Military Sent To City Streets In Ala

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1810955' date='Mar 18 2009, 08:13 PM']It would be better if it was local people policing the local city.[/quote]


Yeah, but ideally you would not want any government sanctioned force to be brought in to "restore" order but the process fixed through private entities right? If so (and I may be misten in your views) what is the difference between the federal government dending federal troops to restore order and a massive national corporation being paid, by whoever, to send in their troops to restore order? I gues this is an instance where, if in a slip up like this, anarchism breaks down. Would we have competing militas or private armies competing against each other to restore order? Who would call them in?

[Lounge Daddy]

Ya this is a Government problem, and all the Republicrats are to blame. They have all betrayed us. And they use this so-called "2 party system" to distract us from the truth.

The plan to[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html?hpid=topnews"] begin deploying over 20,000 armed and uniformed military to police our city streets[/url] was announced long ago -- and even when we found out about it, it was still in 2008.

Aside from Ron Paul, there hasn't been anyone in Congress speaking out against [url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645"]HR 645[/url].

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810961' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:17 PM']How in the world is this Obama's fault?[/quote]

Do you really think a General sitting at Ft. Rucker would jeopardize his career and more importantly the ire of his wife if he loses his pension, without someone above him ordering him to move his troops into the town? Every General who has been through the Command and General Staff College in Kansas knows the Posse Comitatus forward and backward. It's not exactly a difficult law to understand. There are only two civilians in the chain of command above the Commander at Rucker who haven't been to C&GSC, the Secretary of Defense and the President. Take your pick.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810965' date='Mar 18 2009, 08:22 PM']I gues this is an instance where, if in a slip up like this, anarchism breaks down. Would we have competing militas or private armies competing against each other to restore order? Who would call them in?[/quote]

No not at all. Of course, local police is preferable to Federal military presence.

But private policing is done on private contract in some areas of the US. Or at least it was for a while. Germany has, in some areas, recently contracted local private policing agencies on renewable contracts.

I guess when you said Blackwater, I was still thinking wide-ranging military-level high-security. hehe. But gosh yes, for me perfect world = private sector contracts.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810953' date='Mar 18 2009, 08:09 PM']Would it be better if the were BlackWater guys?[/quote]

That would be the next step, wouldn't it??? Contract a military "domestic intervention" out to a military contractor and you have an Iraq campaign right there in Alabama. Can you imagine the use of waterboarding interrogations on U.S. soil? Yikes!

Yeah, this is clearly crossing the line. The military has no business policing civilian areas. Only civilians may patrol civilian areas. Where was the local SWAT team in all of this??? Couldn't SWAT teams from neighboring communities have been called in to intervene??? I can't imagine that would have taken any longer than it would have to call in the military???

Edited March 19, 2009 by abercius24

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1810985' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:45 PM']That would be the next step, wouldn't it??? Contract a military "domestic intervention" out to a military contractor and you have an Iraq campaign right there in Alabama. Can you imagine the use of waterboarding interrogations on U.S. soil? Yikes!

Yeah, this is clearly crossing the line. The military has no business policing civilian areas. Only civilians may patrol civilian areas. Where was the local SWAT team in all of this??? Couldn't SWAT teams from neighboring communities have been called in to intervene??? I can't imagine that would have taken any longer than it would have to call in the military???[/quote]
To stop one specific thing too? Seems like overkill.

SWAT and tactical units are pretty well equipped and trained, I seem to recall.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1810976' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:36 PM']Do you really think a General sitting at Ft. Rucker would jeopardize his career and more importantly the ire of his wife if he loses his pension, without someone above him ordering him to move his troops into the town? Every General who has been through the Command and General Staff College in Kansas knows the Posse Comitatus forward and backward. It's not exactly a difficult law to understand. There are only two civilians in the chain of command above the Commander at Rucker who haven't been to C&GSC, the Secretary of Defense and the President. Take your pick.[/quote]


No it's not a difficult law to understand. And Obama is a harvard trained lawyer working in a White House and administration full of some of the top legal minds of the country. Yet in the ammount of time this spree occured and the troops were sent Obama was alerted of the crime, apparently neither he nor anyone on the train of transmission heard of a law every tenth grader has at least so vague idea of, and he ordered federal troops to the area even though nobody seems to have any knowledge of the President sending troops. Or he knew about the law and secretly ordered the troops there in a major over extension of executive powers, again secrety. The troops were not sent to stop the violence, they were there to direct trafic and keep the crime scene untainted. So Obama eithere ordered the troops there to fufil these rather mild duties and did so secretly despite being so ignornt he believed it perfectly legal. Or he conspired to secretly break the law, because apparently Obama is obsessed with having federal troops be in place to direct trafic or keep a crime scene clear.

Does that sound crazy to anyone else?

[Hassan]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1810985' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:45 PM']That would be the next step, wouldn't it??? Contract a military "domestic intervention" out to a military contractor and you have an Iraq campaign right there in Alabama. Can you imagine the use of waterboarding interrogations on U.S. soil? Yikes!

