An army deployed against its people

In his blog on Salon.com today, Glenn Greenwald discusses the recent announcement by the US Army that, for the first time ever, US soldiers would be deployed on our own soil to act as needed against civilian unrest.

One of the most concerning portions of the Army statement was the part emphasized here by me:

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal 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.

In Greenwald's blog today and in his Salon radio interview, he discusses this new domestic military role with the ACLU, who has lodged a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to find out why this new standing military force is needed on US soil.

My takeaway: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have undeniably stretched our military to its limit, so much so that the National Guard has been deployed to serve overseas to the detriment of our domestic security, as enunciated by many state authorities who rely on the National Guard during times of disaster.

Do we need guard detail available throughout the nation? Yes. But I question why it should be a US military force, a force dedicated to combating foreign threats. Army units are NOT specialized in domestic security, and I, for one, want to know why the Department of Defence thinks they should now be in a position where they may be deployed against their fellow citizens.

(BTW - where are the "strict constitutionalists" on this one??)