Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on September 19, 2005, 09:22:51 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050919/pl_usatoday/militarysroleindisastersreconsidered
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the US Military be allowed to be active in peace keeping on our soil, short of war.
If this is passed, the potential for a total abolishment of our civil rights will exist.
This is a knee jerk reaction to a catastrophe that needs to be nipped in the bud. Call your congreeman / woman and voice your opinion before this goes further.
-
Have you called our senators, congresspeople, and governor yet Bodhi? I'm kind of lazy but i've been in church will Owens before. I think I could slap him around.
-
The 1878 Posse Comitatus law could get a fresh look after New Orleans.
President Bush said last week that the military should take a larger role in responding to catastrophic events.
Okay... I'm convinced. He's a moron.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Okay... I'm convinced. He's a moron.
If it is listed only to natural disasters (as in weather, earthquakes, or volcanoes) spelled out very clearly and with a LOCAL response I'd be fine with it.
This spells out, "The governments military can step in anytime we decide we need too!"
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
If it is listed only to natural disasters (as in weather, earthquakes, or volcanoes) spelled out very clearly and with a LOCAL response I'd be fine with it.
I would agree. But it should be allowed ONLY in times of natural disasters and should be worded in no uncertain terms and in a way that cannot be misread or debated in the future in any way shape or form.
anything beyond that and I am dead set against it
-
This is DUMB. I am totally against Federal troops acting as any kind of law enforcement or otherwise on US soil.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
If it is listed only to natural disasters (as in weather, earthquakes, or volcanoes) spelled out very clearly and with a LOCAL response I'd be fine with it.
This spells out, "The governments military can step in anytime we decide we need too!"
Congress can send the military in already, under the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is far better than changing the law so the knucklehead-in-chief can send the military in whenever he feels like it.
-
...and while we're at it, one could argue that using the armed forces in support of the "war on drugs" violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
-
It could be fair if they would work under the direct command of national guard, in the case they can't field enough troops and need reserves.
Although I guess they would never agree to that.
-
Yah know, when the president gave his 'i'm responsible' speach I figured right then that the other shoe was in the air.
...and wouldn't yah know it.. there it is.
Gonna land right on our necks, too.
Sandy, it's far worse than 'the guy's a moron'. I think the guy is somebody's puppet. The biggest mystery now is just who is pulling the strings?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Congress can send the military in already, under the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is far better than changing the law so the knucklehead-in-chief can send the military in whenever he feels like it.
I wonder why Congress didn't send troops to N.O. immediately after Katrina.
Maybe the CIC wants this change because he got so bashed in the media (and on this bbs) for not getting troops in soon enough while he was waiting for the Governor to ask for them?
All that aside......... I don't favor this law. They want to use troops at home? Fine, I got a great job for them. Let's totally secure our borders and ports and then see how things look. That's a legitimate function for our military.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I wonder why Congress didn't send troops to N.O. immediately after Katrina.
You know the answer to this. Congress does absolutely nothing immediately.
-
...which is probably a good thing. Our government was designed to be slow and tedious.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You know the answer to this. Congress does absolutely nothing immediately.
Sure they do.
Pay raises.
-
Oh no... they do that regularly. :)
-
Lessee... N.O. needed Fed troops to aid in disaster recovery much sooner.
Congress has the Posse Comitatus but we can't expect them to act in a timely fashion.
If Bush wants a new law to allow him to send Federal troops in faster, we're all opposed to that because, truthfully, that's a bad idea.
Besides, without the law, we'll be able to bash him again for not sending in Federal troops faster.
I like this system.
-
Hmmm... is Bush getting hammered for not sending in troops or is he getting hammered for putting that unqualified clown in charge of FEMA?
-
Both I believe. Remember the lack of NG troops because the entire LA NG is in Iraq? (Ok, something over 1/3 of the LA guard is in Iraq)
Plus he did get slammed for not sending regulars. I read one media report that 160 helos of the 82nd were ready to go out of Ft. Bragg but waited several days before orders came.
