Obama plan unifies Defense, Homeland Security response (feds will now control STATE National Guards)

[stockholmer]

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-plan-unifies-defense-homeland-security-response?CID=examiner_alerts_article


"The U.S. Secretary of Defense yesterday announced that he's agreed to a plan that will allow one military commander to be in charge of both State National Guard and each military branch's reserve forces when they are deployed to respond to domestic emergencies including terrorist attacks, according to Lisa Daniel of the American Forces Press Service.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, along with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Council of Governors -- a group President Barack Obama formed in January 2010 to represent all of the states' governors -- signed off on the agreement, known as the Joint Action Plan, during a March 1 Pentagon meeting, Ms. Daniel reported in a statement obtained by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.

According to the White House press office, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard units of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.........."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Continuity of Agenda Flashback



Obama is further fleshing out the emergent Federal security state apparatus pushed through by Bush

The Impact of Sept. 11, 2001, on the Unified Command Plan

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/ucp-pr.cfm

"May 22, 2002
On April 17, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers unveiled the long-anticipated changes to the Pentagon's Unified Command Plan (UCP). 1 The new UCP, which becomes effective Oct. 1, 2002, increases to 10 the number of combatant geographical and functional commands through which the U.S. military chain-of-command runs. 2 This April's changes now mean that the number of geographical "proconsuls" (as the Washington Post called the regional commanders in chief) equals the number of functional commanders.

The changes are the most significant since 1983, when the United States Central Command was carved out of the European and Pacific commands to provide a clearer focus on the Middle East and Gulf region. 3

The centerpiece of the reorganization is the creation of a Northern Command (NORCOM) whose mission is "defending the United States and supporting the full range of military assistance to civil authorities." 4 While this mission statement clearly reflects the influence of Sept. 11 on the UCP, it does not add any new missions for the Pentagon. As Myers noted, "the changes...merely consolidate existing homeland security duties now spread across several commands under one high-ranking general to coordinate the response......................."

[MichiganVote]

1. In the hands of Lincoln this is a good thing, in the hands of the Facist GOP....

But we don't have a Lincoln anymore.

[bluestateguy]

2. Do you trust Soctt Walker and Rick Scott with the National Guard?

Neither do I.

[saras]

12. About as much as I trust Obama with it

But I expect they'll be a lot more willing to disobey Walker than Obama. I can't imagine Obama ordering the Guard to do anything anti-corporate, or to defend anyone who is. And I can't imagine Obama ordering the Guard to do anything significant without corporate approval.

Anything that makes it harder to use the Guard inappropriately against citizens is fine by me. I just don't see that much of a need for them that they're worth trading our rights for.

[aquart]

3. Never wanted this.

[ProSense]

4. Good grief

Jim Kouri is the ultimate wingnut look him up, at Alan Keyes site: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri

Family Security Matters: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.9/author_detail.asp

Washington Examiner is a front for a lot of wingnut writers

[stockholmer]

8. your attempt to debunk is unwarranted, here is the link directly to the Dept of Defense

nothing in the OP is untoward, and the bottom line is this further erodes your constitutional system of federalism


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63128


People so seem to play situational politics (if 'our' side is the one with the power, then all is safe and sound, but if the 'other' side is in charge, then, holy shit!)

Many do not realize that once power is usurped, it is not going back, and regimes and leaders ALWAYS change hands to the 'other side'.



when the info is sound, I tire of "kill the messenger" games

[ProSense]

11. Really? The writer isn't a wingnut making up stuff?

What the hell does a link about coordinated disaster response have to do with the ludicrous claims that the President is trying to take over the NG from states and challenging its Constitutionality:

<...>

However, some conservatives and libertarians believe this is not a plan to be celebrated, but one that should be closely examined on many levels including the constitutionality of having military forces operating within the United States.

"The plan may sound good on its surface, but it brings up a lot of questions by law enforcement officials and other first responders (firefighters, emergency medical personnel, etc.)," said former police lieutenant Steve Rodgers, who has headed homeland security operations.

The plan creates a dual-status commander for each state, approved by the president and governor, to have simultaneous authority over both National Guard and reserve forces called up to respond to a state emergency, Secretary Stockton said.

<...>

Reads like the wingnuts stirring shit.

[stockholmer]

13. sorry you feel that erosion of your constitutional system of government is 'stirring shit'

one man's " domestic terrorist" or "domestic disaster" is another's "union supporter" or "civil protest"

comes down to who is defining the "problem" and who is holding the guns of the state



http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/52

The PATRIOT Act: Darkness With No Sunset

"The proposed expanded version of the Patriot Act would give the government even more sweeping powers to increase domestic surveillance, solely in the discretion of the executive branch, and without judicial review. It would authorize massive surveillance of individuals and groups who are engaged in lawful, protected protest and free speech activities; terminate all state court consent decrees that limit police agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations, basic civil liberties protections that had been won in a long series of "red squad" cases; allow even broader warrantless searches of libraries and bookstores; authorize warrantless wiretaps for up to fifteen days, at the sole discretion of the attorney general; and authorize secret arrests.................."

"Political Implications
Does the scenario following September 11, 2001 sound familiar from history? In response to the profound economic and political crises of the 1930s, fascist regimes in Europe greatly strengthened the state's corporate power and used it to reward the wealthiest at the expense of the poor and working people, privatize much of the public domain, crush dissent, strip people of their constitutional and other individual legal rights, and create an illusion of strength and prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war.........."

"It is important to realize that these new legal changes are not limited to non-citizens, people of Arab descent, or those suspected of actual terrorist activities. Rather, the Bush regime's "war on terrorism," handed to it by the appalling events of 9/11, is being used as a pretext to achieve a longstanding corporate/right wing "wish list." All of this is in lieu of fighting the daily terrors of American society: joblessness and increasing lack of job security; poverty and the lack of a living wage, even for those lucky enough to have a job; hunger; lack of universal health care; homelessness; widespread violence; racism; police brutality; corporate and government destruction of our environment, overwhelmingly in communities of color; a crisis in public education; and one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world............"

[hifiguy]

5. This ain't good. This ain't good at all

mmkay?

What was I voting for again in Nov 2008? Whatever it was, it wasn't this.

[PhillySane]

6. Terrorist Atttacks?

How about homegrown uprisings?

[walldude]

7. Notice it said "Including Terrorist Attacks"

Believe me this isn't about terrorism.

[hifiguy]

9. Not one bit, it isn't.

One more piece of writing on the wall.

[Dappleganger]

10. *face palm*