Posted on 07/21/2002 9:38:40 AM PDT by GeneD
Edited 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 ...
There's nothing to "reconcile." I'm not in favor of any of those uses for the military either. You must have me confused with an idiot.
Personally I interpret this as a trial balloon and a true indicator of the thickness of Ridge's head.
Armed volunteers (militia) or paid police can defend these targets. Not regular military. I support the men and women in our military, but I do not want them used for domestic law enforcement.
Of course, if our borders were secure, the point would be moot. It's a lot easier to secure 6000 miles of border than literally hundreds of thousands of potential targets. The fact that this isn't being done should raise some red flags.
What do you think about having foreign troops here? Because that's who will be guarding these assets eventually.
Do you honestly believe that Biden just happened along, and just "happened" to be thinking along these lines????
Proposals such as this do not happen in a vacumn.
Cradled in the stern but loving arms of our paternalist government that provides guidance and sustenance for its wayward children.
Uncle Stalin's dream come true.
The military accomplishes its goals without regard for collateral damage, domestic niceties, or constitutional rights. That's why its personnel are governed under the UCMJ instead of civil and/or constitutional law. (That is also why an international criminal court is such an abomination, by the way.) In pursuit of its objectives, the military is empowered to use whatever force is necessary, including mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and life. Not so the police, who are constrained by the Bill of Rights (at least nominally).
To unleash the power of the military upon a civilian population is to pit a tiger against a tabby cat. Our armed forces were never intended to shoot down their own brothers and sisters.
What is the definition of is?
Does domestic refer to the location of the arrest or the nationality of the suspect.
Defining domestic as pertaining to location would seem to preclude the defense of the nation if foreign invaders could get a foot on US soil. Seems to me that this legislation is redundent since our military already posses the power that Ridge et al are seeking.
BTW: If anyone wants to look into the Nunn- Biden (and Warner!) amendment he was talking about: AMENDMENT NO. 1251 (Senate - June 06, 1995)
[Page: S7797]
"...shall not authorize arrest or any assistance in conducting searches and seizures that seek evidence related to violations of this section, except for the immediate protection of human life. "
Puts bio and chem weapons under the same exemptiom from Posse Comitatus that nuke weapons are under now.
Heck, a Governor can decide in 10 minutes that he needs federal forces to defend against such an attack- and ask for it.
No need to change the law.
Buried in the story was a short note that Rumsfeld declined to ask for any such power. That should tell some people here something. He would not stake his reputation and beliefs on any such scheme contrary to the law so they turned to Ridge to be the patsy and he was dumb enough to to float the balloon.
The stunning national silence followinging his suggestion that we employ the military to protect our borders tells me where there heads are at.
(Hint: It's where the sun don't shine.)
That's enough to know it's a bad idea.
...on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. That would ``allow for military that has expertise with weapons of mass destruction to be called in'' if such a plot was discovered.
...First of all, Joe, there is already a Federal task force for handling WMD's that has been around for over twenty years (for nuclear and other radioactive weapons anyway) up and running all this time. Not to mention the FBI which is supposed to deal with other such domestic threats. Secondly, Joe, giving the military powers to arrest and shoot in domestic situations has no relevance whatsoever in dealing with WMD's or 'plots', as I'm sure you know you disingenuous commie swine.
Wrong! The military in the US has no power to shoot or arrest a terrorist inside the US even if he is in the act of poisoning a water supply.
Well then let's not..
"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."
Jose Padella is what then? If the Military does not have the power to arrest American Citizens it sure the heck does not have the right to detain them either. Ridge is contradicting a Bush Executive Order.
"``Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot-to-kill, if in fact they were approaching the weapon,'' Biden said."
This is pure unadulterated bull! The Joint Resolution on the use of force gives the Commander and Chief the authority to use the Military on US Soil for direct actions in the time of a national emergency to protect the United States. The Resolution supercedes the Posse Comitatus Act. The Legislative Intent of the Posse Comitatus Act was to involve the Military in “Law Enforcement Purposes”. If Congress is really this concerned then Officially Declare War. I got to wonder what is really behind this latest move? Biden worries me.
I totally agree that Congress should empower the Military to arrest, detain and try ALL Terrorist both Foreign and Domestic. However, I remain very, very guarded over the rest of it. I highly recommend we all watch how this unfolds. This has a huge potential to become excessive..
Unless this is a political move to keep everyone minds off the economy?
I don't want them to have the "power to arrest" then. (Anyway, what is "domestic law enforcement" if it isn't the "power to arrest"? I don't see the difference).
Also, do you realize who the feds consider to be a "domestic terrorist"? I'll give you a hint-- it's not some murderous goblin from Iraq.
The "power to arrest" isn't going to do anything to stop foreign terrorists here. What we need is "power to stop", i.e., the recognition of the government that Free Americans have the Right to bear arms to defend ourselves.
If the government is truly interested in "stopping the terrorists", then enact a nationwide CCW law that protects the Rights of Free men and women to bear arms against any force that would do them harm.
But they aren't interested in preventing terrorism. They are only interested in instituting a totalitarian police state, using terrorism (which they allow to happen) as an excuse.
Most of us read it and understand it for what it really means, not for what they or you would like us to believe.
