I don't think that this is a case of the thin edge of the wedge. As Gaffers has rightly stated the logistics would really preclude this idea on a general deployment basis.
From the piece in the Independent I assumed that the desire was to have a reaction force available in the case of a specific, clear and present threat. In many ways this is probably a good idea having regard to the current number of actual and perceived threats to the nation.
There always has been the facility to deploy military personnel on the mainland in peacetime to assist the civil authorities in cases of natural disaster or terrorist incident - as in the Iranian Embassy operation or in EOD operations (bomb disposal)
When things were bad in Northern Ireland – a much smaller, less populated geographic area - there would have been in access of 30,000 security personnel deployed in response to the civil emergency, composed of regular army, UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment – full and part-time), RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary - regular, full-time and part-time reserve) and ‘other’ units.
In the event of a complete breakdown of civil order these resources would have not been able to contain the resulting disorder on a province -wide basis. Order was able to be applied successfully as needed because the hot-spots were contained within relatively small topographic areas.
I assume that this was a piece planted to pave the way or test reaction to such a proposal, but as I say, I don’t see it as a precursor to the general deployment of military personnel and is more a case of the Independent getting its knickers in a twist and the bloggers falling upon a fresh subject to press keys on.
The greater threat to civil liberty however comes from the increasingly politicised police force/service and the raft of eyes and ears now installed as local government officials and workers, who are much more plentiful in terms of number to deploy and seem so eager to please their masters as - for the most part – its better to be inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in. Comes down to self preservation really
After all - we don’t have the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), countless new laws, extensive video/audio surveillance of the general populace (cctv, monitoring of cellular/ land line telephone calls, E mails, internet usage and so on) – for nothing.
For example;
The European Court of Justice has told Sweden that it must implement a 2006 measure requiring telecom operators to store information about their customers’ phone calls and emails
Read more; http://www.thelocal.se/24784/20100204
What happens there will happen here;
Police want backdoor to Web users' private data
But the most controversial element is probably the private Web interface, which raises novel security and privacy concerns, especially in the wake of a recent inspector general's report (PDF) from the Justice Department. The 289-page report detailed how the FBI obtained Americans' telephone records by citing nonexistent emergencies and simply asking for the data or writing phone numbers on a sticky note rather than following procedures required by law
Read more; http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10446503-38.html
Author
Topic: The army on the streets. Huh? (Read 849 times)