Yeah, this is clearly crossing the line. The military has no business policing civilian areas. Only civilians may patrol civilian areas. Where was the local SWAT team in all of this??? Couldn't SWAT teams from neighboring communities have been called in to intervene??? I can't imagine that would have taken any longer than it would have to call in the military???[/quote]


The troops wern't sent there to stop the crime, they were sent to direct trafic and keep the crime scene clear.

[BG45]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1810947' date='Mar 18 2009, 09:06 PM']I bet what they do is 'investigate', then 'conclude' that this doesn't count as military action on some technicality, or something along those lines.[/quote]

Ditto on my thoughts. While LD is making me think Vietnam and the Gulf War by declaring wars Conflicts, I was thinking more along the lines of Korea. "A police action".

[Hassan]

[quote name='BG45' post='1811014' date='Mar 18 2009, 08:32 PM']Ditto on my thoughts. While LD is making me think Vietnam and the Gulf War by declaring wars Conflicts, I was thinking more along the lines of Korea. "A police action".[/quote]

I just dn't see this as being on even almost the same attitude. I would never disagree that this is not correct (hazzah!) but people seem to really jumping the gun. We have little to no evidence and the military is engaged in a cover up and Obama secretly is behind it all

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810991' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:58 PM']Does that sound crazy to anyone else?[/quote]

Yeah it does. I'm not a Obama basher. I have specific issues with his policies, just as I had specific issues with Bush's policies. One overriding issue that really concerns me is the disdain with which our Harvard educated President treats the law. I really don't think there is a major issue with his birth certificate for example, but I have a problem with his blowing a federal court judge off as if he was above it all. Nixon thought the President was above the law too, and I very much remember how that ended.

I don't know the specifics of why these soldiers were ordered in there. The only reason I can imagine an Army Commander risking his career in this manner is if the crime involved a soldier. If not, there will be trouble about this unless it came from the top.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1810595' date='Mar 18 2009, 12:45 PM']Of course after questions over the legality of this, military authorities claim they are "investigating." But "legal" and "ethical" aren't the same thing. The Emperor can "make it legal."

Last week [url="http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206"]active duty, armed and uniformed troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., stormed the streets of Samson, Ala.,[/url] in response to a murder spree. They then remained on patrol in the streets of the small community.

I repeat, armed uniformed military are policing our city streets.

[img]http://media.eyeblast.org/resources/45209.jpg[/img]

All Government needs to do is wait for a crisis, encourage a crisis, or create one. After that, troops in our streets becomes the norm. Kinda being at war with against "terror." Or nationalizing our private industries.

Fascism is here.[/quote]


[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1810955' date='Mar 18 2009, 07:13 PM']It would be better if it was local people policing the local city.[/quote]

I live ten miles from Kinston (where the spree started). There really aren't that many cops. I know that sounds crazy but there just aren't. And the deputy sherriff lost his wife and child and his other kids are in FL in the hospital (or were), so I doubt he's there. I also don't think the people of Samson were upset. Maybe they are just the poor, ignorant, whatever you want to call them, but, honestly I don't think that they were upset at having them there. I bet the BBC vans were more disconcerting to them.

Just $0.02 from a random observer.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1811026' date='Mar 18 2009, 08:43 PM']Yeah it does. I'm not a Obama basher. I have specific issues with his policies, just as I had specific issues with Bush's policies. One overriding issue that really concerns me is the disdain with which our Harvard educated President treats the law. I really don't think there is a major issue with his birth certificate for example, but I have a problem with his blowing a federal court judge off as if he was above it all. Nixon thought the President was above the law too, and I very much remember how that ended.

I don't know the specifics of why these soldiers were ordered in there. The only reason I can imagine an Army Commander risking his career in this manner is if the crime involved a soldier. If not, there will be trouble about this unless it came from the top.[/quote]


I guess my problem is we are all drawing these conclusions with almost no actual evidence, or even a clear idea of what happened.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45260"]http://cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45260[/url]

[BG45]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1811015' date='Mar 18 2009, 10:34 PM']I just dn't see this as being on even almost the same attitude. I would never disagree that this is not correct (hazzah!) but people seem to really jumping the gun. We have little to no evidence and the military is engaged in a cover up and Obama secretly is behind it all[/quote]

See I'm not seeing a cover up at all yet, and I hope not to at all. Was just feeding off of LD's analogies as well as what could be inferred from them on large scale conflict. Given the last time we had widespread troops in the streets (Civil Rights Movement era) and before that (Reconstruction of the South) I'd hope to never see it again. In the former it was more about keeping our citizens from killing one another in rioting, in the latter it was to stop further rebellion as well as assist with rebuilding efforts.

While I'm willing to bet on an investigation occurring in which someone's head rolls figuratively, I'm doubting there will be any major repercussions.