Skip to comments.U.S. Should Consider Giving Military Arrest Powers, Ridge Says
Posted on 07/21/2002 9:38:40 AM PDT by GeneDEdited on 07/19/2004 2:10:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington, July 21 (Bloomberg) -- The government should consider reversing a more than a century of tradition and law to give the military authority to make arrests and fire their weapons on U.S. soil in the event of a terrorist attack, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said.
(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...
First of all, I'm no paranoia boy, and second, I was curious why you would even bother with the term extra-constitional, as it is worthless - any law passed by Congress is, in effect, just that.
A lot of things get attributed to our founding fathers. It looks like I was off base with my comment. However, I don't think they'd feel much differently than I do with regard to having armed US forces on our streets.
We have accepted the National Guard under the control of our governors to help out local authorities in times of national disaster or civil unrest. But the idea of subjecting the citizenry to military control indefinately as a general principle is a very bad idea in my opinion.
However, considering the changes in the Republic over the last ninety years, with a massive expansion of federal power, IMO PC has been a bulwhark against the incorporation of the military into the abuses of federal power. You are right that this is not a Constitutional argument. But that transcends the underlying discussion, as to whether or not it is a good idea to have the military involved in domestic law enforcement.
There is no need to reconsider anything. The Military has plans to defend the US on its own soil. They are prepared and know what they will do and to what extent they will do it. Sensible and Congress do not equate. I really have to wonder why this is coming up now? What is propelling it? Is the Government hiding something that will panic the American Public? This just is not making any logical sense. There has to be another reason for this. There just has to be.
These guys have entirely too much time on their hands. Limit the sessions and reduce the scope of the federal government commensurate with the original intent of the founding fathers.
As for the military, in this day and age there's a mandate to have a professional service. As the world shrank, it made it impossible to simply police our own shores. We have to project elsewise we fight all future battles on our own soil.
But I do grow rather weary of policing everyone elses borders while our own is comrpomised nightly.
Foreign soliders come cheap. Much cheaper than the US soldiers that many here are proposing to act as domestic police. How will they pay for it? Easy. They'll just enact another $40 billion dollar "anti-terrorism" bill.
I'm suggesting that foreign troops would not be an option, politically.
Just like leaving our borders open, harassing granny at the airport, allowing the gov't to enter your house and search without telling you, etc....?
Let us see what Andrew Jackson had to say on the issue in 1829:
"As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe.
Term limits....The rebels were smart, at outset of the Civil War, they rewrote our constitution. They adopted the old one with a few changes. They recognized the rise of professional politicians, to prevent this they adopted term limits, for all, including a one time six year term for office of president. The six year term was settled on because they knew that to elect a man for a term, he would be running for office from day one for re-election. That is the sorry case we have now. They reasoned that if the president was in for one term, no chance for reelection, he would do what was best for the country, not what was best for his re-election.
I have to agree with their thinking. Too bad they did not win as far as the constitution is concerned.
I also wish to emphasize that I am much more concerned about Biden's action than Ridge's words. Ridge may have even been responding to what Biden was doing.
But I'm not going to give aid and comfort to the chicken little crowd around here.
If, God forbid, there are ever multiple WMD's activated here, I've got news for you.
You're going to be on your own. No one is going to be there with food, water, or medicine for days, if not weeks. It's best to be prepared, and the best way to be prepared is to be Free to do so.
A spy in every household and workplace. In the name of security, dont you know.. I will feel much safer knowing Ridge has someone keeping an eye on me and another with a gun to arrest me should I break a "security" law. Ridge knows best.
I will have to take a break.
I'll see you and Joanie, later ...
First, I'm not sure I ever advocated military patrolling our borders or the National Guard in the airports. But in answer to your question:
First the simple one, any governor can activate the National Guard in his state and have 'em doing whatever basically. Filling sandbags. Guarding against looters during a power outage. Quelling riots. That is a State's issue. Got nothing to do with the Feds.
Next, the military can patrol the borders, of course they can, especially if we are surrounded by hostile nations. This would be to prevent invasion. That is part of the military's job- protecting the country against attack from outside. But the military has no business patrolling the streets in general, shooting lawbreakers, and looking into things they have no business looking into. If they want to do that, we already have an apparatus- civil police- and they should quit the military and join a police force.
The only way I can condone the military actively operating within our borders would be if the enemy had invaded us which is not the case.
Terrorism is a difficult thing to label correctly. I have my doubts that we should've ever invented the phrase- it's redundant, like "hate crime". Terrorists are criminals period. They are organized for sure but they are still criminals. Timothy McVeigh- criminal. And he got treated like that- tried and executed. Now international terrorists, lately they have taken the tactic of attacking nations at large like on 9/11. The only organization we have that can go out and actively combat them in foreign territories is our military and that's exactly what we're doing. But once the terrorists get inside our country and set up their criminal enterprise here- they become the problem of dosmetic agencies- the alphabet soup (FBI ATF)and the local police, sherriff etc. I don't see a need for the military there.
Plus the military would be very inefficient. They have no dosmetic apparatus for communicating and coordinating with civil forces. They have no intelligence gathering network (for domestic purposes). They aren't even governed by the same body or set of rules. They have no law enforcement training. Why try to put a square peg in a round hole? Why use a monkey wrench for a job requiring a screwdriver?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.