its website it says it doesnt have units of its own. Now its getting
a unit of its own.
And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what its trained for.
Well, lets look at what its trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry,
1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in
Iraq in counterinsurgency. Its a war-fighting unit, was one of the
first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah.
And, you know, thats what theyve been trained to do. And now theyre
bringing that training here?
On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the
Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been
designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to
that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had
even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why
is a Pentagon unit thats going to be possibly patrolling the streets
of the United States involved in using tasers?
AG: Colonel Boatner?
MB: Well, Id like to address that. That involved a service mission
and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas
deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list
for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in
situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have
returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And
when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with
seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our
soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and
American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.
AG: Matt Rothschild?
MR: Well, you know, that doesnt really satisfy me, and I dont think
it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you
know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved
up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United
States who have been using these tasers have used them
inappropriately.
The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in
the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do
we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called
the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the
president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the
military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to
me.
President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the
Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those
restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization
Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of
Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isnt supposed
to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President,
true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying hes not
going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the
President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this
gives him a whole brigade unit to use against U.S. citizens here at
home.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and
where does that fit in when U.S. troops are deployed on U.S. soil?
MR: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to
help enforce the law. We dont do that. Every time we get a request
and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil
authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act.
And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires
and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the
requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any
complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed
back, because its not lawful.
AG: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you?
MR: No, it doesnt. One of the reasons it doesnt is not by what
Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been
doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive
51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President
enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our
regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.
And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what
it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption
of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can
declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, were having these huge
disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that
National Security Directive 51 and say, Were in a catastrophic
emergency. Im going to declare martial law, and Im going to use this
combat brigade to enforce it.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. Its
something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my 30-year career,
its only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread
situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state
requested that the President provide support. And thats a completely
different situation. The forces available to do that are in every
service in every part of the country, and its completely unrelated to
the this consequence management force that were talking about.
AG: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff
Stein he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly
talking about homeland security. And he said, Safely tucked into
the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the
last day of September.
The language doesnt just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to
take over the Judiciary Committee this was a piece written last
year it runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are
Republicans.
The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007,
sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the
Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed
Services committees.
No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill.
The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors
Association, said, This provision was drafted without consultation or
input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in
authority from governors to the federal government.
Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: Thats in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my
responsibilities or what Im was asked to talk about here with
regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.
AG: Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this gets to what Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was so
concerned about, that with NORTHCOM and with perhaps this unit and I
want to call Senator Leahys office today and ask him about this you
have the usurpation of the governors role, of the National Guards
role, and its given straight to the Pentagon in some of these
instances. And thats very alarming. And that was alarming to almost
every governor, if not every governor, in the country, when Bush tried
to do that and around about the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I think these
are real concerns.
AG: Matt Rothschild, the Democratic and Republican conventions were
quite amazing displays of force at every level, from the local police
on to the state troopers to, well, in the Republican convention, right
onto troops just back from Iraq in their Army fatigues. Did this
surprise you?
MR: It did. It surprised me also that NORTHCOM itself was involved in
intelligence sharing with local police officers in St. Paul. I mean,
what in the world is NORTHCOM doing looking at what some of the
protesters are involved in? And you had infiltration up there, too.
But what we have going on in this country is we have infiltration and
spying that goes on, not only at the well, all the way from the
campus police, practically, Amy, up to the Pentagon and the National
Security Agency. Were becoming a police state here.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, a tall order here, could you respond?
MB: Well, thats incorrect. We did not participate in any intelligence
collection. We were up there in support of the U.S. Secret Service. We
provided some explosive ordnance disposal support of the event. But
Id like to go back and say that, again, in terms of
AG: Could you explain what their explain again what was their role
there?
MB: They were just doing routine screens and scans of the area in
advance of this kind of a vulnerable event. Its pretty standard
support to a national special security event.
AG: And are you saying there was absolutely no intelligence sharing?
MB: Thats correct. That is correct. Were very constrained
MR: But even that, Amy, now the Pentagon is doing sweeps of areas
before, you know, a political convention? That used to be law
enforcements job. That used to be domestic civil law enforcement job.
