Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Rikter8, Dec 6, 2006.
Guess its going to be a tense couple of years until the chuckle head
gets booted out.
This feels like watching a car wreck in slow motion.
Look you guys, get it straight: The average American is too busy scoping out Christmas bargains and battling traffic at the shopping mall to be bothered by trivialities like this.
Besides, we trusted the president with broader powers to make war on terrorists and we all know how well that's working out.
Does anyone think the supreme court will overturn this? I mean what's the purpose? If states need help, they ask, right? So why does the white house need the ability to move without being asked? This walks all over states rights. Still, the right thing doesn't always happen.
I think this is one situation that you can't entirely blame Bush. This Act was passed by Congress. These powers will also be available to your next President as well -- remember that.
Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.
This "Act",combined with Haliburton's contracts to build detention centres around the country is potentially a worry for anyone who is Black, Gay, Muslim, a peace activist, conspiracy theorist, illegal immigrant and anyone else who is "not with us". Those left, should have nothing to concern themselves about.
On the matter of using the military for law enforcement isn't that better than having private contractors such as Blackwater mercenaries roaming the streets -- as in New Orleans during Katrina?
When the right to bear arms is stopped that's when it's time to prepare for Martial Law.
On a final note, to the OP -- it would be nice if you made a comment on the article instead of just posting it. Makes it easier to promote discussion.
Until recently, I've been ambiguous about gun control- no more. We desperately need to hold on to any rights we currently have- while we still have them.
We've been gearing up for this all along, and while I'm (sadly) not surprised, I'm extremely sick to my stomach. I don't want this to be happening now, in our lifetimes. This administration will be the undoing of a dream of freedom that we all grew up expecting to be our birthright. Shame on all of us for not taking the threat from within serious enough.
Well let's just hope it slows down before things get really fucked.
Fer crissakes people, go take your meds.
It looks like the Feds finally realized that they are absolutely helpless under the federal system to address something as simple as a little wind and high water when facing a do-nothing mayor and a dithering, obstructionist governor. Suppose the problem wasn't just a local problem like a little rising damp, but, say, a fire at a nuclear power station. Should the feds just sit around grousing while the governor of the state lucky enough to have this burning station pulls a Blanco? Those of you with some technical background should recall your reactor details - once the graphite moderators ignite, water can't put out the fire - the heat is sufficient to dissociate water molecules, and you can't put out a fire with gaseous oxygen and hydrogen. Response speed is essential. Now imagine the word "speed" and the names Nagin or Blanco in the same sentence, if you can. So the feds get to sit around twiddling their thumbs while nothing happens. Great news for those in the next state downwind, in the way of the radioactive plume. Now in 1807 we didn't have things like reactors (though we did have a few things like Nagin and Blanco), so the situation has changed just a bit.
That's all the bill means. Gross incompetence at the local level shouldn't cripple the entire country. Now in a real totalitarian state, not a make-believe one like some of you imagine the US to be, the White House would have made a few phone calls during Katrina, the governor and the mayor would have been shot, and their subordinates would have become extremely cooperative. We fought a 50-year war against a country which worked like that, as those of you with enough seniority to remember the name[SIZE=-1] Iosif Dzhugashvili [/SIZE]may recall. This bill is nothing like that.
Of course, all bills are subject to abuse. I imagine it's only a matter of time before someone squeezes something in there about "deadbeat dads" - keep an eye on those California congresscritters, particularly, they love that stuff. Texas has a bit of a weakness for it too, as those of you with Texas LTCs know. And hope nobody at the federal level hands any of this off to ATF (or BATFE or whatever it is now).
And cool your jets about Halliburton. The last time the US built large concentration camps Halliburton had nothing to do with them. They were the 1942 brainchild of a Democratic president, something that with any luck we won't have for a while. The Supreme Court, by the way, said in 1944 that Democratic concentration camps were constitutional. Probably the worst Supreme Court decision between Dred Scott and Kelo - other great decisions given to us by Democratic court appointees.
Good spin job there, bd.
I guess my feeble little brain is missing something here, big dirigible. Please explain to me (in simple terms, since I'm feeble) the difference in mission and purview of the US military, the US military reserves, and the national guard... or are they all just the same thing with different names?
from the article -
"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy."
Not necessarily always (see paragraph 2).
I'm not sure what you are pointing out here, Shelby, but I think it illustrates part of the point I was making in my previous post.
