Living the Questions

Bob and I went to our Living the Questions group last evening and had a good meal and a lively discussion afterward. Then we began to discuss the political situation. I told them about an article I had read a couple of weeks ago after a friend of mine whose husband is stationed in Alaska with the Northern Command told me about the deployment of combat troops into Georgia and Alabama prior to the elections.

Here is the information I found.

On October 1, 2008, President Bush deployed a brigade -- which means three to four thousand warriors -- somewhere in America. We do not know where they are deployed though citizens have informally reported having seen military vehicles and troops in Georgia (some are actually at Fort Stewart, Georgia) and Alabama. We do know that their official mandate according to the first report is 'crowd control' as well as action in the event of a mass civilian catastrophe. Initial reports described their technology 'module package' as involving Tasers and rubber bullets.

According to Amnesty International, more than 300 people in the United States have died since 2001 as the result of being Tasered by law enforcement authorities. According to the first reports, the mission includes subduing 'unruly individuals.' After an outcry, more recent statements from military spokesmen have backed off from identifying those tasks as being the ones the troops will be charged with. Why worry about the deployment of troops in our nation?

First, the founding generation set a bright line to keep military from policing our streets in 1807 because they knew from their own experience how easily military forces -- King George's -- could subdue civilian society. The First Brigade is Bush's force: they are not answerable to Congress or to the Governors of states: they are answerable to the Commander in Chief. In an Alternet posting, a reporter interviewed Air Force Colonel (retired) David Antoon who noted that the troops must obey the president, even if he asks them to arrest Congress or fire on civilians or attack media outlets. If they do not obey orders, he notes, they face five years in prison.

We should not have to remind ourselves that these scenarios are unlikely to understand that this power is dangerous. Antoon himself calls the deployment 'ominous.' Troops on our streets makes us something less than a democracy: one definition of a police state is when a leader sends his own military units into civilian streets. Meanwhile the civilian policing of citizens is becoming more brutal. Hundreds of preemptive arrests took place in St Paul, dozens of journalists were arrested.

This reporter I am quoting was phoned recently by Monica Bicking, a young, well-scrubbed Midwesterner who is one of eight perfectly ordinary young Americans charged as 'terrorists' under the Minnesota Patriot act after being arrested at the RNC.

I learned only this week that there is little good footage of the RNC brutality because police demanded the cameras of reporters or exposed their film. Some of the footage we have, showing random unprompted mass arrests, was buried in the ground
by a protester so it could survive.

Police forces have become more violent toward civilians due to resources as well as pressure from Homeland Security money and personnel. Prior to this summer's conventions, $50 million was sent to both Denver and St. Paul, much of which was used to arm and train police to act against citizens.

In St. Paul, funds were sent in advance to pay off the lawsuits against police forces that were guaranteed to arise from the planned abuse of citizens. This sort of thing is happening across the country. The tactic has established a closed circle that has turned citizens' law enforcement agencies into contractors of a state that is directing acts of increasing severity against US citizens. Now a military brigade is being deployed.

The Bush administration has unilaterally decided to defy federal laws that have kept the military off our streets since 1807, almost since the birth of this nation: The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 expanded the president's authority to deploy troops within the United States. The people raised a hue and cry -- and this power was then substantially limited by a new provision in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. But Bush signaled, with a signing statement, that he would not recognize these new limitations. We may be called unpatriotic for fearing these soldiers on our streets. We should see through this. Our military are indeed brave and overwhelmingly decent. And, as I note, they can be prosecuted for refusing to follow orders. But history -- and the Zimbardo experiments, and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- has taught us clearly that decent kids under duress and following strict orders can do appalling things. Our men and women in uniform over there have followed many orders that are still giving them PTSD and nightmares at home.

Air Force Colonel Antoon notes further:

I am not a constitutional scholar. But history, which we as Americans ignore at our own peril, clearly suggests that martial law trumps civil law. As I said, and as you have written, I believe we are in great peril if we have American troops who have been trained to "destroy the enemy ... in close combat" patrolling American streets. Posse Comitatus is essential because American soldiers are not trained for such things as civil disobedience -- they are trained to kill. The US military "Warrior's Creed" clearly states: "I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. One only need look at the events in 1970 when the National Guard was called on to the campus of Kent State University. These soldiers instinctively did what they had been trained to do: kill.

President Bush has not called out a small National Guard unit. He has mobilized a battle hardened army brigade. President Bush's signing statement to dismiss the law of Posse Comitatus is gravely ominous.

If you think this is not legitimate, folks, just look around the internet. The Huffington Post presented this story.

I am leery of this entire situation....especially at election time. yes, it will be an interesting election. I hope my fears are unfounded.

The picture above was taken at the Republican National Committee and is a seventeen year old boy during a peaceful protest. According to his mother he was brutally beaten by police following the taking of this picture.