Its now being taken over by the Pentagon. That should concern us.
AG: Why is that, Colonel Michael Boatner? Why is the Pentagon doing
it, not local law enforcement?
MB: Thats because of the scale and the availability of support. DoD
is the only force that has the kind of capability. I mean, were
talking about dozens and dozens of dog detection teams. And so, for
anything on this large a scale, the Secret Service comes to DoD with a
standard Economy Act request for assistance.
AG: Boatner, in the Republican Convention, these troops, just back
from Fallujah what about issues of, for example, PTSD,
post-traumatic stress disorder?
MB: Well, my sense is that thats something that the services handled
very well. Theres a long track record of great support in the
homeland. If those soldiers were National Guard soldiers, I have no
visibility of that. But for the active-duty forces, citizens can be
confident that if theyre employed in the homeland, that theyll be
reliable, accountable, and take care of their families and fellow
citizens in good form.
AG: Last word, Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this granting of the Pentagon a special unit to be involved
in U.S. patrol is something that should alarm all of us. And its very
important to the Army.
Amy Goodman
Alternet
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Amy Goodman: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army
stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry
Divisions 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for
domestic operations under the control of U.S. Army North, the Army
service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an
on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters.
Its being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or
sea-smurf for short.
Its the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated
assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to
provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense
efforts.
An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted,
in addition to emergency response, the force may be called upon to
help with civil unrest and crowd control. The Army Times has since
appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the
Northern Command states: This response force will not be called upon
to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control.
When Democracy Now! spoke to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie
Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, she said the force
would have weapons stored in containers on site, as well as access to
tanks, but the decision to use weapons would be made at a far higher
level, perhaps by Secretary of Defense, SECDEF.
Im joined now by two guests. Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future
operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from
Colorado Springs. Were also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by
journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why dont we begin with Colonel
Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time,
October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?
Col. Michael Boatner: Yes, Amy. Id be happy to. And again, there has
been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to
correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to
people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the
homeland. Its something that figures very prominently in the national
planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and thats
how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This
capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further
logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it
for that purpose.
And really, the new development is that its been assigned to
NORTHCOM, because theres an increasingly important requirement to
ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work
together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of
our services and from a variety of installations, and thats not an
ideal command and control environment. So weve been given control of
these forces so that we can train them, ensure theyre responsive and
direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called
to support civil authority, those governors or local state
jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive
and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on
the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.
They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and
another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart,
Georgia, but they wouldnt bring that stuff with them. In fact,
theyre prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual
weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland.
Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be
issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.
So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this.
Were proud to be able to provide this capability. Its all about
saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to
infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public
confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.
AG: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the
Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would
have Secretary of Defense would have would be able to preempt the
governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons
on U.S. soil?
MB: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military
force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was
inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would
allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and
unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or
civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.
AG: Matt Rothschild, youve been writing about this in The Progressive
magazine. What is your concern?
Matthew Rothschild: Well, Im very concerned on a number of fronts
about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came
into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were
concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the
United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on
its website it says it doesnt have units of its own. Now its getting
a unit of its own.
And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what its trained for.
Well, lets look at what its trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry,
1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in
Iraq in counterinsurgency. Its a war-fighting unit, was one of the
first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah.
And, you know, thats what theyve been trained to do. And now theyre
bringing that training here?
On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the
Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been
designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to
that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had
even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why
is a Pentagon unit thats going to be possibly patrolling the streets
of the United States involved in using tasers?
AG: Colonel Boatner?
MB: Well, Id like to address that. That involved a service mission
and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas
deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list
for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in
situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have
returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And
when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with
seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our
soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and
American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.
AG: Matt Rothschild?
MR: Well, you know, that doesnt really satisfy me, and I dont think
it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you
know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved
up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United
States who have been using these tasers have used them
inappropriately.
The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in
the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do
we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called
the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the
president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the
military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to
me.
President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the
Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those
restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization
Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of
Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isnt supposed
to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President,
true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying hes not
going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the
President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this
gives him a whole brigade unit to use against U.S. citizens here at
home.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and
where does that fit in when U.S. troops are deployed on U.S. soil?