I'm still wondering if anyone knows why there are different branches of the military, regular military and reserves, national guard, coast guard, and corps of engineers. If their duties are interchangeable, why make any distinction between any of the above? Why not just simply combine regular and reserve army, navy, air force, marine corps, national guard, coast guard, and corps of engineers into one entity simply known as "the military"?
Maybe my interperetation of the second amendment is faulty, but i'm pretty sure it provides the people with the right to form militias. Maybe that's because the founding fathers wanted us to be able to overthrow any possible future tyrant governments (such as the one we have now).
"Right for the people to keep and bear arms, as well as to maintain a militia. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."This new measure, in practice, limits the rights of the people to form militias... how is that constitutional?!?
I wasn't really making point regarding our current loss of privacy and liberty in the name of safety. Although my politics are far to the right of most here I have deep concerns about this too.
I merely lifted a quote form the linked article in the op. I don't know if the author considers National Guard or not. I just remember as a youngster seeing what looked like army men to me (complete with M16's) making sure shit didn't get out of hand in the quarter. It was surreal.
As it turned out it was probably one of the best carnivals ever. The guardsmen didn't give a crap what kind of debauchery was going on. They just were there to keep the peace.
Well, Shelby, I am thinking you got it right, and big-dirigible didn't.
The sole purpose of the National Guard is for domestic emergency/crisis situations. The National Guard is not designed (or authorized) to fight wars.
The military, on the other hand, is designed to fight wars. It is not designed (nor authorized) to handle domestic emergency/crisis situations.
I'll have to do more research, but I'm thinking it is not legal to use our regular or reserve military in the manner described in the OP link... perhaps with the exception of a terrorist attack. Even then, the military would not be of much use, as terrorist attacks are generally hit-and-run situations, not battle campaigns.
They may dress in a similar manner, but their training is very different.
I can see BD's point about the intent but I think he's being naive about the long term implications.
DC, I agree with about the National Guard in terms of intent. However as I understand it the US National Guard is part of the US Army and as Lex alluded to some time back many are serving in Iraq, it may not be what they expected when they signed up but it's what they know could happen. The legality of the NG being used this way is probably not clear cut.
I seem to recall that the NG is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act so unless federalised can partake in domestic law enforcement. As you know this act prevents the Federal military from civilian law enforcement except (and here's where this gets murky) when specifically authorised by the Constitution or Congress, the act works with the Insurrection act, the invocation of which it appears has been amended and widened by HR5122 sec 1076.
The purpose of the Insurrection Act is clear and I think opening the door to
the use of armed forces in domestic situations is a dangerous first step on a slippery slope unless in those extreme or unusual circumstances. It's [pre]defining those that's the difficulty of course. Nuclear attack is covered already. The 1992 LA riots saw the use of troops. The Coastguard is another exclusion being part of homeland security. That's about as far as my off the top of my head knowledge goes I'd need to research for more.
However, post 9/11 what restraint the Posse Commitatus Act et al will impose on executive powers is unclear at best.
Ah, dong, for a non-US citizen, you understand these functions better than most of our citizens do. I hope you didn't misunderstand me; but as I said before, the national guard is trained to handle domestic situations. The regular military is trained to oppose FOREIGN enemies. Using them interchangeably is as brilliant as getting your brain surgery done by a podiatrist. Yes, both a neurosurgeon and a podiatrist are medical doctors. That does not mean that their specialties are interchangeable. Nor are the specialties of the Green Berets and the Navy Seals and the National Guard.
Using regular military for domestic problems is a nightmare from which we may never awaken.
It was my understanding that the National Guard's employees were drawn from the same region/state that they would be deployed in. The idea being that they would (usually) be less willing to shoot their friends and neighbours.
The regular army has no such local ties.
I don't think I misumderstood and I agree with you on the roles of the NG and Regular military. I guess I was just expounding the point for those that may not understand the often convoluted interplay of law and executive power. I agree that as you say each is suited to a particular task they can in certain circumstances be used for either. The risk as I see it, is blurring the boundaries between those really quite disparate roles and, more to the point of this thread, increasing the ease and lack of accountability with which those roles can be interchanged.
Your last sentence says it all, those who believe the army on the streets will improve security and liberty in the long term need look no further than any number of African and Asian nations for evidence of why that is dangerous thinking. I know that will sound alarmist to BD and here and now, today it is but that's where it starts.