No more Posse Comitatus?
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
All of which was what Sen. Kennedy said was his understanding of the changes complained of.
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?...
Is it? I'd be interested in seeing that. Again, as with Rob, whats your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying...
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
I just love it when the final report is "A record of each representative's position was not kept." It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
-
The Senate version was dropped because the House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
And the section in question was largely repealed the next year in the 2008 FY version of the same act. It seems doubtful that Bush's signing comments will be meaningful (the Constitution gives them no validity) in the next 90 days or so he has left. The next president, regardless of who wins, will be better, and less impelled toward the accumulation of power. Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure...
-
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
I think we should fire the lot, and plan to do my feeble part on that this November.
-
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk
What was I thinking??? Well, Homeland Security will be knocking on my door at any moment. Give my regards to Chris when he returns. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding.
You're wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them
Provisions in the law as it stood allowed for both Federalized National Guard troops and the Coast Guard to act.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?...
Is it? I'd be interested in seeing that. Again, as with Rob, whats your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying...
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
oilFactotum wrote:
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
Sure. As long as it was rounding up liberals and putting them into reeducation camps. guys like you are entirely pathetic, oily. I don't like or support a single thing Bush has done. But he is doing precisely what a democrat would do in the same situation, and there would not be any protest at all. Your problem is not what is being done, it is who is doing it. Either that, or you're just an idiot. Any time you want to start a revolution to put a stop to all of this, I'll be your first volunteer. But as long as it is so glaringly obvious that you are just a partisan, leftist hack doing every thing possible to get your guys elected - fuck off...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding.
You're wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them
Provisions in the law as it stood allowed for both Federalized National Guard troops and the Coast Guard to act.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I remember Katrina very well, and every democrat, including oily, was screaming to get the military in there - and they were not talking about the quard. As a long time member of a guard unit, it is the governor's responsibility to get them mobilized for a disaster, not the President's. In any case, what would be the difference in mobilizing the guard for federal service and sending in the regualr army? Its all the same thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I remember Katrina very well, and every democrat, including oily, was screaming to get the military in there - and they were not talking about the quard. As a long time member of a guard unit, it is the governor's responsibility to get them mobilized for a disaster, not the President's. In any case, what would be the difference in mobilizing the guard for federal service and sending in the regualr army? Its all the same thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I remember Katrina very well, and every democrat
I doubt it. Certainly your claims that every this and all that suggest you've simplified everything down to a few manufactured memories.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a long time member of a guard unit, it is the governor's responsibility to get them mobilized for a disaster, not the President's.
But the President can federalize Guard units in other states and send them into the disaster zone.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In any case, what would be the difference in mobilizing the guard for federal service and sending in the regualr army? Its all the same thing.
Given the amount of combat the Guard has been force to undergo in the last six years, you have a point for today. However, in 2005 much of the Guard was unprepared for active duty as it was when you were in there. There is a safeguard in using the "B" team and keeping the "A" team outside the borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
And the section in question was largely repealed the next year in the 2008 FY version of the same act. It seems doubtful that Bush's signing comments will be meaningful (the Constitution gives them no validity) in the next 90 days or so he has left. The next president, regardless of who wins, will be better, and less impelled toward the accumulation of power. Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure...
Rob Graham wrote:
Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure..
For some reason this brought up a memory of Dave Chappell's skit on a "Black Bush" Skip to 4:49 of this clip[^] to see what I am talking about.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
And the section in question was largely repealed the next year in the 2008 FY version of the same act. It seems doubtful that Bush's signing comments will be meaningful (the Constitution gives them no validity) in the next 90 days or so he has left. The next president, regardless of who wins, will be better, and less impelled toward the accumulation of power. Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure...
Rob Graham wrote:
Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure...
OK, you have had too much. Give me your car keys.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
Sure. As long as it was rounding up liberals and putting them into reeducation camps. guys like you are entirely pathetic, oily. I don't like or support a single thing Bush has done. But he is doing precisely what a democrat would do in the same situation, and there would not be any protest at all. Your problem is not what is being done, it is who is doing it. Either that, or you're just an idiot. Any time you want to start a revolution to put a stop to all of this, I'll be your first volunteer. But as long as it is so glaringly obvious that you are just a partisan, leftist hack doing every thing possible to get your guys elected - fuck off...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sure.
Can't say I'm suprised. X|
Stan Shannon wrote:
Your problem is not what is being done,
Actually, it is.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But as long as it is so glaringly obvious that you are just a partisan, leftist hack doing every thing possible to get your guys elected - f*** off...
Man, you are an idiot. Did you even read the Greenwald piece? Is there anywhere in the piece statements along the lines of 'It's all the Republicans fault' or 'Obama will fix everything - vote for him' - or 'McCain is just like Bush, so vote for Obama'? Of course not. If the best response you can come up with after reading about the gutting of Posse Comitatus and the deployment of active troop on US soil is 'you just want to embarrass Bush', and 'it's the Democrats fault' then... X|
-
I remember Katrina very well, and every democrat, including oily, was screaming to get the military in there - and they were not talking about the quard. As a long time member of a guard unit, it is the governor's responsibility to get them mobilized for a disaster, not the President's. In any case, what would be the difference in mobilizing the guard for federal service and sending in the regualr army? Its all the same thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
including oily, was screaming to get the military in there
:confused: You must be crazy.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sure.