Rumsfeld is the boss of the military, he wanted no part of it. Homeland security, I hate that name, they were a different story, they would like to tweak the law a mite, just in certain cases, mind you,all to better protect us.
Please give the rest of us a little credit for being able to read and form some opinion of what is really afoot here.
Appears a redundent request. The military already has the legal authority (with presidential directive) to defend the nation from extranational invasion.
I suspect the fuss is the interpretation that Ridge intends troops garrisoned on US soil to affect control of the civil population.
That is a possibility but before we all jump ship I suggest we ask 43 to better define his intentions.
The problem is that there are not enough police to do it all - borders, reservoirs, refineries, canals, power grids, dams, nuclear power generators, et al.
The reason this law change is needed is so the National Guard will not have to walk around with empty rifles, as they now have to do because of the posse comitatus law.
Like "checkpoints" for weapons searches.
If you think a guardsman standing behind a "federalized" (read: "unionized") airport screener, in plain view with a rifle (unloaded or not) is any more than fluf to make the 80 year old ladies feel secure before their strip search then you are truly clueless..
There are not enough US troops to secure all these potential targets either (unless they are brought home from most of the countries they are in-- something the current administration is unwilling to do). So they will have to be foreign troops.
The reason this law change is needed is so the National Guard will not have to walk around with empty rifles, as they now have to do because of the posse comitatus law.
It is my understanding that the Guard had loaded weapons at most airports, when they were there.
Ridge has his head up his butt. The military already has all the authority it needs to defend our borders just like General Black Jack Pershing did.
Lived in Brasil (a republican democracy) for two years in the 1980s. A "checkpoint" every 25 to 100 kilometers on the major highways.
Mixed emotions. Felt powerless with regard to civil rights; felt comfort for the increased security.
I was stopped at a roadblock the other day, four policemen, stopping all traffic both ways, "TO SEE IF I WAS WEARING MY SEATBELT". I had to produce a drivers licence, have my plates checked and they checked inside the backseat. They said it was for my own protection. This was from civil police, looking out for me, bless em. From little seeds a big tree grows.
Amen to that! But nothing scares these socialists and their wannabe-cradle-to-grave-teat-sucking constituents more than that horrific four letter word you so brazenly uttered...
FREE!
Wrong. There is nothing preventing the National Guard from being armed with loaded weapons. That is a policy not a law. It started after Kent State and for some stupid reason just continued.
The implementation of checkpoints on roads that we Americans paid for, constitutes "the line" for a lot of patriots.
Well, in addition to common sense.
It's my feeling that deployment of the Guard in the airports was nothign more than high profile fluff to make people feel secure.
They were completely unnecessary and it truly was a clintonian display of symbolism over substance.
(Also, yes.. I think at least some did have ammunition. I seem to remember seeing a story here on one who shot himself in the bottocks while "on patrol" Imagine, these are our saviors!)
Just wait until the foreign troops start doing that task.
Before the thread is up, you'll see references to the New World Order and the STASI as well as mention of the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs and a thousand other bogeymen -- real or imagined -- that bear no weight whatsoever on this issue.
Interesting, isn't it, that we'd managed to survive from 1787-1878 without a Posse Comitatus act? I wonder what was in place then.
Oh, and for anyone who thinks we're all doomed, please send me all of your money and cool electronics. Contact me by Freepmail to find out how to get it to me.
In response to your other comment, the National Guard did not walk around with unloaded weapons (at least not around here) - one of them managed to shoot himself while attempting to clear his sidearm after a patrol.
-SV
Hark!!!!! Is that the sound of your jackboots I hear???
Tell you what. I'll support of a repeal of the Posse Comitatus act if every other federal law passed since 1878 is repealed also.
Can't do it. They have no right to conduct any type of search. I got stopped last week as well for the same thing. The moment the officer asked me for my driver’s license, I told him here you go officer, but I oppose any form of search. When he asked why? I told him how about the rule of law. He just stared sharply at me and handed me my license back.
These check points are getting out of control. They do almost nothing in arrests.
That will be part of the pretense for bringing in the foreign troops.
The checking was a visual check. I was driving so I thot it odd they look in backseat for my seatbelt. It was a shakedown, pure and simple for whatever they might turn up, the "law" for my security mind you, gave them the pretext to stop me. I suspicion that had I had something of interest in the backseat, they would have "asked" permission to search.
-SV
It has now been pointed out to you that there already exist several ways (under current law) to call in the military when needed, ergo; Presidential directive or by the directive of any states Governor, not to mention the role the FBI and Federal Marshalls of the DOJ play in such situations, and yet you insist that we need to 'deputize the military' in the name of 'national security'. You yourself say there are not enough police, military etc. to even patrol our borders adequately yet you persist in the notion that giving arrest and shoot to kill authority to the National Guard and other military would somehow make safe the thousands of dams, thousands of power sources like utility companies and refineries, tens of thousands of bridges and hundreds of thousands of miles of highways, to name just a very few potential targets. That logic just doesn't add up.
The terrorists can count you as a victim. You're apparently terrified. Frankly four hi-jacked planes and five or less envelopes with a little anthrax, which may have come from some nut case not a terrorist, hasn't got me ready to shave my head get a tattoo and a micro-chip yet.
This is scary.
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.