No more Posse Comitatus?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
So, Mr. "Oh my God we must save the constitution from Bush!", what other things are there you think we should save it from?
I think saving the constitution from Bush is a good start. I don't want to stretch myself too thinly.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll help you fight to get rid of the threat of American soldiers trying to save drowing black people,
Trivialize it all you like.
Stan Shannon wrote:
reduce our ability to manage our communities as we best see fit as free citizens?
You mean things that can reduce our ability to be free citizens like US Army troops stationed on American soil tasked with controlling the civilian population. Or like the the power of the government to arrest and detain anyone(including US citizens), anywhere, anytime without any reason and hold them forever without any need to justify the detention. Or the power to spy on everyone any time they like. You mean those kinds of things? I didn't think so - you've already expressed your support for that kind of federal authority.
-
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...
I'll have some of what you're smoking. :)
-
oilFactotum wrote:
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate, so the question would be: Why were you asleep at the wheel? Interestingly, One must wonder if this article is complete BS, since according to GovTrack.us[^] this particular bill never became law. In addition, neither the text as introduced by Warner (present on the govtrack site), nor the version on Thomas show any edits whatsoever to the section (1076) mentioned in the article. I also notice that the Salon article neglects to mention that the Co-sponsor was Carl Levin (D. Mich). the article you lionked to provides no references to support its assertions, and the few that I could find quickly seem to contradict it. Could the Author be lying? What would his motive be, do you suppose?
-
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:
Troops are troops
The why, pray tell, Does George43 want to use professional soldiers rather than weekend warriors?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The why, pray tell, Does George43 want to use professional soldiers rather than weekend warriors?
Gee, maybe because professional soldiers are more...well...professional? :rolleyes:
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.