Curse

nebuchanezzar · Dec 02, 2008, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Do your homework before criticizing the situation.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. -- james madison

20,000 troops does not exceed 25,000-30,000.

Furthermore....

§ 1890 of the book describes the Second Amendment:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace

The US is in an extralegal state of war currently; an ideological war, but war nonetheless.

Furthermore, if you read the article at all, it stated quite clearly that the forces would be acting in the capacity of the National Guard, training militias and being ready for an attack, not actively patrolling the streets.

I am not a supporter of this for financial and psychological reasons, but in terms of legality, this is within the realm of reasonable executive action.

Those troops are on military bases which are not technically US soil. That is how we can hold people in a military base(hello Guantanamo) and not have them benefit from US rights. A military base is ruled under admiralty court and not our court system.
Furthermore, we are not at war. Period. War comes only from Congressional resolution, we are not at war.
fwiw, I didn't read the article. I wasn't interested in that, only the statement of "feel safe."
Your Madison quote was his suggestions at the Continental Congress. Kind of like these that follow.
"
'That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners.' - NH Ratification US Constitution

'There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.' --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

'A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?' - Patrick Henry

'...standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.' - The Commonwealth of Virginia, as it ratified the Constitution in 1788

'...that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.' -North Carolina, in its Declaration of Rights, 1776

'...standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.' - The Pennsylvania Convention"

My point was the dismay at those who see these as "good" things. They are not. I hadn't meant to come back to this thread but I did, I'm sorry. I wont do it again because I don't like bickering.

MMSDome · Dec 02, 2008, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The USA should have compulsory 2-year enlistment for all citizens of both genders, if only to make their youth less pathetic. The security benefits are just a side effect!

As an American that is in college I know well enough that we have gotten so pathetic that would never happen, even though it probably should. America's youth makes me sick how undisciplined they are and whiny its disturbing. If you don't like something call the ACLU or sue someone, its what always happens!

-Old 3FL- · Dec 03, 2008, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by the savage nornbear

Run to the hillllssss!!! Run for your liiiivvveesss!!

No need for Iron Maiden quotes.

illidan009 · Dec 03, 2008, 03:01 AM // 03:01

If US SRSLY turns into a legit police state, im moving back to China...at least they got MUCH BETTER food.

[DE] · Dec 03, 2008, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by illidan009

If US SRSLY turns into a legit police state, im moving back to China...at least they got MUCH BETTER food.

So you didn't read the article huh?

the savage nornbear · Dec 03, 2008, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Old 3FL-

No need for Iron Maiden quotes.

I don't even understand what that means.

There's always a need for Iron Maiden quotes.

I pwnd U · Dec 03, 2008, 05:34 AM // 05:34

Time to analyze this article since many people appear not to be reading it all the way through. This is my view on it and only my view.

Quote:

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials. The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said. There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

Okay since this is my interpretation of the article I am going to take a shot at those who think it will undermine the Posse Comitatus Act. First, no I will not BS and say OMG IT IS 130 YEARS OLD GET RID OF IT! Leave it alone, it is fine. BUT they are taking it out of proportion and the military will TRAIN with the police, not be them. More on that later.
Here is the biggest misconception that is appearing in this thread.

Quote:

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe

Now people in here seem to be saying something along the lines of “OMG THEY WILL BE WALKING THE STREETS BLAH BLAH BLAH!” Funny… I do believe it says trained to HELP respond to TERRORIST ATTACKS or other domestic catastrophes. So where in there does it they will be helping enforce the law? Oh ya, it doesn’t. They will be training local authorities to respond to THREATS, not to take over duties of giving you a freaking speeding ticket. They will still be stationed on the military bases so there goes the whole we can’t have them on US soil blah blah blah. THEY WON’T BE! They will still be stationed on military bases which as nebuchanezzar so kindly pointed out is not technically US SOIL. Therefore moot point about them being on US soil.

Quote:

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said. The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command. If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.

Hey look! The National Guard! More on that in a second. I wanna highlight something here.

Quote:

civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe

This is more than true, you want to see mass chaos, look at Sept 11. Those poor NYC cops had no idea HOW to respond other than to evacuate everyone in the surrounding area. Yes, they made the right call but it was not quick enough and they were overwhelmed. Trying to get thousands of people out of there is a HUGE task, especially in a city as large as New York City. They were indeed overwhelmed. Maybe possibly training with the military who will more than likely TEACH them how to respond to another such terrorist attack. This could save many lives.
Now onto the National Guard. It appears as if some military personal will become part of the National Guard to help boast their numbers as less people are volunteering. The military would also train the National Guard to respond to terrorist attacks so they could be more helpful than just providing aid like they do now after natural disasters.

