Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

this is very BAD news...

p0ink

New member
AP) - Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law. President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil.
 
isn't the president basically the commander-in-chief of military? so... if military takes over law enforcement (god help us) then that could potentially lead to.... dictatorship?

or am i jumping too far ahead of myself?
 
http://www.yahoo.com/s/14942

U.S. Mulls Military's Domestic Role
Sun Jul 21, 4:44 PM ET
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law.


AP Photo
Slideshow: Terrorism & Sept. 11 Attacks

Bush Releases Homeland Security Plan
(AP)


Related Links
• Homeland Security Plan at a Glance (AP)



President Bush ( news - web sites) has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the "Posse Comitatus Act."

Ridge said Sunday that it "goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest," and called the prospect "very unlikely."

But he said the government is wise to examine the law.

"We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event," Ridge said on "Fox News Sunday." "And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus."

Two influential Democratic senators agreed with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed, but expressed no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens.

Sen. Carl Levin ( news, bio, voting record), chairman Senate Armed Services Committee ( news - web sites), said posse comitatus "has served us well for a long time."

"It's kept the military out of law enforcement, out of arresting people except in the most unusual emergency situations like a riot or after some kind of a disaster where they have to protect against looting," Levin, D-Mich., said on CNN's "Late Edition."

However, he said: "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful in a very supportive and assisting role even than they have been up to now — providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting people."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he favors expanding the military's role in responding to major catastrophes such as an attack by a weapon of mass destruction.

The law "has to be amended, but we're not talking about general police power," Biden, D-Del., said on "Fox News Sunday."

Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, who heads the new military command charged with defending American territory, told The New York Times he favors changing the law to grant greater domestic powers to the military to protect against terror attacks. He offered no specific changes he favored.

Congress is racing to approve legislation by the end of its session this fall that would make Bush's proposed Department of Homeland Security a reality.

In the Senate, a version of the measure by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., tracks closely with Bush's plan. It also would augment the agency's ability to gather and analyze intelligence from the FBI ( news - web sites), CIA ( news - web sites) and others.

That bill is to be considered by the Senate committee Wednesday.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey said on NBC's "Meet the Press" there was a strong possibility Congress will resolve its differences and send Bush a bill enacting the sweeping government reorganization by Sept. 11.

Some lawmakers have expressed concern about rushing decisions on far-reaching changes in the bureaucracy, but Armey said: "It's time to move forward with this. The president's got a good plan."

Bush planned to give a speech Monday about his proposed new department and view demonstrations of high-technology devices for combatting terrorism that are being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.
 
You are jumping too far ahead of yourself. He can be quickly removed by the Senate and Congres (obviously) or the people at large.

What could he do to prevent this? An Executive Order violating the Constitution? I don't even know if he CAN do that but it still wouldn't succeed.

The bigger risk is that some learder leads us blindly down the path of destruction, quietly at first, so that we are drawn into willfully relinquishing our rights.
 
well first i read about TIPS turning average people into spies, and then i hear about the military policing our streets....these things kinda worry me...
 
I don't think you're getting ahead of yourself. With all the freedom-reducing legislation that has been passed in the last 10 or so years this is the next logical step.
 
The Nature Boy said:
I don't think you're getting ahead of yourself. With all the freedom-reducing legislation that has been passed in the last 10 or so years this is the next logical step.

B I N G O!!!!!

I been trying to say this for a longtime!!
 
It might not affect the market at all...Although if we loose another 400 points/day for the next couple of weeks we will be out of the bear market...Of course there will be no market at all..
 
it will not affect the market

Worldcom will :mad:
 
THe government is using this as an excuse to cut down the rights of the people.
Even over here some rather drastic laws were passed, even if nothing actually happened in Germany.
Politicians suck.

Do you people think that worldcom is just the tip of the iceberg?
 
Norman Bates said:

Do you people think that worldcom is just the tip of the iceberg?

Ask Bush wether Worldcom is just the tip of the iceberg...

It may become a worlcomgate :rolleyes:
 
it is funny this shit never came up when Clinton was in office!!!

He had everything swept under the rug nicley.

Worldcom is nothing compared to what is about to happen with Coke
 
Norman Bates said:
Do you people think that worldcom is just the tip of the iceberg?

I think we're going to find out that the tech stockmarket boom of the 90's probably really never happened.

And I don't think the stock market will be affected by this latest news about our military being deployed in country.
 
Doktor Bollix said:
So much for the "Conservatives"

The Republican sheep better wake the fuck up and see what time it is.

Funny, isn't it? The conservatives are always the ones who actually impose the most limits on freedom -- whether it's abortion, habeas corpus and now this. A government/military police force. The United Banana Republic of America.
 
p0ink said:
well first i read about TIPS turning average people into spies, and then i hear about the military policing our streets....these things kinda worry me...

if you have not read 1984 by Orwell, I recommend doing so. If you have, reread it - you will be astounded at the parallels between Orwell's world and many of the measures that have been taken and proposed recently, globally and in the US.
 
musclebrains said:


Funny, isn't it? The conservatives are always the ones who actually impose the most limits on freedom -- whether it's abortion, habeas corpus and now this. A government/military police force. The United Banana Republic of America.


yeah but we have to point out that Clinton did help pave the way as well by the anti-terrorism legislation that came out in 95 (?) after the Oklahoma Bombing.
 
The Nature Boy said:



yeah but we have to point out that Clinton did help pave the way as well by the anti-terrorism legislation that came out in 95 (?) after the Oklahoma Bombing.