Can't say I'm suprised. X|
Stan Shannon wrote:
Your problem is not what is being done,
Actually, it is.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But as long as it is so glaringly obvious that you are just a partisan, leftist hack doing every thing possible to get your guys elected - f*** off...
Man, you are an idiot. Did you even read the Greenwald piece? Is there anywhere in the piece statements along the lines of 'It's all the Republicans fault' or 'Obama will fix everything - vote for him' - or 'McCain is just like Bush, so vote for Obama'? Of course not. If the best response you can come up with after reading about the gutting of Posse Comitatus and the deployment of active troop on US soil is 'you just want to embarrass Bush', and 'it's the Democrats fault' then... X|
So, Mr. "Oh my God we must save the constitution from Bush!", what other things are there you think we should save it from? Anything at all that any one else has ever done that allows the government to control our lives, confiscate our property, reduce our ability to manage our communities as we best see fit as free citizens? You give a shit about any of that? I'll tell you what, I'll help you fight to get rid of the threat of American soldiers trying to save drowing black people, if you help me fight to have the 16th amendment repealed. Is it a deal?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I remember Katrina very well, and every democrat
I doubt it. Certainly your claims that every this and all that suggest you've simplified everything down to a few manufactured memories.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a long time member of a guard unit, it is the governor's responsibility to get them mobilized for a disaster, not the President's.
But the President can federalize Guard units in other states and send them into the disaster zone.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In any case, what would be the difference in mobilizing the guard for federal service and sending in the regualr army? Its all the same thing.
Given the amount of combat the Guard has been force to undergo in the last six years, you have a point for today. However, in 2005 much of the Guard was unprepared for active duty as it was when you were in there. There is a safeguard in using the "B" team and keeping the "A" team outside the borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But the President can federalize Guard units in other states and send them into the disaster zone.
Oakman wrote:
Given the amount of combat the Guard has been force to undergo in the last six years, you have a point for today. However, in 2005 much of the Guard was unprepared for active duty as it was when you were in there. There is a safeguard in using the "B" team and keeping the "A" team outside the borders.
So, just to be sure I understand, having some sort of plan in place to immediately federalize all state guard units and sending in poorly trained soldiers is a better plan than sending in better trained troops? The former is perfectly ok, but the latter is some kind of dreadful attempt to take over our lifes? Sorry, but I am not sure at all that I percieve any damn difference except that the guard units would bring their own beer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
including oily, was screaming to get the military in there
:confused: You must be crazy.
It may have been some other ranting bush hating lefty (I do get you guys confused), but it was certainly being argued both on this forum and elsewhere.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
But the President can federalize Guard units in other states and send them into the disaster zone.
Oakman wrote:
Given the amount of combat the Guard has been force to undergo in the last six years, you have a point for today. However, in 2005 much of the Guard was unprepared for active duty as it was when you were in there. There is a safeguard in using the "B" team and keeping the "A" team outside the borders.
So, just to be sure I understand, having some sort of plan in place to immediately federalize all state guard units and sending in poorly trained soldiers is a better plan than sending in better trained troops? The former is perfectly ok, but the latter is some kind of dreadful attempt to take over our lifes? Sorry, but I am not sure at all that I percieve any damn difference except that the guard units would bring their own beer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, just to be sure I understand, having some sort of plan in place to immediately federalize all state guard units and sending in poorly trained soldiers is a better plan than sending in better trained troops?
I would certainly hope that Bush learned his lesson and has ordered a plan be created to federalize NG troops withou sitting on his thumb for three days first. I would also have hoped that Bush had learned that using combat troops as a police force was bound to fail. Apparently he never learned that lesson. It appears you didn't either.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, just to be sure I understand, having some sort of plan in place to immediately federalize all state guard units and sending in poorly trained soldiers is a better plan than sending in better trained troops?
I would certainly hope that Bush learned his lesson and has ordered a plan be created to federalize NG troops withou sitting on his thumb for three days first. I would also have hoped that Bush had learned that using combat troops as a police force was bound to fail. Apparently he never learned that lesson. It appears you didn't either.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
You do realize that guard troops are, mostly, combat troops, dont' you?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, just to be sure I understand, having some sort of plan in place to immediately federalize all state guard units and sending in poorly trained soldiers is a better plan than sending in better trained troops?
I would certainly hope that Bush learned his lesson and has ordered a plan be created to federalize NG troops withou sitting on his thumb for three days first. I would also have hoped that Bush had learned that using combat troops as a police force was bound to fail. Apparently he never learned that lesson. It appears you didn't either.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
would certainly hope that Bush learned his lesson and has ordered a plan be created to federalize NG troops withou sitting on his thumb for three days first
oh, and, I still don't see how that is to be preferred over regular troops. Troops are troops.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.