Posted on 06/04/2012 2:42:54 PM PDT by Nachum
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposes that the U.S. Army be used to plan, command, and carry out (with the help of civilian law enforcement) domestic police missions. So says a story appearing in the May/June issue of the influential organization’s official journal, Foreign Affairs. The article lacks a single reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits such actions. In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
My point is that sometimes people react to something like it is new and therefore sinister.
A perfect example is the banning of troops carrying weapons while on base unless specifically instructed to do so, which contributed to the Ft. Hood debacle. This was portrayed around here as a Clinton initiative to make the troops more vulnerable.
In actual fact I believe this has always been the case in the military. Officers kept control of arms except during actual training or combat. Officers were supposed to be armed at all times, which was one of the main distinguishing marks of an officer versus other ranks.
Try reading more from the Constitution before quoting from it.
The Militia, according to the Constitution, consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40. The Militia consists of the PEOPLE, not Federal troops.
The Federal military forces are highly-trained to take orders from the President. A Militia would consist of people from local areas who would be highly unlikely to follow orders to shoot their neighbors if so ordered. I would rather the Militias be mustered than Federal troops be permitted into an area.
There's a lot of talk about law enforcement being overwhelmed, National Guard, etc. These are issues for the States. The Federal government needs to be invited into a State to assist. They should NOT just have to the right to mosey on in whenever they see fit.
There's a lot of saber-rattling from DC. I hope the Governors, esp. those in the South, are paying attention and are unwilling to assent to a Federal takeover. I would fight for my State of Florida if so ordered, but I would NEVER fight for Obama.
I did, actually.
The Militia, according to the Constitution, consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40. The Militia consists of the PEOPLE, not Federal troops.
Of course it includes Federal Troops; or are you going to assert that they are not [part of] "the people"? Or perhaps that the Constitution does not apply to them?
The issue is a simply that of understanding sets & subsets.
The Federal military forces are highly-trained to take orders from the President. A Militia would consist of people from local areas who would be highly unlikely to follow orders to shoot their neighbors if so ordered. I would rather the Militias be mustered than Federal troops be permitted into an area.
Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that the federal troops ARE a portion of the people; furthermore, like you said they are trained/and equipped, given the Constitution's "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"-clause it is obvious that this can only be the case if the federal troops are those "employed in the Service of the United States".
There's a lot of talk about law enforcement being overwhelmed, National Guard, etc. These are issues for the States.
Agreed.
The Federal government needs to be invited into a State to assist.
Untrue, Art 4, Sec 4 is not optional:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.(Of course the above is routinely ignored in the case of invasion by illegal immigrants.)
Furthermore, in art 1, sec 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
How much do you want to bet that an organized and armed resistance to federal overreach would "officially" qualify as Insurrections?
They should NOT just have to the right to mosey on in whenever they see fit.
They don't have the right; they have the power.
(As the Constitution delegates powers; rights are an attribute of a person. This minor point is however totally irrelevant to those who embrace a "might makes right" philosophy.)
I hope the Governors, esp. those in the South, are paying attention and are unwilling to assent to a Federal takeover. I would fight for my State of Florida if so ordered, but I would NEVER fight for Obama.
I hear what you are saying; it would be good if governors would make a stand. However, they are likely very afraid of the political ramifications if they use their powers, fearing a backlash from both the people* and the federal government.
Obama is [tangentially] one of the reasons I got out after 9 years enlisted in the Guard. I was saying how the Constitution mandated an NBC it would fall upon the Army to remove him from office should he not qualify (NBC clause); I wasn't entirely sure he wasn't an NBC then, but a sergeant basically yelled at me that I was wrong (i.e. that the oath to support & defend the Constitution was not operative.)... that combined with political promotions, which obviously I didn't qualify for.
* -- Especially conservatives: "I have a job; I have to [go to] work man!"
” In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe ...”
Blah....blah...blah. Remove the traitorous POTUS first, and I’ll sign on : )
Nothing at all sudden about it. This is exactly the sort of "crisis" that CFR has always hoped will jump start one of their "Do-Boys" in the Oval Office onto the throne of tyranny. This scenario is a wet dream for them. Of course they'd much prefer that this country be unilaterally DISARMED first, but if it's got to be done the hard way, it's okay with them. After all, it's not their blood that will be staining the streets red. It's going to be ours.
First, thank for your commitment to this country. I apologize if I insulted you or your service.
My meaning was more that, while yes they comprise “The People,” they take orders from a Federal entity. It is their job to do so.
Second, they are provided to protect against invasion. This article plainly discusses their use in police actions. How this is Constitutional is beyond me.
This garbage recently where they handcuffed a bunch of drivers at an intersection to search for bank robbery suspects was a test-bed, in my opinion, to see how far the police state can stretch its legs without having too much push back from people. You change the enforcers from law enforcement to military with tanks and explosives, and you’re essentially permitting the imprisonment of the People BY the People (read: the military) for any purpose north of simple shoplifting, and even that might turn out the same way.
