Uh OH!!!!

[Holden McGroin]

A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 1585) requires the secretary of defense to prepare and submit to Congress by March 1, 2008, and each subsequent March 1 a plan to coordinate the use of the National Guard and members of the Armed Forces on active duty when responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters.

Little Rock Arkansas, circa 1957.

The President orders the National Guard to provide armed security for school children.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I see no problem with the military being called up for something like Katrina, or 9/11. The idea isn't to role in with tanks, APC's and Apache helicopters. It's to role in with trucks and alot of them filled with needed supplies, and personel to help the local population.

That's because you have little imagination and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.


I mean hey, if the military can do a better job than the police, why not replace the police with the military?

I mean gosh, they are just a bunch of good ol' boys that want to serve and protect their country right?

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Hornet, what are your thoughts on the Posse Comitatus Act and the reason it was enacted?

Posse Comitatus was enacted to prevent the military from being used as a full time law enforcement agency of the government. Prior to that act going into effect the military was used quite often in that role. Prime excample was when the military was used against WWI veterans in Washington DC who were camping out on the National Mall and refused to leave until they recieved benifits for their service. In that regard I agree with the reasons behind it, however to deny the military an active role in a disaster, natural or man made, is short sighted due to the resorces the military can bring to help.

[Shamus]

It was in effect long before WW1

shamus

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Thrawn
That's because you have little imagination and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.


I mean hey, if the military can do a better job than the police, why not replace the police with the military?

I mean gosh, they are just a bunch of good ol' boys that want to serve and protect their country right?

I understand fully the consequences of allowing the military un-restricted enforcement capablities. I have been directly involved with the military since I was born. I NEVER sugested that the military replace any local, state, or federal law enforecment agencies, but to deny the military any role in the event of a disaster is stupid.

In the event of anouther Katrina, wouldn't you rather see the military rolling into town with supplies, shelter, medical services, communications, and personel to establish some sort of control over the situation, or would you rather see fellow citizens floating dead in the water, starving in shelters with no supplies, or roasting in the sun trapped on roof tops?

I understand you paranoia, but in this day and age of instant TV coverage, and the public opinion it generates, do you REALLY believe that ANY president would be foolish enough to use the military in a hostile manner against American citizens inside our own borders? If you answer yes, well I feel sorry for you, and your TOTAL lack of understanding of what our soilders, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard personel sign up for. We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.

Use a little common sense folks.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Hornet33
We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.

Well, maybe not the ones at Abu Ghraib anyways....or the ones that decided to fight in an invasion that wasn't prefaced by declaration of war by congress.

Come to think of it, not the ones that swore defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, yet still follow the orders of a President that is doing just about everything possible to make that document meaningless.  

Besides those soldiers, I guess then yes, they do know the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one.

[Tigeress]

I completely agree with Lazs on this.

That would be like using a trained assassin for a baby sitter.

The US military is a killing machine... trained and practiced.

That is its mission.

Thus, it has never been used to any meaningful extent, nor trained, for domestic deployment on US soil dealing with serious domestic situations.
To do so was unconstitutional by law for very valid reasons.

Either train the US Military how to conduct themselves in such roles as domestic disaster deployment or send them to Iraq and Afganistan and let the National Guard come back home where they belong to do the job they were already trained to do domestically.

This thing is upside down.

The thought of armed US Army and Marine troops and M1 tanks patrolling Amercian streets enforcing martial law sends chills down my spine.

Don't dilute the professional killers and turn them into baby sitters... we need them as they are doing the job they are trained and intended to do.

If we don't have enough troops to allow the National Guard to be home where they belong then activate the draft and get troop levels where they need to be.

TIGERESS

[Tac]

Originally posted by Hornet33
    We know the differance between a lawfull order and an un-lawfull one.


Originally posted by Thrawn

Well, maybe not the ones at Abu Ghraib anyways....or the ones that decided to fight in an invasion that wasn't prefaced by declaration of war by congress.


Well thats an interesting point. I wonder if a soldier can refuse to be deployed to a combat zone citing that congress has not declared war. Not being a smartass just thinking out loud.

[Coshy]

Originally posted by Hornet33 In the case of Katrina with all the looting going on, who is going to keep the peace? The police left town. Why not bring in the military police? They are trained to handle law enforcement duties. Who's going to loot a store when you have a couple of soilders standing there with M-16's?[/B]

The purpose of the military is to defend against enemies, both foreign and domestic. They are not, nor should they ever be used as law enforcement on American soil against American citizens. Ever. Period.

