It's incredible because these military units are trained, conditioned, and programed to deal with ENEMIES. How easy is it for them to tone it down to "police" domestic non-combative citizens?

Very serious question.

I prefer to think that you and Naomi are being paranoid. Because the alternative makes me want to go take a Valium.

Am I the only on Slog who has mentioned this sort of shit being pushed for by Bush for a few years ago? All the executive orders he has signed that allow him to declare martial law for nearly any reason? Even economic disasters?

To be honest, it is a little late for the Stranger to be waking up to this reality but thanks for joining the party. If you guys were a real alternative newspaper, hell even if you listed to some progressive radio like Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy you'd have seen this coming.

I agree the army's role should not include domestic law enforcement.

But the problem for me isn't as much the military acting like police; it's the police acting like military.

It's also possible that the riots and insurrections anticipated were a worst case scenario from the fallout of the financial crisis.
What would happen, say, if the banks representing even 25% of all deposit accounts were to fail, the FDIC had to temporarily close them and lock the accounts, etc. It's a realistic scenario and would likely result in some sort of rioting.
Of course the riot police and army would lock down the largely democratic minority and low income neighborhoods, which would almost certainly reduce turnout, unless of course it pissed people off so much that everyone just turned against the Republicans and voted the bastards out.

No Cato, I remember you mentioning this a few times.

Listen, if the polls from now on out project Obama at a 10+ point lead, it will become very difficult for Republicans to steal the election without people scratching their heads as to why polling was completely incongruent with the outcome. If this is the case, perhaps they WILL have to resort to some sort of false-flagging or something.

See, it's a difficult subject because thinking about it makes one want to shut down and curl up into a ball when realizing that there is no evidence to the contrary that our current POTUS wouldn't do such a thing.

I find these developments quite alarming. One lesson from the Seattle "riots" of a few years ago: If the riot police show up, a riot will ensue.

WHEN is the Supreme Court going to do something about these laughably unconstitutional "signing statements"? THE LAW WAS FUCKING REPEALED. That, to me, is far more troubling than the troops themselves.

what to do if the army begins meddling with the election?

i assume the most likely scenario for those who dare to protest is getting your ass kicked or killed.

I posit that the troops have been recalled to deal with the mess that will happen after the elections. Both sides are equally passionate that electing the other guy spells the end of the world so the election could trigger civil unrest.

Or, everything will be fine. My tin foil hat has been blocking transmissions from moonbat base so what do I know.

Isn't this one of the reasons all you 'mericans have guns? So nobody can stomp on your rights?

Or are they only for use if the king of england comes and tries to steal your cattle?

The Stranger seems to be onto us now, Operation October Surprise seems to have been compromised.

Is there something Naomi Klein doesn't freak out about?

ams, if you aren't in this country living the nightmare right now, shut your Goddamn mouth.

From the start of the Obama campaign I've had the feeling that Bush will never leave office. I firmly believe the elections will be cancelled and some bullshit "we're at war" proclamation of martial law will be issued. The neo-cons have it all figured out. That's why all the National Guard units have been weakened by deployment and de-equipping. Just you wait and see.

Buy a rifle with a large caliber.

Yes, on top of the absolutely terrifying Patriot Act-era laws effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights and long-established principles like Posse Comitatus, there is the additional problem that the Executive Branch under Bush has established a precedent of not following the law, to the point where the exceptions (the signing statements Fnarf mentions, failure to respond to subpoenas, failure to comply with public information laws, etc) outnumber the instances of compliance. This should be particularly worrisome to anybody who was listening to Sarah Palin's apparent endorsement of the "Cheney Doctrine" last night which essentially claims that the office of Vice President exists outside the system of constitutional checks and balances. Add to this the fact that Congress has no oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and has largely ceded any control over military decisions and you have a situation where a President who wishes to would have all the necessary instruments at hand to seize complete control simply by declaring an emergency.

The combination of a unitary Executive and virtually unlimited law enforcement authority up to and including declaring martial law is a recipe for dictatorship. Frankly it's more power than I would like to see a President of either party possess.

Probably right now they're thinking either: A. Civil unrest prompted by economic collapse or B.civil unrest, particularly among minority communities, prompted by a conspicuously stolen election a la Zimbabwe or the Ukraine's Orange Revolution.

if the republicans ever pulled a stunt like this when the dems clearly won, st. paul would be tea party compared to riots that would go down in every major city.

one brigade would not suppress the outrage that would ensue.

Look, I'm not an alarmist, and I don't mean this lightly, but in a calm, rational matter: it's one of your duties as an American citizen, under the implicit social contract that is our constitution, to be aware of such threats and willing to act against them when they arrive. If we as citizens have to, in some nightmare scenario, fight our own soldiers in our own streets for our freedom, then that's what you do. Of course, I also spend every day hoping that never ever happens - but if it does, jesus, bring it on and be prepared.

Whatever. And don't be afraid to say it in a public forum, either, ya know?

@13 Nice one. I went to your blog and while I don't agree with all of what you post there, I think that nuclear post was very funny.

Thank you for your continued service to our country. The US Navy rocks! (and hopefully kicks Somali pirate ass really soon.)

@17: that will be effective against M15s for about 10 seconds.

TI was planning ahead.

Wasn't just at the RNC. From Raw Story -

Denver's police union is facing criticism for printing a commemorative T-shirt that makes light of the use of violence by police, particularly in the wake of 154 arrests during the week of Democratic National Convention this past August.

"We get up early, to beat the crowds," the shirt reads, followed by "2008 DNC." The words flank a grinning police officer holding a baton and wearing a hat with a crossed-out number "68," presumably making reference to activist organization Recreate 68, which staged several anti-war demonstrations during the convention.

