U.S. Should Consider Giving Military Arrest Powers, Ridge Says

Bloomberg.com ^ | 7/21/02 | Alex Canizares

[GeneD]

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.

[Betty Jo]

Days or weeks, and then it will be the US Armed Forces!

Eventually, if anyone survives, the troops will be used.

FYI I have been posting for a long time now that we are victims of our government, and that the elites will go to their bunkers, and we the peons will be left to die!

[AmishDude]

The Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of a "Standing Army" Yet today we have a standing army of professional soldiers.

Where?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Sigh. I've called your screen name in. Don't shave too close tommorrow. Tom assured me they would have a toilet cam montioring you soon. Remember, war is peace, peace is happiness, democrats are Gods.

[Pistias]

Reichstag Bump..

I hope that ain't so...one more big push could do it.

[Pistias]

The "Political Class" had better study the French Revolution, the events that lead up to it, and the draconian upheaval afterward. Most of the Political Class of that time wound up losing their collective heads.

That's not the kind of revolution anyone wants--The Reign of Terror didn't solve anything, just resulted in the murder of so many and opened the door to a REAL tyrant.

No, it's a grace of God when an armed revolution actually results in a new political order that is stable and morally superior to the old--because it's so hard to keep a revolution from corrupting the revolutionaries.

[habaes corpussel]

""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.”"

What do you think Thomas Jefferson would say about his quote today?

[bloggerjohn]

Assymetrical Assymetrical Assymetrical

Let me repeat again. This makes NOOOO sense because it is asymmetrical. A militray force, from a battallion to an F16 squadron, is useless against a few terrorists skulking in a large city. The ONLY use of a large professional military force, rather than simply funding conventional law enforcement, is to subdue large numbers of citizens.

Why can't anyone see that?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Stasi bump.

[old school]

Silence! Obergruppenfuehrer Ridge has spoken! Resistance is futile!

[bloggerjohn]

"What do you think about having foreign troops here? "

Which, oddly enough, is why the Saudi terrorists say they hate us - since we are stationed on their soil. Well, the founding fathers warned us about "foreign involvements," but we have never learned.

Maybe we should take our troops out of Saudi Arabia and use them to protect our borders.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...fears that terrorists might attempt a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. territory are prompting some lawmakers to support revisions to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts the use of the military in civilian law enforcement....

[bloggerjohn]

Maybe they figure they'll need the military to protect CEOs.

Once the market really crashes and everyone loses their retirement, but see all those multibillion dollar theives not doing One day of jail time, they may want to do something about it since there is no justice anymore in these here United States.

[cynicom]

Old Phil...

Thank you for an intelligent overview of the totality of the consequences of such an abhorrent proposal.

Such an appraisal should be an eye opener for some of the younger ones here that do not have a appreciation of history.

A question worth asking..Does anyone believe Bush understands what he is creating with such proposals. If he does what is his intent?

[cynicom]

Nuke...

You might be shocked to see a pic of yours truly as a guest at NSA. Rest assured they have my name. Thanks anyway.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The military should never be used for domestic law enforcement."

Actually, I suspect they CAN be used today, and legally, IF they are used in conjunction with the local law enforcement authorities. IF the local Sheriff is along, he can "deputize" them as needed to take the necessary actions.

No expansion of "military powers of arrest" is necessary or desirable.

[bloggerjohn]

but if the two parties are both a crummy choice, what do we do? They won't even allow smaller parties a spot in the Presidential debates. They get squeezed out before they're born, and most of the smaller parties are also unpalatable to me.

Start a new one?

Free Republic Party?

[Mulder]

but if the two parties are both a crummy choice, what do we do?

Work within the GOP at the primary level, like Reagan did.

[IronJack]

I suspect it has more to do with that blasted American resistance to One World Government. The Important People have already decided that we need a single, unified government taking care of all the world's needs. Now they need to implement it. But carnsarned Americans just won't lie down like the good little sheep they've been trained to be. Seems a few wolves got loose amongst 'em and they've got the flock all riled up.

So the Powers that Be have thrown them a bone in the form of a "Republican" president. That way, the agenda will sell easier since it's coming from a man who could not POSSIBLY have any ulterior motives. He's a Republican, you know.

Never mind that he has presided over the greatest encroachment on civil liberty since Roosevelt's totalitarian New Deal, and that the excuse he uses is the same one the Democrats have used for half a century: It's for your own good.

As I say, these are dangerous times. However, I, like millions of others, mistakenly thought the danger would come from without.

[Wonder Warthog]

"How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?"

The National Guard has special "dual" status, and can be used domestically under order of the state governor of the specific state unit. The Coast Guard has ALWAYS had a domestic mission.

As I recall, "posse comitatus" ONLY limits the ARMY. I remember one article from somewhere pointing out that the MARINES were not limited by it, as they were part of the NAVY. I suspect this is really an oversight by the Founding Fathers, not expecting the Marines to develop into a largely land-based mission organization--as at that point in time, Marines were used only on ship-board or for quick on-shore raids.

[cynicom]

Iron...

Bush has accomplished more in the form of a bigger, more opressive government, than the democrats under Clinton could have ever prayed for in their wildest hopes.