Hi Sam, I have been trying to scale back my occasional long winded posts... then you go ahead and ask me a question I could write a book on. I will try to be mercifully brief.

I believe it is dangerous under any circumstance to use the military in a law enforcement capacity. I oppose the concept on the same basis I oppose Obama's national police force. The history of Posse Comitatus and its slow metamorphosis into Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization could fill a book.

Personally, I am a states rights advocate. Accordingly, I believe that the emergent contingencies that would require extraordinary means should be done through the National Guard and/or State Police. Presently, I do not believe they have the resources of our military. I would like to see a transition that would involve developing the potential of these agencies through the allocation of more resources and training.

I understand the deployment of that Brigade to homeland defense efforts. The author of the article you posted said,

"There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans."

That being said, I believe it is a bad precedent to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. Obama's National Police are equally threatening to democracy as we know it.

p.s. Sam, I was in the middle of the 1968 riots and attended a nationwide critique in San Luis Obispo, California afterward. I have no recollection of the Army or Marines being active. The National Guard was heavily deployed. If I'm misinformed, please let me know.