With that said, the military has a unique and indespensable ability to move vast quantites of supplies on relatively short notice. The trucks/planes/helicopters & their drivers/pilots/flightcrews probably dont much care if they are moving tons of ordinance to a war zone or tons of bottled water to a disaster area.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I don't guess anyone has heard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I guess it's easy to forget that for instance only the military had C-130 Hercules aircraft that could air lift massive quantities of supplies to areas where the roads and other infrastructure was destroyed. The 8th SoCom guys were flying stuff in before Katrina blew out.

As Ack Ack said, the Marines do a good job fighting fires.

I guess few people realize that while the front line guys may be the point of the sword, and the most efficient at combat, the vast majority of the military, while capable of combat, is mostly logistics and support. They are the best at making sure supplies get through, and things get fixed, under some of the worst circumstances.

The military isn't solely dedicated to destroying and killing everything they come across. And they're not all so stupid as to think the only thing they can do is kill people and blow stuff up.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I don't guess anyone has heard of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I guess it's easy to forget that for instance only the military had C-130 Hercules aircraft that could air lift massive quantities of supplies to areas where the roads and other infrastructure was destroyed. The 8th SoCom guys were flying stuff in before Katrina blew out.

As Ack Ack said, the Marines do a good job fighting fires.

I guess few people realize that while the front line guys may be the point of the sword, and the most efficient at combat, the vast majority of the military, while capable of combat, is mostly logistics and support. They are the best at making sure supplies get through, and things get fixed, under some of the worst circumstances.

The military isn't solely dedicated to destroying and killing everything they come across. And they're not all so stupid as to think the only thing they can do is kill people and blow stuff up.

The military has Obstetricians and Dentists and Catholic Priests as well.

That isn't the point.

The point is deployment of combat troops.

TIGERESS

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Tigeress
The military has Obstetricians and Dentists and Catholic Priests as well.

That isn't the point.

The point is deployment of combat troops.

TIGERESS

As someone said, it all depends on the context.  The Marines that were are sent to fight the fires were front line troops, some of them freshly arrived from combat tours in Iraq and Afhganistan.


ack-ack

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
As someone said, it all depends on the context.  The Marines that were are sent to fight the fires were front line troops, some of them freshly arrived from combat tours in Iraq and Afhganistan.


ack-ack

yanno i've been thinking this type of stateside redeployment might not be such a bad thing for the soldiers themselves.
be it doing something unarmed to help respond to the fires as is mentioned or in spending a short stint armed on our boarders.

recently read an article that 1/3 of our homeless now are made up of former vets. Largely due to psychological reasons

Something like this
Might make for a good winding down period for them psychologically before discharge to get them acclimated to being back home


(edited to include both armed and unarmed situations where the military could be used. I have no problem with placing our armed military along our borders.
but would be wholeheartedly against using the military as an armed police force on our streets short of the country being under military invasion from another country.

As uniformed but unarmed responders to disasters. I have no problem whatsoever.
There are lessons that can be learned in responding here that might be helpful on missions outside the US.
As well as lessons learned from experience in responding to disasters outside the US that might be helpful here.

[wrag]

I'm wondering if you people are getting the point here?

Some food for thought?

When a LAW is enacted whats wrong lookin at it like this...........

"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”

or like this..........

"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers


or this.................

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster


maybe consider these...............


"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

 "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

"Government never stops where you want it to. You don't get to write the laws or administer them. When you give the government the power to do what you want it to do, it will expand that power into areas where you don't want it to go." - James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry

"When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpittied sacrafice in a contemptible struggle"






I get really tired of the excuse makers comin out and sayin it's just fine to LET the Government take away a safe guard that was put in place to PROTECT us or trash a right.  I find myself lookin at them in the following manner..............

"Some people were put on this earth to be slaves. They're unhappy if they're not a slave, and they'll keep searching until they find someplace where they can be one."~~SM 101



And this gets me goin....................


Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.  Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights?  After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.


I find myself thinkn....................... ....

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” —Giordano Bruno

“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat


How about lookin at things with a NOT so trusting attitude?

ESPECIALLY when it comes to EVERYONES RIGHTS, LIBERTY, and FREEDOM?

What exactly is wrong with that approach?

[Tumor]

You're getting your panties in a bunch over nothing especially new.  Governor's have always had the option of calling on the NG.  Looks to me like the evil do'ers aren't doing much more than allowing federal troops to supplement the NG in the event they are needed.  These are the same NG troops that become "active" when needed (reversal of roles given the subject)... so maybe once a NG unit is ever activated, they should be removed from the list of possible support in the event of an emergency?


...sheesh.