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.

[NetValue]

Ok. 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?

This says that you are not completely aginst using the military domestically.

[Mulder]

Bush better refute this one real quick as it will be another nail in his re-election coffin. He better disown this bastard child real quick. Even better take Ridge to the woodshed or fire the man.

Bush hasn't a clue. I doubt he has even read the US Constitution. He certainly holds no allegiance to it, based on his actions in office.

He is simply a puppet for the NWO tyrants.

[Jhoffa_]

WHAT? WHAT?

You don't trust the military? this is "war" you know.. You bunch of liberal pansies. It's us or the enemy. Dubya can be trusted with these powers, he's our king! If you aren't a terrorist, then you have nothing to fear! We all have to give up some "liberties" to be safe you know!

(/Devils Advocate)

I am amazed at the short sightedness in the shadow of 9/11..

It's shocking.

[cynicom]

Net...

Securing our national borders is already in the constitution. That does not give them arrest powers at large at someone elses discretion.

[Jhoffa_]

This says that you are not completely aginst using the military domestically.

Not against American citizens.. That's the difference.

[Semper911]

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...

It is because of that century-old "tradition" that the U.S. Coast Guard was never made a part of the DoD. The USCG is the only part of the US Armed Forces that has law enforcement powers in the US.

And it damn well better stay that way. Anything else is martial law.

[dalereed]

"Even better take Ridge to the woodshed or fire the man."

Tie him up, put him in the wood shed, and then burn it down!

[virgil]

The term "Dept of Homeland Security" implies they should have special domestic powers. I don't want this department that will probably become another bloated bureaucratic agency. Its a bad idea.

[cynicom]

Mulder...

Old man Bush said it first and not enough people were listening. At the time, I wondered what he knew that I did not. Now I know. Our government is expanding in power and depth by leaps and bounds, all in the name of security. Beware, that is what Hitler promised his people as he guided their neck into the noose.

[Mulder]

Ok. 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?

Border and coastal security is a legitimate use of the military, since it defends against foreign invasions. The military has been routinely used throughout American history for frontier security.

As to the Guard in the airports, most of us realized it for the joke that it was, and therefore opposed it.

[Jhoffa_]

Tie him up, put him in the wood shed, and then burn it down!

LOL!

[saltlick]

The bigger picture is coming into focus-- the first bells went off at the astounding rate at which news outlets released polls showing Americans were willing to give up freedoms for security. The releasing of those polls seemed premature given the urgency of the events at the time (>3000 lives lost, Pentagon attacked, President flying all over the place, people are not sure what's going on,and the media are reporting on POLLS??)

[bok]

Department of Homeland Siegcurity reichstag. we will arrest you but we will not bother doing it to illegal aliens, they will become our obedient government servants.

[cynicom]

Mulder...

If tomorrow, Bush does not refute this idea, we will know full well that Ridge and his cohorts were acting with full freedom from Bush.

[Jhoffa_]

The bigger picture is coming into focus-- the first bells went off at the astounding rate at which news outlets released polls showing Americans were willing to give up freedoms for security.

Sure enough.. It was like a mass advertisment for tyrants to come saying: "Hey, you wanna be the next Hitler? Just scare everyone silly for a few days.. Here, look at the way they reacted after the WTC attack!"

We are setting a bad, bad precedent that is going to come back to bite us eventually.

We are openly admitting that when FEDGOV screws up that we will respond not by taking them to task, but by rolling over and surrendering our "liberties" so they can have a second chance at keeping us "safe"

A whole bunch of people have lost their right to tease the French since 9/11, imo..

[AAABEST]

Your #3 is right on the money. Ridge is a fat-faced "right to 'choose'" RINO trying to make a name for himself.

Instead of sealing our borders and expelling the real enemy, these morons are turning our country upside down to protect us from ourselves.

By the time these people are done with us, we'll all be broke and living in a quasi National Socialist state.

[NetValue]

Some Islamic militant terrorists in the US are US citizens. Do you think they aren't here already?

[Kerberos]

” Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders?”

Because that is a function of our military, to protect our boarders from external threats. Which incidentally is not happening. And the military’s weapons should be pointed at everything on the outside of the boarder. There should be no police involvement in protecting our boarders; the police are for maintaining the peace internally.

” Or the Coast Guard in our ports?”

Again, because that is a function of the Coast Guard, to protect our seaboard and ports from external threats.

Or the National Guardsmen at the airports?

And I don’t necessarily support using troops to maintain our airports. It’s highest and best use, as a function, would seem to be getting the public accustom to having a military presence around them, particularly in light of the fact that they don’t have ammunition in their weapons.