Quote:

Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States. In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city. In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005. Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.

Again time to focus on a main part.

Quote:

Authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans

OMG! The states are going to LEARN from the military so they can HELP. Not the other way around, the military isn’t going to go in there and start doing what the local cops do. The cops will be learning from the military in order to help speed up responses to different threats. Sounds good to me.

Quote:

Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters. Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training. Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources. "This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies. The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority. Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.

Time for another quote

Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority

So if I am reading this article right, the military is going to help local authorities and the national guard to prepare for any kind of terrorist attack to keep the US citizens and occupants (c wut I did ther?) safe. Soooooo isn’t that a good thing? I for one feel safer knowing that local authorities know how to respond to a threat instead of having to wait for the freaking military to drag its feet before deciding they will just drop a freaking bomb. Local response>National response imo. Sorry but sounds like they are freaking out over nothing.

Quote:

"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement. For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992. U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq. The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics.

Quote:

U.S. forces are already under heavy strain

Well duh, we are over in the Middle East taking the fight to them. Of course we are under heavy strain. Until we pull out of the Middle East we will continue to be under said strain. /facepalm

Well those are my thoughts. Flame on.

zwei2stein · Dec 03, 2008, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

terrorist attack (repeatedly)

So, you live in fear and anything that will make you feel safer again is unquestionable.

I wonder who won there - Terrorists or Government? I guess it is win/win for both of them.

Anyhow, do you really think they will be there on time when anything happens? No, they will arrive couple of hours late, at best, leaving local authorities to deal with most crucial moments themselves. And even local authorities will be way too late when bombs in X start exploding. If there is "fear alert", you will see couple of those soldiers in street because they will not be able to do shit if they are in fort 100 miles away.

Then there are slow problems, like natural disasters, which can be responded to in timely, organized fashion and which are all about citizen management (get em leave homes before they drown) Local authorities should not need extras to do that if they don't ignore problem and when they do need them it basically needs to be crowd control. aka riot-control-police.

I pwnd U · Dec 03, 2008, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

So, you live in fear and anything that will make you feel safer again is unquestionable.

I wonder who won there - Terrorists or Government? I guess it is win/win for both of them.

/facepalm

Our government is worried about a Terrorist attack, I think most Americans have gone back to their normal lives and believe that after this no one will be stupid enough to try another direct attack on us. I think the fear is gone from the people, but the government is trying to keep it that way.

Quote:

Anyhow, do you really think they will be there on time when anything happens? No, they will arrive couple of hours late, at best, leaving local authorities to deal with most crucial moments themselves. And even local authorities will be way too late when bombs in X start exploding. If there is "fear alert", you will see couple of those soldiers in street because they will not be able to do shit if they are in fort 100 miles away.

Then there are slow problems, like natural disasters, which can be responded to in timely, organized fashion and which are all about citizen management (get em leave homes before they drown) Local authorities should not need extras to do that if they don't ignore problem and when they do need them it basically needs to be crowd control. aka riot-control-police.

/facepalm2

Thus why they are training with the local police. No one will be able to stop a bomb at X location when no one knows about it. That is just impossible. The local authorities will know how to handle it and hold down the fort until the military can respond.

Hmmm, usually during Natural Disasters the National Guard is sent to help to relieve the local authorities. Yes they have to deal with it at first but aid comes fairly quickly usually unless the president is stupid and doesn't send them out fast enough *coughcoughKatrinacough* In which case that is the governments damn fault but I think that is something they are trying to fix with this idea.

Quote:

Local authorities should not need extras to do that if they don't ignore problem and when they do need them it basically needs to be crowd control.

Ummm I think some words were left out because that makes little sense to me... oO

National Guard usually is riot control if I remember correctly in most situation since many police forces are not equipped to do so unless they are in a large city (NYC, Chicago, Philly, LA, etc)

Winterclaw · Dec 03, 2008, 06:35 PM // 18:35

I thought the whole point of the war on terror was to take the battle to the enemy so we wouldn't have a terrorist attack here...

Anyways, if a nuke goes off there's nothing left to do but preform triage on the survivors who will probably have to be transported a long way to get medical care, and start cleaning up.

Telling people not to panic won't work.
Telling people to stay in their homes will make them feel like sitting ducks.

So how about we do the wise thing instead and take out Iran's nuclear production facilities so we don't have to be worried about terrorists with nukes?

BTW, it's likely that New York City and Washington DC would be the primary targets so we don't need 20K troops and all the expenses that go with them.

Abedeus · Dec 03, 2008, 06:36 PM // 18:36

This thread shows why the American kids have no future.

I mean, if those that don't get what the news is about and they become parents... May God help us all.