MR: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to
help enforce the law. We dont do that. Every time we get a request
and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil
authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act.
And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires
and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the
requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any
complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed
back, because its not lawful.
AG: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you?
MR: No, it doesnt. One of the reasons it doesnt is not by what
Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been
doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive
51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President
enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our
regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.
And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what
it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption
of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can
declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, were having these huge
disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that
National Security Directive 51 and say, Were in a catastrophic
emergency. Im going to declare martial law, and Im going to use this
combat brigade to enforce it.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. Its
something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my 30-year career,
its only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread
situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state
requested that the President provide support. And thats a completely
different situation. The forces available to do that are in every
service in every part of the country, and its completely unrelated to
the this consequence management force that were talking about.
AG: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff
Stein he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly
talking about homeland security. And he said, Safely tucked into
the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the
last day of September.
The language doesnt just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to
take over the Judiciary Committee this was a piece written last
year it runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are
Republicans.
The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007,
sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the
Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed
Services committees.
No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill.
The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors
Association, said, This provision was drafted without consultation or
input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in
authority from governors to the federal government.
Colonel Michael Boatner?
MB: Thats in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my
responsibilities or what Im was asked to talk about here with
regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.
AG: Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this gets to what Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was so
concerned about, that with NORTHCOM and with perhaps this unit and I
want to call Senator Leahys office today and ask him about this you
have the usurpation of the governors role, of the National Guards
role, and its given straight to the Pentagon in some of these
instances. And thats very alarming. And that was alarming to almost
every governor, if not every governor, in the country, when Bush tried
to do that and around about the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I think these
are real concerns.
AG: Matt Rothschild, the Democratic and Republican conventions were
quite amazing displays of force at every level, from the local police
on to the state troopers to, well, in the Republican convention, right
onto troops just back from Iraq in their Army fatigues. Did this
surprise you?
MR: It did. It surprised me also that NORTHCOM itself was involved in
intelligence sharing with local police officers in St. Paul. I mean,
what in the world is NORTHCOM doing looking at what some of the
protesters are involved in? And you had infiltration up there, too.
But what we have going on in this country is we have infiltration and
spying that goes on, not only at the well, all the way from the
campus police, practically, Amy, up to the Pentagon and the National
Security Agency. Were becoming a police state here.
AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, a tall order here, could you respond?
MB: Well, thats incorrect. We did not participate in any intelligence
collection. We were up there in support of the U.S. Secret Service. We
provided some explosive ordnance disposal support of the event. But
Id like to go back and say that, again, in terms of
AG: Could you explain what their explain again what was their role
there?
MB: They were just doing routine screens and scans of the area in
advance of this kind of a vulnerable event. Its pretty standard
support to a national special security event.
AG: And are you saying there was absolutely no intelligence sharing?
MB: Thats correct. That is correct. Were very constrained
MR: But even that, Amy, now the Pentagon is doing sweeps of areas
before, you know, a political convention? That used to be law
enforcements job. That used to be domestic civil law enforcement job.
Its now being taken over by the Pentagon. That should concern us.
AG: Why is that, Colonel Michael Boatner? Why is the Pentagon doing
it, not local law enforcement?
MB: Thats because of the scale and the availability of support. DoD
is the only force that has the kind of capability. I mean, were
talking about dozens and dozens of dog detection teams. And so, for
anything on this large a scale, the Secret Service comes to DoD with a
standard Economy Act request for assistance.
AG: Boatner, in the Republican Convention, these troops, just back
from Fallujah what about issues of, for example, PTSD,
post-traumatic stress disorder?
MB: Well, my sense is that thats something that the services handled
very well. Theres a long track record of great support in the
homeland. If those soldiers were National Guard soldiers, I have no
visibility of that. But for the active-duty forces, citizens can be
confident that if theyre employed in the homeland, that theyll be
reliable, accountable, and take care of their families and fellow
citizens in good form.
AG: Last word, Matthew Rothschild?
MR: Well, this granting of the Pentagon a special unit to be involved
in U.S. patrol is something that should alarm all of us. And its very
important to the Army.