Jan 10 2009
Northcom unit designed to respond to disasters has own “security force”
In a story from the American Forces Press Service posted on Army.com , Marine Col. John M. Pollock, commander of the Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force said that the unit does have its own security force.
While the article also says Pollock “would rather use state and local law enforcement for security,” it begs the question of why a unit trained to respond to disasters in the United States would even have its own security force. Such a force, consisting of active duty military personal, would violate the Posse Comitatus Ac t if it operated in the US, unless there was a declared national emergency.
The article just mentions the security force in passing, but seems to imply Pollock saying something like, ‘we have this thing, but there’s no reason for it because we’d rely on local law enforcement anyway.’ So, again, why have it then?
The unit in question is made up of over 400 Marines, saliors, and civilians, with Marines well in the majority. Pollock notes that it is a proactive force, and was actually in place at the Republican National Convention last summer in Minnesota, which is certainly intimidating in the least. The idea that an event such as this, which drew untold numbers of protestors, had a unit composed mainly of Marines waiting in the wings “just in case” is a downright chilling thought. And now we know that the unit has its own security force, whatever that may mean.
In a related note, a December 1st story in the Washington Post read , “The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.”
Among those voicing dissent was Cato Vice President Gene Healy, who 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, and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”
Is this really what we want? It is the sign of a free nation when more and more active duty military personal are posted within the nation? Or is it a sign of something else?
Sources: Army.com - Unit Learns Skills to Fight Different Enemy January 7, 2009
Washington Post - Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security December 1, 2008
