The US Government, wha..????
#1
Posted 22 July 2002 - 02:36 PM
Tom Ridge, chief of Homeland security, and other leaders, are batting around the idea of allowing the US military for domestic law enforcement.
Are these guys a bunch of communists!?!? (figure of speech) China does that, the USSR did that, but I never thought America would! This is such a slippery slope too, because once the military gets a little bit of power and leeway, it will be so much easier for them to get a little more, and then a little more, and so on, until we are living in a freakin' commmunist police state!
My question is why in the hell would we need that too, we already have the national guard and the coast guard in case of disasters. I don't think we need any more military types to arrest people domestically.
What do you guys think? Is this a neccesary step? Am I totally over-reacting? Have times changed enough to warrant this type of move? Are they going to next ban the sale of all types of firearms? Even though we all know criminals don't buy guns legally anyway...?? Sorry, thats another issue.
But seriously, am I alone in thinking this is a bad idea??
PS: later today i'll find out more and post it here...
PPS: I'm going to buy my own island, like Marlon Brando (except mine won't be in hurricane paths) and go live there. It will be open to all Muscle Heads of course.
#2
Posted 22 July 2002 - 02:54 PM
So that the government can try to take away more of our rights.My question is why in the hell would we need that too, we already have the national guard and the coast guard in case of disasters. I don't think we need any more military types to arrest people domestically.
What do you guys think? Is this a neccesary step?
No
NoAm I totally over-reacting?
Have times changed enough to warrant this type of move?
No, and they never will!
They've been trying to ban guns for the public for the last 40 years and then some. Even though the statistics CLEARLY show that the provinces with the most restrictive gun policies are the most criminally violent, while the areas with conceal-carry or less prohibitive gun laws are generally the safest places to be. Only legitimate law abiding citizens will obey gun laws. The criminals won't. They don't obey them now. That's why their criminals.Are they going to next ban the sale of all types of firearms? Even though we all know criminals don't buy guns legally anyway...??
But seriously, am I alone in thinking this is a bad idea??
Nope
PS: later today i'll find out more and post it here...
PPS: I'm going to buy my own island, like Marlon Brando (except mine won't be in hurricane paths) and go live there. It will be open to all Muscle Heads of course.
Do I hear M.U.S.C.L.E.-Con on a deserted beach resort?
#3
Posted 23 July 2002 - 06:49 AM
and you are right, they have been trying to ban guns for quite some time. that is the reason i voted for bush over gore. i know bush isn't the brightest or the most eco minded, but dam it, he is the best for american gun owners. and i don't even own a gun myself.
anyway, i think this is a good example of the government using the 9/11 disaster as an excuse to pass bills and policies that are not neccesary.
#4
Posted 23 July 2002 - 07:10 AM
Tom Ridge, chief of Homeland security, and other leaders, are batting around the idea of allowing the US military for domestic law enforcement.
From where did you hear this? I'd like to know the details. For example, does "domestic law enforcement" include all state police tasks, or only those involving terrorism?
Regardless, it's a pretty radical step towards an opressive police state, I think! I can understand the government wanting to take control of air port security (although that's questionable as well) but this is way over the line. In fact, it's so radical, I doubt it would get through the Congress. Another question: Who endorses this? If it's President Bush, I think the ignorant fool should be impeached (and I voted for him, too)!
-Nathan
#5
Posted 23 July 2002 - 09:46 AM
- theCrazyEst
..must have new KiNNiKuMaN Muscle Shot update for Andriod..
KiNNiKuLove 4 Life!
#6
Posted 23 July 2002 - 10:09 AM
Actually the war of independence was fought, not over taxation, but taxation without representation. The people didn't think it was right to be taxed but have no say in how they were governed.The war of Independence was fought so that a ruler an ocean away couldn't tax you for cup of tea that wanted to drink.
Your take on the civil war was right on the money. Too many folks think that the civil war was about slavery. It wasn't. It was about States rights vs. Federal regulations.
#7
Posted 23 July 2002 - 10:40 AM
They try to take guns because they say they are dangerous. A gun can not shot somebody if someone isn't holding it.
They don't sue car manufactures because of vehicular manslaughter and hit and runs. The car cant do anything without someone behind the wheel.
With the rash of political correctness they are trying to tell us what we can and can not say and what we can and can not do. You cant say something that might offend somebody. you cant do something that might offend somebody.
They need to teach people to be understanding not lap dogs.
Enjoy the diversity. Not call someone a racist because he doesn't use the correct pc words.
The world is going to the crapper. The next generation of children growing up are going to be royally screwed. Parents try to blame everything around them that it is somebody else's fault that there children are messed up. They don't want to take the time and effort to spend time with there kids and teach them right from wrong. The school systems aren't doing it they just want everyone to be happy. Parents need to take responsibility.
The kids aren't going to know how to handle there anger when they get upset and will lash out.
enough of my ranting. ( for now )
GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.
