FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL
Real. Educational. News.
Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
NORTH AMERICAN UNION MILITARY
FORGES NEW CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Canadian Military to Assist in Civilian Law
Enforcement Duties in United States
By: David Deschesne
Fort Fairfield Journal, March 12, 2008
March 24, 2008 UPDATE: Click Here for Maine Adjutant General Bill Libby's comments on the Civil Assistance Plan.
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS - The North American Union military began shoring up support among member nations last month as leaders from U.S. and Canadian Commands signed an agreement to allow each other’s military forces to police the citizenry in domestic law enforcement during emergencies in each other’s respective countries.
U.S. Air Force General, Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-General Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command signed the Civil Assistance Plan at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas on February 14, 2008.
“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said in a press release from U.S. Northern Command.
“The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais said. “Our Commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.”
Jerome Corsi, from World Net Daily reports, “The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.”
Historically, the U.S. Military, and even more so a foreign military, has been prohibited from exercising civilian policing powers of the U.S. citizenry by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
However, section 1076 of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (editor's note, if this link is inactive, see applicable text in note 1 below) (H.R. 5122) granted the President bold new powers to use the (U.S.) military for domestic law enforcement within the states under his discretion alone, without an invitation from the States’ authorities.
The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 1585) repeals portions of the former grant of emergency presidential powers from the John Warner Defense Authorization Act. However, after portions of the former act were repealed, the 2008 NDAA (editor's note, if this link is inactive, see applicable text in note 2, below) still allows the President to use the militia or the armed forces within the States and to take measures he deems necessary to suppress “insurrections” and “domestic violence” and also when the constituted authorities of the State are “unable, or refuse” to uphold the laws of the United States.
Since no mention of foreign militaries is extant in the NDAA, the CAP seems to be a "back door" to allow the President to bring in those foreign troops by activating NORTHCOM and NORTHCOM bringing in those foreign militaries that are partnered with them.
It is important to note that the Canadian military’s soldiers have sworn no oath of allegiance to the United States, or U.S. Constitution, but could potentially be armed and in-country assisting civilian law enforcement officers in their law enforcement duties.
By the nature of foreign troops under quasi-federal control, there is a potential for their usurpation of the authority of local law enforcement. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee attempted to downplay the seriousness of foreign troops exercising civilian law enforcement duties inside the U.S.; “It should be important to note that this is not a mutual defense plan, but it does allow one nation’s military to provide civil support assistance to their neighbor in the time of a civil emergency such as during floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes as well as to help deal with the effects of a terrorist attack in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property,” said Senator Collins. “Many states along the northern border have a number of close knit communities that exist on both sides of the border.”
Senator Collins refused to address the concerns of a foreign military operating in the U.S. without an oath of allegiance to protect and defend the Constitution, or appropriate training in the respective states’ Criminal Justice Academy as is required of the local law enforcement officers they would be assisting.
Most states in the U.S. have provisions in their laws that deal with the exercise of police powers by members of federal agencies (but not foreign militaries). In Maine law, for example, those requirements can be found at 25 MRSA section 1502-A. Specifically stated therein are requirements for training in certain aspects of law before federal officers may exercise state law enforcement powers. However, there is no mention of foreign military troops providing those same law enforcement services.
The purpose of these types of laws is to provide some certainty that anybody with a badge and a gun who sets out to enforce state law; a) has at least some idea what state law says (and strictly Federal law enforcement training doesn't usually go into specifics of this), and b) has sufficient knowledge, perhaps at least equal to that imparted to local reserve police officers, regarding proper application of force in various situations in accordance with the states’ laws.
“As I understand it, this is not a completely new concept,” said Jen Burita, a spokesperson for Senator Collins' D.C. office. “Van Buren Fire Department, for example, recently was backup on a fire in Canada.”
The parallel between fire departments and full-fledged militaries providing aid is not congruent, since firefighters are not an armed military force with the potential to use machine guns, tanks and armored personnel carriers against the public during civilian policing duties.
Others have argued that the Canadian soldiers would be a good "extra pair of hands." However, even before we give our own soldiers or police a gun, they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States and to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution. The Canadian soldiers, benevolent though they may be, have sworn no oath of allegiance or sworn to protect and defend our Constitution - nor should we expect them to. In the even “extra hands” are needed in an emergency, the Sheriff, County Emergency Management Director and Governor have full power and authority to enlist volunteers or paid employees out of their own citizenry and use them to those ends. Then, they at least get to keep control at the local level without submitting to a foreign military bureaucracy.
A foreign military force may not even be necessary, since most states have their own State Guard (not to be confused with National Guard) that draws its membership from the people within the state and functions as the State’s own military unit outside of the realm and authority of the National Guard system. In Maine, the establishment of the Maine State Guard is found at Maine Revised Statutes, Title 37-B sec. 221-225. Since the governors of most states are already authorized to activate their own states’ guard units for emergencies, the agreement by the Feds to use foreign military forces must have some other ulterior motive.In general, military training doesn't impart any of this. While there may be some sorts of specialized training given to troops destined for "civilian" duty, it likely does not impart the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary for them to do a very creditable job. Nor would it likely do much to counteract their previous military training which may be in direct opposition to that necessary for civilian law enforcement.
The Civil Assistance Plan recognizes the role of each nation’s lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The Plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on appropriate response.
According to the press release from U.S. Northern Command, “U.S. Northern Command was established on October 1, 2002 to anticipate and conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect and secure the United States and its interests.”
It is key to note that U.S. Northern Command is empowered to protect the U.S. “interests” but admittedly not the Constitutional rights of the citizenry, since there is no mention of said rights in its mission statement.
As the North American Union’s Military headquarters, USNORTHCOM’s Area of Responsibility includes air, land and sea approaches and encompasses the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles. It also includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. The commander of USNORTHCOM is responsible for theater security cooperation with Canada and Mexico.
“If the establishment was really supportive of protecting U.S. national sovereignty, why on earth would they allow USNORTHCOM to establish an agreement with Canada that allows their military to support our military during civil emergencies?” queried independent journalist, Lee Rogers. “Clearly the U.S. government is ratcheting up their plans for martial law and using the phony threat of homegrown terrorism as an excuse to implement their militarized police state agenda.”
As a sort of pre-introduction “soft sell” to the merger of both countries’ armed forces, NORAD and NORTHCOM provided a joint color guard for this year’s Superbowl, with Canadian troops included in the ceremony.
Last Fall, the U.S., Mexico and Central America entered into an agreement to merge police agencies at the Merida Summit, as reported in the Fort Fairfield Journal, February 27, 2008 (page 1).
The North American Union was formed by fiat in May, 2005 by U.S. President George W. Bush; Mexican President, Vicente Fox; and Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin. Later that year, Mexican troops were assisting local law enforcement and Emergency Management agencies in Texas during hurricane Katrina while the U.S. BATF was exercising law enforcement duties in Mexico via their “Southern Borders Initiative.”
To date, no formal treaty has been ratified by the U.S. Senate to allow for U.S. involvement in said Union, strategic and prosperity partnership or any other merger of U.S. police and military units with foreign countries. But, the U.S. Congress and Senate are moving forward with the necessary funding to implement said mergers despite that fact.
While politicians refuse to refer to a “North American Union” by name, they are moving forward with all of the necessary mergers and bilateral agreements between police, fire, military, industry, and economies that would be necessary to facilitate such a Union in the first place.
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.