Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK this is the same website that incorrectly read invoices to get to the 1.6Bn figure, but any purchase of MRAP for Homeland Security reeks of
1) budget padding.
2) someone thinking they want to be in the army without all that unnecessary IEDs going off.
3) serious KGB mentaility.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/

Call me crazy, but I always thought that it was the Department of DEFENSE's job to, you know... .defend the US?

I've always hated DHS, and it's people... Honestly, the "port" security that is currently manned by DHS should be either provided by local/state police agencies, National Guard, or Active Military people, it is our job afterall....

Agreed.

Depends on their distribution. If they're sitting around in one place ready to "roll out" for border work or something, yeah that's a little questionable.

But if we're talking about stationing 1 at each airport for emergencies, that's not THAT outrageous.

That said, since most large police departments already have one of these for their swat team, it's a waste for any airport that's already near one.

Indeed, its a waste. It also makes the militia types freak out. Frankly although I'm not a miltiia type, it makes me freak out a little as well. Thats whats the state guard units are for and this reaks of black helicopter/INSERT YOURFAVORITEDICTATORSHIP HERE

The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

I would be fairly certain that DHS cannot as well, so why would they really need MRAPs, except maybe the one at an airport (and even then... )

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

I would be fairly certain that DHS cannot as well, so why would they really need MRAPs, except maybe the one at an airport (and even then... )

Wrong. DHS is not military, so Posse Comitatus does not apply to them. They are a federal law enforcement agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.

Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.

MRAPs are very expensive to maintain as well. They ARE a waste unless there is a significant bomb/mine threat. The 'one at the airport' is silly. They are slower and heavier so harder to get where you need them in an emergency, and there is a VERY low chance that on the way to where they are needed they encounter a burried bomb/mine at the airport. You can get vehicles armored against bullets and even rockets/RPGs a lot cheaper than a vehicle designed to allow a crew to survive being hit by a big burried bomb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.

Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.

I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.

Surely it is best to approach national security at the national level?

CptJake wrote:

I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.

I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.

Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.

Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.

Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.

Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.

So you are not ok with the swat teams having these? Because they have for decades now.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:

I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.

I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.

Sorry, what instance are they going to get DHS to launch a frontal assault AND NOT NEGOTIATE in the time it takes to wake up the governor? last time the nonmilitary feds did that a certain building was set on fire and what 100 people were killed? Smooth move Janet Reno.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The state guard legally cannot engage in a police action, though.

My bad, I should be clear, the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.

In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.

Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.

Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.

So you are not ok with the swat teams having these? Because they have for decades now.

If the local boys want one and they've got the bank for it, go for it (even though its stupid).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:

I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.

I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.

Sorry, what instance are they going to get DHS to launch a frontal assault AND NOT NEGOTIATE in the time it takes to wake up the governor? last time the nonmilitary feds did that a certain building was set on fire and what 100 people were killed? Smooth move Janet Reno.

It's funny you should mention wako, since they requested and got the grenades that started the fire from the national guard, as you are suggesting they should do with these.

It's really strange that you're suggesting it's better to declare a state of emergency, suspend the rights of everyone in the airport, spend hours preparing and delivering a vehicle and troops to deal with a situation instead of just giving one to the police agency whose actual jurisdiction and mission cover the airport in the first place.

I really really dislike the DHS and the TSA, but your demands are bonkers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?

ROFL. Thanks, I needed the laugh. Thats actually a really common misconception, I mean, technically ywa they are the statebmilitia, but in actual practice the NG is under so much federal oversight and control that its really just a way for the gov. to pad the books and shiftbmilitary expenses onto state budgets.

I've tried coming up with every possible scenario in which MRAPs would be necessary/useful to DHS, I cant find any except for "fighting a domestic insurgency", i.e. a Civil War.

In reality though, my guess is this is much ado about nothing, my guess is that these are actually the DoDs unwanted MRAPs (both the Army and Marines are ditching them due to the drawdown because they have such limited utility and use) transferred to another department in an attempt to.be economical/thrifty.

The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.

They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.

Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.

Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.

And if what chaos says about them possibly being spares is true, then it's a reasonable use of resources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really don't like DHS, but you guys are letting your dislike for the agency cloud your thinking over this.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?

ROFL. Thanks, I needed the laugh. Thats actually a really common misconception, I mean, technically ywa they are the statebmilitia, but in actual practice the NG is under so much federal oversight and control that its really just a way for the gov. to pad the books and shiftbmilitary expenses onto state budgets.

I've tried coming up with every possible scenario in which MRAPs would be necessary/useful to DHS, I cant find any except for "fighting a domestic insurgency", i.e. a Civil War.

In reality though, my guess is this is much ado about nothing, my guess is that these are actually the DoDs unwanted MRAPs (both the Army and Marines are ditching them due to the drawdown because they have such limited utility and use) transferred to another department in an attempt to.be economical/thrifty.

The article as much as says that is the case -- reconditioned/refurbished vehicles surplus from the Iraq situation.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

I really really dislike the DHS and the TSA, but your demands are bonkers.

Again, please cite the instance where the DHS need instant access to an armored vehicle where its a not a local police issue, and don't have the fifteen minutes it takes to call the governor. Especially given their track record when they actually get a hold of a military vehicle. WOOSH!

Please don't insult us with "the TSA needs this" they're not even agents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.

They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.

Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.

Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.

And if what chaos says about them possibly being spares is true, then it's a reasonable use of resources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really don't like DHS, but you guys are letting your dislike for the agency cloud your thinking over this.

Not at all. There's no reason for the DHS to have one.

I am slightly surprised the army would let go its MRAPs. The USA is likely to get involved in another situation where such vehicles are needed. OTOH, none of the MRAPs used on Iraq had passed the official testing AFAIK so perhaps it makes sense to sell them secondhand and make a better model for real military use.

Or you could buy the excellent Supacat Jaguar and Coyote vehicles.

Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!

If you really think it would take "fifteen minutes" for the governor to declare a state of emergency and commit military troops to an airport, then there's not really much we have to talk about.

 Frazzled wrote:
Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!

MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.

It's just bizarre to me that people could worry about "black helicopters" and fascism and stuff, and then in the same breath PREFER that police action be carried out by the national guard.

Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.

Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.

They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.

Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.

Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:

I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.

I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.

Nice straw man. If you think waking the gov is the long pole in the tent you are wrong. Mobilizing and transporting the unit to the incident site is gonna take longer. Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs (as whatever agency is in charge collects intel and runs through negotiation protocols) your starw man really becomes in danger of blowing away with the wind.