#8
Posted 23 July 2002 - 11:47 AM
Raise your kids with common American values and with an understanding of history and how much our freedoms have cost us and what they are worth.
Home school them or private school them, unless you have a quality public school in your area (not very likely).
Create in them a STRONG interest in local, regional and national politics.
Support them in their bid for election to public office.
Sit back and root them on.
Problem solved.
#9
Posted 23 July 2002 - 11:58 AM
U.S. PROPOSAL ADDS MILITARY TO POLICE FORCE
Lawmakers consider amending the 'Posse Comitaus Act' to combat domestic terrorism
2002-07-23 / Associated Press / WASHINGTON
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.
U.S. President George W. 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. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the post Civil War Reconstruction-era law, known as the "Posse Comitatus Act."
Translating as the "county posse" act, it empowered local sheriffs to deputize citizens to apprehend criminals, keeping that power on the local level rather than having U.S. federal troops involve themselves in domestic law enforcement.
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.
Senator Carl Levin, chairman Senate Armed Services Committee, 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 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."
Senator 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 said on "Fox News Sunday."
Air Force General 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, also a Democrat, tracks closely with Bush's plan. It also would augment the agency's ability to gather and analyze intelligence from the FBI, CIA and others.
That bill is to be considered by the Senate committee Wednesday.
House Majority Leader dork 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 September 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 combating terrorism that are being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.
#10
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:05 PM
#11
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:17 PM
You are here you want to be here then learn our language not the other way around.
Border patrol statistics are bad. They catch the same people trying to cross and come into our country. Soonder or later they get by. THe border patrol needs more help.
I think we should let the U.S. military help in that affect. Have the military patrol as few hundred yard stretch across the length of the border. Give snipers some real training and expeirence and give them all the green light to shoot to kill.
If you can make it through that then it might be a consideration once you learn how to speak english.
#12
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:51 PM
I don't think this is a very good idea. We should shoot violent criminals, not illegals. I do however believe that illegal immigration is WAY out of hand. The US was founded on immigrants, and I agree that we should keep a healthy influx of immigrants. But...they need to come through the correct channels. On a side note though. Immigration should not take 5+ years to get through all the B.S. red tape. 1-2 Years of proving that you can hack it as a self sufficient member f the US should be plenty. Illegals should be deported. I don't advocate turning them down for emergency medical treatment, but as soon as they're treated, ship them back. And education, welfare or any other benefits for non citizens is a HUGE NO-NO in my book. America was founded on immigrants coming here for the opportunity to be successful. And it is the 1st and 2nd generation immigrants that seem to be holding the American values high. But somewhere after the 3rd generation, it seems that there is a serious breakdown in ethics, and everyone seems to think that they should be given a hand out. I say eff You! Get out and get a job you lazy Son of a bee-eye-itch! Welfare should be temporary for folks who need a hand up, not a hand out. Disability should be for DISABLED people (gee, what a novel concept), and SSI should be for retirement, not for some crackhead loser who cant hold a job becasue he's a effing loser. Anyways, I'll rant some more later. Got to get back to work.I think we should let the U.S. military help in that affect. Have the military patrol as few hundred yard stretch across the length of the border. Give snipers some real training and expeirence and give them all the green light to shoot to kill.
#13
Posted 24 July 2002 - 05:34 AM
Military interaction I think would still be viable but pick them up and send trucking off the other way. The terrain by the border is mostly desert and hills would be good training grounds as well as giving real life experience with capturing "prisoners" and how to handle them.
We also need to work with the Mexican government and get them to punish the people who are coming across. But that isn't going to happen when the illegals are sending millions back across the border.
There needs to be huge fines for companies that knowingly employee illegal immigrants. There should also be a way for the companies to help them get citizenship.
#14
Posted 24 July 2002 - 11:34 AM
The problem is more so that companies will find ways to cut cost and increase profits. One of the ways that they are trying to deal with such a competitive market is hire low cost labor (usually the alternative is to farm out the production of a product to a country which has a much lower pay scale) People would like to buy American or japanese but at the same time people want to buy cheaper products. What ever happened to having high quality products and a product that one can be proud to own?
The government is just as at fault as we the people, if we don't educate ourselves (and each other) the solution that someone else offers that is packaged in a way that sounds semi reasonable usually wins but without the consideration of the solutions reprocussions. People want better living/education/housing/$/schools but where is the $ supposed to come from.. then when they hit with more taxes they get angry! Now, i for one am not a defender of BigBrother or theSystem but at the same time one must have semiReasonable expectations.
No one should have to live on the street, no should have to starve, & elderly people (hell all of us) should have free health care! But 1/3 - 1/2 of the nations $ is going towards the military machine. What are we to do? We can't have a defenseless country but we shouldn't stockpile/ fund the creation of more dangerous weaponry.
Life is a paradox
- theCrazyEst
..must have new KiNNiKuMaN Muscle Shot update for Andriod..
KiNNiKuLove 4 Life!