Pave the way for what? And Clinton is not a Republican, self-styled party of individual freedom.
 
pave the way for the patriot act I'm just pointing out that the dems are no better than the republicans, even though I like to poke at the republicans more often.
 
No--I dont think that yall are over reacting--I think this sounds like a bunch of garbage---but I dont see it happening.

its just something else--thats all
 
Doktor Bollix said:
So much for the "Conservatives"

The Republican sheep better wake the fuck up and see what time it is.

Word....this is some seriously scary shit...Americans are so absolutely blindly fucking stupid that the actually go along with it. Most people here deserve what they get. I honestly do not believe I will live in America for most of my adult life. I'm so fucking sick of you republicans and democrats... you're so busy pointing out the faults of the other party and squabbling like little bitches that your country is being stolen from you by the same people you support.
 
Frackal said:


Word....this is some seriously scary shit...Americans are so absolutely blindly fucking stupid that the actually go along with it. Most people here deserve what they get. I honestly do not believe I will live in America for most of my adult life. I'm so fucking sick of you republicans and democrats... you're so busy pointing out the faults of the other party and squabbling like little bitches that your country is being stolen from you by the same people you support.

Plenty of sun over here and and my girlfriend is merely required the teeniest tiniest tan lines on the public beach. (I mean teency weency)
 
aurelius said:


Plenty of sun over here and and my girlfriend is merely required the teeniest tiniest tan lines on the public beach. (I mean teency weency)

Frack

I'll see you at the airport. Got room for both of us?
 
If the armed forces take over law enforcement, we lose all of our rights. They can shoot, and ask questions later. They can arrest you for no reason. They can search you for no reason. All by the book.

You get shot in the leg for running around suspiciously? Too bad. You could've been a terrorist! :)
 
MrDbol said:
If the armed forces take over law enforcement, we lose all of our rights. They can shoot, and ask questions later. They can arrest you for no reason. They can search you for no reason. All by the book.

You get shot in the leg for running around suspiciously? Too bad. You could've been a terrorist! :)

Indeed. The Republicans want a military state, while the Democrats want a welfare state. What many don't realize is that this is simply two versions of the same thing: state control.
 
I dont´think the US constitution addresses the issue.

President Bush today warned against passing a bill that limits the powers of the head of a new Dept. of Homeland Security.

This is on the front page of the NY Times on line.
 
MrDbol said:
They can arrest you for no reason. They can search you for no reason. All by the book.


from what I understand, between the PATRIOT ACT and whatever other legislative or executive measures they have put in place since 9/11, they can ALREADY do this - "sneak and peek" police searches without a warrant are apparently provided for, and aren't there still 600+ being held in secret, without a public arraignment, somewhere?

of course, they are terrorists we are told. I hope they are, and if so, they should be prosecuted and sent to rot in a cell. but then again, weren't we also told that clinton didn't have sex with that woman, that we should read Bush Sr.'s lips, and that Nixon was not a crook...
 
The Nature Boy said:
is it constitutionally legal to have "federal" troops deployed in country?


Nature Boy:

http://www.spintechmag.com/0010/da1000.htm


The questionable election of 1876 was the catalyst that led to passing the Posse Comitatus Act. President Ulysses Grant sent federal troops to supervise elections in the South because of reported corruption. Congress responded with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which says: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or a force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned …" (18 USC 1385). In other words, the military should not be used when civilian constabulary would better serve the purposes of maintaining order and the peace.

So the PCA was passed basically in response to the occupation of the Southern states during Reconstruction. The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the use of the Army in civilian law enforcement, because American tradition dictates the separation of the military and civilian authority. There always has been a concern for the rise of a Caesar out of military authority. But the misuse of the military by the civilian authority has always been the real basis for Posse Comitatus.

The concerns were originally addressed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when Maryland delegate Luther Martin maintained, "When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army."

Congress has the power to set the standard for use of the military in civil or foreign invasions or disturbances. In recent years that duty has been co-opted by the executive branch on occasion without much concern or reaction from Congress. The use of the military by various presidents in foreign adventures has accelerated since the end of World War II. This situation also reflects the growing tendency of Congress to shirk its duty to limit the power of the state and instead find various means to expand state powers.
 
thank you prometheus. this is why some may argue, that the FBI is unconstitutional when it conducts operations in country, like Ruby Ridge and Waco and other places. When they operate in that manner, they are behaving as a military force.
 
But aren't there loopholes to the Posse Comitatus rule you could drive a Bradley armored vehicle through?

Maybe I didn't read the preceding posts well enough but why even talk about it?

What about the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act of 1981? The army assists federal and local police in operations in Drug War bullshit. That's why Delta force was at Waco. The F.B.I. scammed Janet Reno by telling her the Branch Davidians had a meth lab. Silly woman.

Delta force was deployed in Seattle because of "fears" of bio-terrorism, but as it turned out, merely because no-one had seen that many hippies in one place in the U.S. since 1969 and they wanted to crack a few heads in a nice neighborhood for a change.

Anyway, the argument is mostly moot. You ever seen a SWAT squad? Looks military enough to me.
 
Doktor Bollix said:
But aren't there loopholes to the Posse Comitatus rule you could drive a Bradley armored vehicle through?

no doubt - it has been as bent and twisted and ignored as any other statute that inconvenienced a current administration...

I just posted that as a reference point for the legislative history of the ban on domestic military action - never meant to try to justify or defend it :)

Bollix - I only posted an excerpt of the article linked to - the author goes on to make the same argument you did (abrogation of the law for the "drug war," the Waco massacre, etc.)....
 
Top Bottom