Newest Videos Added:

The Government's Argument for Deploying Troops in the U.S. is Ridiculous - Even On Its Own Terms

Everyone knows that deploying 20,000 troops on U.S. soil violates Posse Comitatus and the Constitution.

And everyone understands that staging troops within the U.S. to "help out with civil unrest and crowd control" increases the danger of overt martial law.

But no one is asking an obvious question: Does the government's own excuse for deploying the troops make any sense?

As the Washington Post writes

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.

1. Not start any more imperial wars of conquest and stop torturing innocent people (which, for some strange reason, really pisses off the locals and may create real terrorists)
2. Fund law enforcement efforts to locate and arrest bad guys
3. Take real steps to secure our country by doing things like checking incoming cargo, protecting nuclear and other sensitive facilities, etc.
   

Deploying troops on U.S. soil violates the Constitution, moves us further down the road towards martial law, and is ridiculous - even judged on the basis of the government's own arguments.