Comments on: Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:28:27 +0000

Wasn't the Lightworker the one you wanted?
And were you this worried back in 2000?
Gee. A little early for 'Buyer's remorse', I should think.

Ahhh bitsy? News flash, Obama is not yet President. This idea has been around for a while, it did not come from him.

Do you read the supporting articles for posts, or do you just start ranting right out of the gate?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:09:05 +0000

This seems to be an issue that has both Democrats and the GOP saying "Lets not do this". Good chance for us to work together for a worthwhile goal.

Wasn't the Lightworker the one you wanted? And were you this worried back in 2000? Gee. A little early for 'Buyer's remorse', I should think.

By: AllenS

AllenS — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:14:24 +0000

Just think about how much more fast and effective this force will be when there is another Ruby Ridge or Waco, when you need pure speed and fire power to remove civilians you don't like.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:26:03 +0000

While I understand that another terrorist attack on the U.S. is considered almost inevitable, I also totally agree with the above posts regarding the National Guard.

To Zelsdorf Ragshaft III: While I have no problem with guns, a few packing citizens aren't going to stop a nuke blast. Although one could definitely argue that they could put a dent in a Mumbai-style attack.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:00:57 +0000

It is also worth noting that one of our surveillance satellites is now spying on us.

This seems to be an issue that has both Democrats and the GOP saying "Lets not do this". Good chance for us to work together for a worthwhile goal.

Don't tread on me!

(The Intelligence Daily) -- While America's attention has shifted to the economic meltdown and the presidential race between corporate favorites John McCain and Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) "will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws."

As I wrote in June, NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and "disaster relief" agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery intelligence (IMINT) generated by U.S. spy satellites. Based on available evidence, hard to come by since these programs are classified "above top secret," the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying.

More at:

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=126&a=8374

By: James M.

James M. — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:24:54 +0000

I had heard about this some weeks back and had hoped someone would make a serious effort to stop it. I am a former National Guardsman, signed my discharge papers last week, and feel without a doubt this is a very bad idea and sets the scenario up for a really strong military police state. This is what happens when people leave complete control of national security to politicians when they are afraid. You become the sheep being protected by the wolves.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:00:28 +0000

How long before mission creep has the military aiding in drug enforcement, crowd control and other such endeavors without the need for declaring a state of emergency?

I fear it won't take too long (and not for paranoid or partisan reasons). Power expansions have a way of continuing to expand especially with vague phrases like "other domestic catastrophe" in play.

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:27:02 +0000

And just where is it they will station these troops so they can respond to an emergency half way across the country. Terrorists do not usually wait for respondes to react before they commit their heinous acts. A citizens right to keep and bear arms is a much better solution than to fortify America. It does not bode well for freedom to had a standing army deployed on our soil.

By: charles johnson

charles johnson — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:16:46 +0000

Back before the GOP got control, FEMA was a very competent agency. So competent, that conspiracy people thought they constituted a mighty shadow government. Even the x-files incorporated that into their show. FEMA plus the national guard where they belong, not Iraq, would be enough to handle most anything.

Like I said, before the GOP.

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:06:16 +0000

Fifty-one days.

Just out of curiousity, Charles, were you so worried in 2002? Or did it only hit you when Obama was elected? (this is an honest question)

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:19:07 +0000

Bob, Bob, Bob...so much anger.

Yes, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. With the militarization of the police, and now using the military as a police force. It is a bad thing.

By: odograph

odograph — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:17:11 +0000

I also like the current system, with National Guards.

If they are overwhelmed, the President can break the law. It's been done before. That escape clause, through illegality, is better to me than establishing central command of military forces with the President as the status quo.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:06:10 +0000

Getting National Guard units home will have exactly ZERO impact on this. This is about the realization that a single event will probably overwhelm local resources. And that the only agency which works is the DOD. And, in the DOD, resourcing is going to flow towards this because frankly Congress says so. If you think this is so bad where were you when Clinton was using Active Army units to fight forest fires? This has been going on for a long time.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:01:11 +0000

How long before mission creep has the military aiding in drug enforcement, crowd control and other such endeavors without the need for declaring a state of emergency?

Fifty-one days.

By: tom p

tom p — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:13:14 +0000

In resposne to the war on terror we have a new federal department that has a cabinent level appointee, considerably more spending, and now watring down if not the outright removal of a 130 year old law limiting the use of U.S. military on U.S. soil. How long before mission creep...

Ah yes, the "war on terror"... so much like another so-called "war", the "war on drugs"... In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."