The Federal government’s purpose should be to protect the several States from incursion on the outside or insurrection from within barring peaceful insurrection at the ballot box. You start putting armed troops at polling stations and riding around conducting “checks” of cars or homes, and we’ve officially permitted Soviet Russia right in the front door with little more than a smile, a nod, and the simple question of “Will American Idol still be on Fox?”
You did not; I'm just having a bit of a depressive point in life (unemployed, no "vision", no [felt] accomplishments, etc) and almost regretful of my service: I'm not exactly "standard-issue" and doubt that my service had much lasting impact, especially my idealistic side.
Second, they are provided to protect against invasion. This article plainly discusses their use in police actions. How this is Constitutional is beyond me.
And insurrection. I have little doubt that should the armed forces be used against the general population, especially if it is only a few localities, that it will be considered insurrection and that the resultant deaths [and mistreatments] will be, like Fast and Furious, "rough spots"/"botches" in the operation.
This garbage recently where they handcuffed a bunch of drivers at an intersection to search for bank robbery suspects was a test-bed, in my opinion, to see how far the police state can stretch its legs without having too much push back from people.
Agreed. However, let up flip things around a bit: what would your reaction be if someone stepped up with say a PS-90 (50-round mag, semi-auto) and killed the police that were present? (Let's assume that he got gunned down because he was outnumbered.) Now let's change that assumption and assume that God was watching out for him and he survived without a scratch, later to claim that he was protecting his fellow-citizens and the Constitution from domestic enemies; how would you react then?
How would the general public react? (Let's ridiculously assume that the media didn't spin/edit it when presenting it.)
Therein lies the problem: the philosophy that any reaction against those in authority is wrong. (And the corollary that those in authority earned it and thus deserve respect.)
You change the enforcers from law enforcement to military with tanks and explosives, and you’re essentially permitting the imprisonment of the People BY the People (read: the military) for any purpose north of simple shoplifting, and even that might turn out the same way.
There is little to no difference between the police and military right now aside 1) uniform, and 2) possible deployment overseas. The police have already been militarized.
The Federal government’s purpose should be to protect the several States from incursion on the outside or insurrection from within barring peaceful insurrection at the ballot box.
You're making the mistake that authority = legitimate, that insurrection /= legitimate.
I think TN's Constitution says it well, Art 1, § 2:
Doctrine of non-resistance
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
You start putting armed troops at polling stations and riding around conducting “checks” of cars or homes, and we’ve officially permitted Soviet Russia right in the front door with little more than a smile, a nod, and the simple question of “Will American Idol still be on Fox?”
We already experienced that; don't you remember the New Black Panther/Philadelphia polling-place incident.
We’re on the same page, Shark. I have no doubt that we would have quite the conversation over a brew.
As far as your situation, let me offer you this: I was unemployed recently for close to 6 months. I had been “on the wagon” and alcohol-free for 2 years prior to losing my job, but I fell hard off that wagon and was so despondent as to be unable to get out of bed most mornings.
I was regretful of my education, my job experience. I was feeling like how I envision most Liberals feel on the daily basis. I wanted to be a “titty baby,” as my fiancee calls it, and wanted to be coddled.
When I watched the news on a daily basis and spent the days trolling FR, it lit a fire in me to get up, get out, get motivated, and get employed. My tax dollars may go to supporting these idiots, but when the SHTF, I’ll be better armed, better prepared, and better off than any of their stinky asses.
Your service to our country is honorable, and I, for one, am proud to know you. Please keep your chin up and remember there are men and women out there working for you and with. You are in my prayers.
“NWO. We’ve been headed this way since 1989. The ‘R’ and the ‘D’ are just for decoration.”
Agreed. The masses are being conditioned to squabble over what are relatively mundane fine points put forth by politicians and pundits. Each side stakes out their pet issues so that there is something to argue about and to differentiate the two.
The real purpose is to prevent the sheep from shining their spotlight on our entire corrupted system. The masters of globalism are driving the loss of our sovereignty, Treasury, Bill of Rights and freedoms. They are being quickly eroded by the same string pullers of both sides. It is an orchestrated sham and in the end we the people will have nothing (including our Bill of Rights) while the few will have it all including our firearms.
We need to think beyond the either/or of the red and blue, and consider what is happening to the red ,white, and blue.
They’ve been massaging this for years now...Slipping little pieces of it under the tent flap for a long time...
We can take care of it when (and if) the time comes...No problemo...
Fortune favors the prepared, and fools like me I suppose...hehe
Odierno Name Meaning
Italian: from the personal name Odierno, which is of uncertain origin, perhaps a nickname from Latin hodiernus ‘of today’, i.e. ‘transient’ or ‘ephemeral’.
Please. The Constitution which we follow, even if they do not, prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishments.
Cruel or unusual, take your pick.
Of course, if they suspend or abrogate any of the other Constitutional provisions, all bets are off. And remember:
Constitution for the United States, Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...
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.