Anyway, I do think this law is a bad idea. I also think FEMA fouled up bigtime... although it may have as much to do with Homeland Security owning FEMA as it does with the leadership of each. Big huge government agencies are slow by nature... as you pointed out.
I think Bush's response was poorly executed too. He needed to show up at the levee break with a shovel in his hand ASAP but he didn't. Not that that would have helped anything other than his media image.
-
what a sack of crap...
fargin idiots that elected that mayor and that govenor need to take responsibility FIRST. Dammit, states and cities are responsible for implementing the plans they develop. No planning, no implementation, no city.
Darwinian Democracy in Action.
The only way to NOT be dissapointed or dissafected by a FEDERAL response is to not EXPECT a federal response.
Do YOU expect the feds to wipe yer damn bellybutton fer yah because yer elected hugahunkr neglected to buy bellybutton wipe??
Damn, whotta buncha horsepucky.
-
I dont like it.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Do YOU expect the feds to wipe yer damn bellybutton fer yah because yer elected hugahunkr neglected to buy bellybutton wipe??
Actually, I expected to be clothed in the finest raiment, fed peeled grapes by scantily clad nubile young females and generally cared for as if I was a treasure beyond price from cradle to grave.
Unfortunately, my elected hugahunkr has failed to deliver on any of those.
I'm not expecting any change either.
-
sorry. my blood sugar must be whacked again.
;)
-
Sadly, this thought will become law.
The foot is gonna come down firmly sooner rather than later.
Frucking Katrina.
-
lends a whole new meaning to the term 'storm troopers'.
-
this type of legislation is indeed very dangerous to our few remaining civil rights thanks for the alert. i'll be emailing my rep and senators directly.
on a sad note i have to agree with sandman on this issue.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yah know, when the president gave his 'i'm responsible' speach I figured right then that the other shoe was in the air.
...and wouldn't yah know it.. there it is.
Gonna land right on our necks, too.
Sandy, it's far worse than 'the guy's a moron'. I think the guy is somebody's puppet. The biggest mystery now is just who is pulling the strings?
No kidding. I can't recall when any President wasn't a puppet.
-
I wonder what the ACLU's position on the proposed legislation is/will be?
I suspect it will be one of those rare occasions where we all appreciate their efforts. Maybe. Though I can't imagine them being in favor of it.
-
Pick your favorite freedom and then imagine that the federal troops decide it needs to be curbed by force of arms.
No thanks. Keep the military out of it.
Katrina thugs shoot at federal troops... shooting war starts and anyone in the city becomes a target... bullets everywhere. No thanks... can you imagine the carnage? and who would sort out the rightious and the wrongfull deaths?
Really good personal injury lawyers that's who.
This is the reason the second amendment was made... to stop tyranny and to make sure that we outnumbered the army.... now we are giving them licence to shoot at us and round us up?
You know they ain't sending in unarmed federal troops right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Both I believe. Remember the lack of NG troops because the entire LA NG is in Iraq? (Ok, something over 1/3 of the LA guard is in Iraq)
See now this would also be an exellent arguement on why downsizing of the military (which I am always against) is a bad idea.
When its time to cut spending there are planety of BS programs that can be cut
Money to study the sexual habits of the elderly and such nonsence like that.
Several years ago there was a big tadoo over our budget and the current Gov wanted to cut funding of the arts but there was an uproar within the state government about it and it never got done.
I thought it was a good idea. Things like "the arts" are things that should be able to support themselves through private donations and not government funding.
Things like that crack me up.
They will cut funding for theings like education but god forbid we dont have "plays in the park"
-
If police are afraid to enter certain parts of the ghettos in big cities.... wouldn't that be an emergency good enough to send in armed troops?
lazs
-
good points. I will definitely be one of the people supporting the ACLU, if they stand up against it.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sandy, it's far worse than 'the guy's a moron'. I think the guy is somebody's puppet. The biggest mystery now is just who is pulling the strings?
