Contradicting Northcom denial that troops would be engaged in law enforcement, dealing with “civil unrest”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com 
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Following Northcom’s denial that U.S. Army combat teams would be used to deal with “civil unrest” after the announcement that thousands of active duty military personnel were being moved inside the United States, an Army.com report now concedes that more than 400 Marines assigned to one unit includes a “security force” that would operate within the homeland.
A September 8 Army Times report stated that active duty troops from the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returning from Iraq would be on call as a “federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks,” for a period of 12 months from October 1st.
This preceded a December 1 Washington Post article  which reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
According to the Army Times article, their duties would include dealing with “civil unrest and crowd control”. This admission was later denied by Northcom’s operations division chief Army Col. Michael Boatner, who told Homeland Security Today , “This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control, but will be used to support lead agencies involved in saving lives, relieving suffering and meeting the needs of communities affected by weapons of mass destruction attacks, accidents or even natural disasters.”
However, a January 7 American Forces Press Service story posted on Army.com confirms that at least some units operating inside the U.S. will rely on a “security force” to provide protection for troops responding to a mass casualty event in America.
Marines assigned to the Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) operating out of the Naval Support Facility in Indian Head, Maryland are “tasked by the Defense Department with responding to disasters that require federal assistance,” according to the article, a job that mandates “the squad’s weapons were replaced with metal pry bars, Kevlar helmets with construction hard-hats, and combat uniforms with coveralls.”
“The commandant of the Marine Corps set in place the guidelines for designing a highly trained and specialized unit designed to respond to such a threat in the event that state and local authorities need Defense Department assistance,” we read.
“The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force led the operational efforts of the unit until October 2008 when, in a historic move, the U.S. Northern Command pulled into its ranks nearly 5,000 active-duty forces designated to respond to homeland emergencies.”
“Now, the CBIRF is associated administratively with the 2nd MEF, but can tap into the extensive medical, aviation, transportation and logistical support of the other units within Northcom’s response force.”
Although Marine Col. John M. Pollock states, “Security for our forces operating within the homeland is a law-enforcement issue, and I would much rather leverage local and state law enforcement to provide that security,” the article does reveal that a “security force” tasked with protecting Marines during their duties is a component of the unit.
“The unit has specialists in bomb disposal, technical rescue decontamination, chemical identification and detection, medical and casualty extraction. It also has a security force,” states the article.
Pollock also stated that the unit was in position at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, an open violation of Posse Comitatus, the law that restricts the military from undertaking law enforcement operations except in times of declared national emergency.
Just who do the Marines need protecting from if all they will be doing is aiding rescue efforts and saving people’s lives? The only conceivable scenario in which Marines would need other Marines to protect them in a law enforcement guise would be if the tasks they were undertaking were highly unpopular and risked reprisals from the general public.
The fact that the original Army Times report of September 8 let slip that Marines would have access to non-lethal weapons to be used domestically, a revelation that was later retracted after it stoked media controversy, perhaps offers a not too subtle hint about what the real mission of the Marines will be in anticipation of a total economic collapse or the dreaded mass casualty terror attack that is constantly being hyped by the establishment and the corporate media.