I had this on my blog a long time ago, after Democracy Now had reported on it. No one seems to be paying attention.

Ah, here we go again gearing up with the Cheney-Bushitlerburton talk. I love it. Liberalism at its looniest ... that's why I hang out here.

So it's a point of worry that an "Iraq-seasoned brigade has been reassigned, for the next 12 months, to the control of U.S. Army North. That is, the United States?" Well, how many brigaded are there that are *not* "Iraq-seasoned?" At this rate I expect to hear that the practice of sending National Guard troops to Iraq was to give them experience for quelling riots when it emerges that McCain-Palinhitlerburton stole the '08 election.

Besides, I thought we were supposed to be bringing troops home. Hasn't that been on the progressive agenda all along?

I'm curious to see if President Obama gives back all of this excess Executive power to the Legislative branch, where it belongs.

Leave the country!

Worked great for me!

The imperial presidency has become a reality. How could Congress have given the President the power to attack the citizen's of this country? Congress has freely abdicated its own power to check the executive over and over again. It begs the question of whether Obama will voluntarily relinquish any power accrued to his predecessors and restoe checks and balances or whether he will don the imperial mantle.

It doesn't worry you, Seajay, that an unpopular president has recently adopted a cavalier attitude towards an important 130-year-old law that was written to prevent deployment of a nation's troops against its own citizens?

If I were reading that scenario in a history book, I'd expect the worst.

One thing we know for sure is that our military will have no objections to bombing and shooting civilians here in the US just like the countless thousands of innocent men, women and children they've brutally murdered in Iraq.

They're war criminals.

@29: I think Seajay represents a large group of people who only get alarmed at this sort of thing when the shoe is on the other foot -- as long as it's "their" party wielding unconstitutional authority, they're cool with it. It's one reason I have more respect for Ron Paul supporters than Republicans -- they may be a little on the crazy side, but at least they're consistent in their criticisms of government overreaching. And they apparently think of the constitution as more than window dressing.

Even if a Democrat inherits this level of executive power, it's still a bad idea.

Any clever ideas on what we should do? Let's see:
In the red corner we've got a battle hardened army brigade armed with automatic weapons.
In the blue corner we've got a million unarmed hippies with flowers and pot. (All the guns are in the hands of the right wing wacko's who will probably support this action)

The good news is that a brigade is only about 2,500 soldiers. The bad news is that they only really have to hit a relative handful of cities. I think you'd need at least 200 soldiers to hold down the hippies in an average sized city, probably a little more. That way they could only really enforce martial law in about a dozen cities.

If they're just here to fuck with the election they could probably be devestating. They could disrupt the election in dozens of cities in key swing states and could change the election. If they're here to suppress revolution they'll need more.

So, what do we do about it? Arm ourselves before it happens? I can tell you this. If this goes down the way we're fearing it could I'll be calling in dead to work. Literally.

@30 Hey fuck you buddy!.

This sort of left bullshit of the army being full of child killers is what allows the sort of paranoia seen here to flourish. People who choose to join the army are, at least in general, committed to up holding principles of their country. Principles free and fair elections.

It is highly unlikely that any large group of American soldiers will be willing to kill their fellow citizens and over throw the government.

On the other hand if such a thing were to happen there are still lots of sane civilians committed to owning guns for many reasons including this situation, but I forgot guns are bad and we can't trust people to own them so take them away.

@29 ... remember why that measure was passed; it was because of Hurricane Katrina. Has everyone forgotten the panic over looters while citizens were packed into the Superdome? The idea was to help people--largely poor and black, by the way--to get out and around and try to get some of their lives back. I find the thought that Mr Bush might deploy the military (voiced by someone else) in order to gain another term just as incredible as the rumours among Republicans in 2000 that Mr Clinton was also considering staying for a third term by abrogating the 22nd Amendment via executive order.

As far as unpopular presidents deploying troops against their own populations, we only have to look at those notable examples, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and Hu Jintao, notable conservatives all, right?

@31 ... think what you like by all means--I didn't hear an answer to either of my questions. Just because I'm skeptical about alarmism that we might be returning to a new version of Haymarket or Kent State (which I remember personally btw), doesn't mean I'd be supportive of it if it actually came to pass.

You and I are basically in agreement when the discussion moves away from me personally. Your implication that I must be a Republican just because I don't join the amen chorus is wrong, however. Not all conservatives are in the tank for the GOP. I'm an independent conservative, as I've said before in this forum, and over my lifetime I've donated more to Democrats than Republicans--though, I must admit, always to individual candidates, not to the Party itself.

nuke the whales @ 33,

Thanks for that completely logical and well-thought out response!

The facts, however, plainly show that our soldiers don't care who they're torturing, bombing and killing.

Their Lord and Savior, Preznit Caligutard, says "shoot" and they shoot.

@34: I guess I mistook this bit

Ah, here we go again gearing up with the Cheney-Bushitlerburton talk. I love it. Liberalism at its looniest

For a blanket, boilerplate dismissal of concerns about the suspension of Posse Comitatus that was Brendan's initial reason for concern. If your point is just that you cringe when you hear "Chimpy McBushitler" or whatever then I'm in full agreement.

If you essentially agree with the intent of the post, though, which is that it is cause for alarm when the federal government starts talking casually about using troops to keep the peace domestically, then I don't understand the dismissive tone.

man you guys are silly.

@36; The federal government used troops to keep the peace domestically in New Orleans after Katrina, and I didn't hear any complaints. Just sayin'.