I pwnd U · Dec 03, 2008, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I thought the whole point of the war on terror was to take the battle to the enemy so we wouldn't have a terrorist attack here...

That kinda was the point but to spend all your resources over there and not cover your ass at home is stupid. You leave yourself completely open to any kind of attack from an unknown enemy that you may never expect. Better safe then sorry.

MMSDome · Dec 03, 2008, 07:25 PM // 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I thought the whole point of the war on terror was to take the battle to the enemy so we wouldn't have a terrorist attack here....

Well yea, and Bush has done a good job of protecting the American people as there has not been an attack on US soil since 9/11. You won't hear that on the evening news but it is obvious.

What you said, Winterclaw, that we should only be fighting is false. Yes we want to keep fighting them to make sure they do not attack us on our own soil again but to have no defense within America would be a very unintelligent move. Even though we have done a lot to foil many terrorist attacks and constantly taking out high ranking terrorists the chance that they can attack us again is still there. Training officers to be ready to respond is not a bad thing, I don't understand how you could believe it is.

Master Fuhon · Dec 03, 2008, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I thought the whole point of the war on terror was to take the battle to the enemy so we wouldn't have a terrorist attack here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

That kinda was the point but to spend all your resources over there and not cover your ass at home is stupid. You leave yourself completely open to any kind of attack from an unknown enemy that you may never expect. Better safe then sorry.

When I first read it I was hoping for something different than how either of you interpreted it. The military needs to come back here, and retrain the police force on how terrorists are operating in civilian areas. The police would also have to be involved in retraining the military to operate in civilian areas, instead of treating everything like a combat zone.

I think the point is to take the fight to them and to leave yourself covered at home. I see the best way of doing this as coordinating the two separate groups. What I see as the major point was that when 9-11 happened, the U.S. was not equipped to properly attack or defend. But something had to be done, because twiddling thumbs does not create solutions.

Sending the troops over there was the only chance anyone had at being able to prepare for what we will be facing in the future. This information can be coordinated with other countries infested with terror cell networks.

A11Eur0 · Dec 03, 2008, 07:53 PM // 19:53

"Why are you panicking, they're not invading your home and setting up quarters."

"It's bad to feel safe?"

etc etc etc

You people are morons if you say these things. Increase military presence on US Soil. "Oh no, they didn't go this far, what they're doing is OK." Next step, reduction of Americans' rights to keep and bear arms. "oh they didn't go this far, what they're doing is OK." Next step: Martial Law. "Well, now they went this far...what do we do about it?" Nothing, because now you're overwhelmed by a trained military police force, surveillance networks and superior firepower. GGS, welcome to 1984. Oversimplified a bit but the premise is there: Whittle away at the peoples' freedoms little by little until you're in the position to enforce a police state with little to no resistance. It's happened before, it'll happen again unless the people stand up against these tyrannical agendas.

MMSDome · Dec 03, 2008, 08:02 PM // 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

"Why are you panicking, they're not invading your home and setting up quarters."

"It's bad to feel safe?"

etc etc etc

You people are morons if you say these things. Increase military presence on US Soil. "Oh no, they didn't go this far, what they're doing is OK." Next step, reduction of Americans' rights to keep and bear arms. "oh they didn't go this far, what they're doing is OK." Next step: Martial Law. "Well, now they went this far...what do we do about it?" Nothing, because now you're overwhelmed by a trained military police force, surveillance networks and superior firepower. GGS, welcome to 1984. Oversimplified a bit but the premise is there: Whittle away at the peoples' freedoms little by little until you're in the position to enforce a police state with little to no resistance. It's happened before, it'll happen again unless the people stand up against these tyrannical agendas.

Do you or any of you other people understand what training means?

I pwnd U · Dec 03, 2008, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Do you or any of you other people understand what training means?

Doesn't it mean they are going to start roaming the streets before making this like the England from V for Vendetta?!?!

Got to agree with ya Dome, I don't think they do...

Quote:

The police would also have to be involved in retraining the military to operate in civilian areas, instead of treating everything like a combat zone.

Geez.... THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE WALKING THE FREAKING STREETS! The police are not going to train them to do their job. The military will train the police to respond to certain threats. The military is not going to be doing the polices jobs of enforcing the law.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Dec 04, 2008, 02:52 AM // 02:52

...This is not a bad thing....ask yourself, how does the military helping to train local police forces to respond to crisis situations negatively affect your life.....It doesn't. Now ask your self is for some reason such a crisis does arise, would you like people to know how to handle it? I would assume yes.

Snow Bunny · Dec 04, 2008, 03:06 AM // 03:06

The Indian police had no crisis training and looked what happened.

LOLMOTHERFCKING MUMBAI.