Follow the money.
-
Figures. Naturally there was a whole load of pointing fingers, and dumb bellybutton citizens unable to lay the blame where it belongs.
First - 99% of the blame falls on those who stayed. Personal freedom, you excercised it to stay. You dun ****ed up. I'm sick and tired of reading how its a governments fault. With freedom comes responsibility, you ******s didn't excercise the latter while wanting the former and now we are all ****ed. Before anyone gets all upity over this, yes, I have been in the situation of having to evacuate due to a hurricane. And if the poor thing comes out, who the **** is too poor to walk?
Second - .9% of the blame falls on the city/state for being completely unorganized and incompetent in evacuating and expressing the direness of the situation.
Third - .1% falls on the federal for placing an inept fool in charge of a Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Very few if any will agree with me, but thats how it is. And now thanks to those who can't excercise personal responsibility to show they can handle freedom, we all may be completely screwed.
-SW
-
Amending or changing Posse Comitatus is a very bad idea and as usual it is unnecesary. This is only 'feel good' legislation.
The Predident has the right to send in federal troop within the U.S. under the Insurection Act. This was done during the LA riots. It could have been done for Katrina except as usual the lawyers got to involved. It has come to light that gangs of organized criminals came in to N.O. form other areas specifically to engage in looting. This was enough for the Pres. to invoke that act. Problem is this president and a lot of old timer Republican are still too afraid of the liberal press and the libs in Congress to do anything like this.
This is just another example of government CYA. For once I'd like to see a leader just do something and take the consequences like a man instead of taking the cautious approach and take the blame like a puss.
Just ask yourself, who would you trust least with this new law? Because they just may gain power some day.
-
Toad,
Actually, I expected to be clothed in the finest raiment, fed peeled grapes by scantily clad nubile young females and generally cared for as if I was a treasure beyond price from cradle to grave.
Mmmmm... Daddy Likes....
:aok
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
The Predident has the right to send in federal troop within the U.S. under the Insurection Act. This was done during the LA riots.
IIRC, the National Guard went in, not active duty.
-
hmmm .. I didnt read the entire thread but...
are you saying the military should not be deployed if we have another terrorist attack? I think I saw m16's all over the place after 9/11 and I think you'll see them again after the next one...
what is the diff between the military and the coast guard or national guard or any reserve branch reponding ?
talk about knee jerk reactions, I think some in this thread are having one now...
-
The difference was that 9/11 was an attack. If you'll recall, they also attacked a military installation.
-
He's too stupid to be a puppet.
:)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Figures. Naturally there was a whole load of pointing fingers, and dumb bellybutton citizens unable to lay the blame where it belongs.
First - 99% of the blame falls on those who stayed. Personal freedom, you excercised it to stay. You dun ****ed up. I'm sick and tired of reading how its a governments fault. With freedom comes responsibility, you ******s didn't excercise the latter while wanting the former and now we are all ****ed. Before anyone gets all upity over this, yes, I have been in the situation of having to evacuate due to a hurricane. And if the poor thing comes out, who the **** is too poor to walk?
Second - .9% of the blame falls on the city/state for being completely unorganized and incompetent in evacuating and expressing the direness of the situation.
Third - .1% falls on the federal for placing an inept fool in charge of a Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Very few if any will agree with me, but thats how it is. And now thanks to those who can't excercise personal responsibility to show they can handle freedom, we all may be completely screwed.
-SW
Well said Wulfie, and I agree with you.
Changing these laws is idiocy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He's too stupid to be a puppet.
:)
What about a sock puppet?
-
You know, it has gotten really quiet in the news regarding this potential constitution change.
Makes me wonder what wheels are turning to make this happen in Congress.
Hopefully this is a dead dog. Our future rights depend on it's death.