Leahy Concerned About NorthCom’s New Army Unit
Senator Patrick Leahy is concerned about the Pentagon’s decision to
designate an Army unit to Northern Command.
On
October 1, the Pentagon, for the first time ever, dedicated an Army
force specifically to NorthCom, which is in charge of securing not some
foreign region but the United States of America.
The unit it
assigned is the 3rd Infantry, First Brigade Combat Team, which has
spent three of the last five years in Iraq. It was one of the first
units to get to Baghdad, and it was active in retaking and patrolling
Fallujah. One of its specialties is counterinsurgency.
This marks
a change for NorthCom, which was established on October 1, 2002. Its
website still says it “has few permanently assigned forces,” and that
“the command is assigned forces whenever necessary to execute missions,
as ordered by the President and the Secretary of Defense.”
Leahy “asked for a briefing from his staff” on this development and
“wants to monitor the situation,” an aide to Leahy said.
Leahy
was instrumental in getting Congress to repeal the “Insurrection Act
Rider” in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. That rider had given
the President sweeping power to use military troops in ways contrary to
the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. The rider authorized the
President to have troops patrol our streets in response to disasters,
epidemics, and any “condition” he might cite.
Leahy said last
December that this rider “made it easier for the President to take over
the Guard and to declare martial law.” In a Senate statement on April
24, 2007, he cautioned against inserting the military “into domestic
situations.” As he put it: “One of the distinguishing characteristics
of the United States is that we do not use the military to patrol our
communities and neighborhoods.” A few months before that, he warned
that we must ensure that “the military is not used in a way that
offends and endangers some of our most cherished values and liberties.”
The
repeal of the rider was signed by Bush on January 28, though Amy
Goodman reports that “Bush attached a signing statement that he did not
feel bound by the repeal.”
The roles the 1st Brigade Combat Team will take on at NorthCom are a
bit unclear.
“They
may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” said
the Army Times when it first reported on it. These duties would be in
addition to dealing with “potentially horrific scenarios such as
massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”
Soldiers
in the unit “also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal
package that the Army has field,’ 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier
said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal
weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without
killing them,” the article noted.
Cloutier even bragged to the Army Times: “I was the first guy in the
brigade to get Tasered.”
The
Army Times has since issued a correction, stating that the “non-lethal
crowd control package” is “intended for use on deployments to the war
zone, not in the U.S.”
NorthCom’s own press release of September
30 says, “This response force will not be called upon to help with law
enforcement, civil disturbance, or crowd control.”
The unit will
have its regular weapons, however. It will store other weapons in
“containers,” and will have access to tanks, as Amy Goodman has
reported and the Pentagon has confirmed.
The Army is taking a strong interest in this deployment.
Army
Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey personally observed the combat team’s
training exercise, entitled “Vibrant Response,” which was held at Fort
Stewart, Georgia, last month. According to NorthCom’s public affairs
department, Gen. Casey “pointed out that being part of the new force
requires a shift in thinking for soldiers who are accustomed to taking
charge.”
One soldier in the exercise said he learned that the troops should
“preposition containers and equipment.”
NorthCom’s
website, in a section on frequently asked questions about Joint Task
Forces-Civil Support, cites “DoD Directive 3025.1” as laying out the
criteria for how the Pentagon will respond in domestic situations.
That
directive talks about “military support in dealing with the actual or
anticipated consequences of civil emergencies.” Those civil emergencies
could be “arising during peace, war, or transition to war.”
While
it states that such support “does not include military support to local
law enforcement,” there is a provision in the directive for the
military to take over functions of the civilian government.
Military
personnel “shall not perform any function of civil government unless
absolutely necessary on a temporary basis under conditions of Immediate
Response. Any commander who is directed, or undertakes, to perform such
functions shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility
at the earliest possible time,” the document states.
Under this
“Immediate Response” exception, local military commanders can even act
without prior approval from their superiors. “Imminently serious
conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require
immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of
other DoD agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate
great property damage,” it says. “When such conditions exist and time
does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military
commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are
authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction
that may be provide by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to
respond to requests of civil authorities.”
The Pentagon’s
decision to dedicate the First Brigade Combat Team to NorthCom has
raised alarms, especially in the context of the current economic
crisis. In Bush’s National Security Presidential Directive 51, he lays
out his authority in the event of a catastrophic emergency. In such an
emergency, “the President shall lead the activities of the Federal
Government for ensuring constitutional government” and will coordinate
with state, local, and tribal governments, along with private sector
owners of infrastructure.
NSPD 51 defines a catastrophic
emergency as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in
extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely
affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or
government function.”
Notice the use of the word “or” above. In
our current circumstances, it might be more relevant to read the
definition this way: “any incident . . . that results in extraordinary
levels of . . . disruption severely affecting the U.S. . . . economy.”
President
Bush could declare a catastrophic emergency today. And he’d have the
3rd Infantry, First Brigade Combat Team, well trained from its years
patrolling Iraq, at his disposal here at home.