Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:08:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Okay, gang. Be ready to invest in tin foil futures. This is definitely not normal - not for our times, not for anybody's times.


From the Long Island Press:


Quote:
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”



Quote:
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”


What does this mean to you? To me, it means just another infringement. It means just another power taken by the federal government that will never be rescinded. This power may never be used, or some general somewhere may decide the time is right to stage a coup, using these powers as his means of effecting change.

After all, twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University. (link)

Opinions?

Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:22:46 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,392
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
Okay, gang. Be ready to invest in tin foil futures. This is definitely not normal - not for our times, not for anybody's times.


From the Long Island Press:

Opinions?


It's just one more step on the road to Fascism that international corporations have been trying to get us down since the thirties. It's probably an indication that they won't be keeping up the pretence of self government much longer.
Jack_42
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:52:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
There is only one answer to this - printable nuclear ICBM's downloaded to each household thus creating a Mexican stand off and the naughty blue meanies would have to back down.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:28:44 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
First sentence that comes to mind is "You did it yourself". Allowing media to hype the vulnerabilities of society and actually voting for people who will go for this shit and believing it has already made you into a rather restricted country. All the Bush administration had to do was say "This law will help prevent terrorism" and suddenly everyone was for it. In the interest of "national security". Maybe if you stopped believing the media hype and actually were more critical about some actions of your elected officials you wouldn't be in this mess. You spend too much time wailing and crying over what is essentially not that big a deal, and things like this gets passed in silence.

Why isn't the opposition(republicans) yelling out against this? Aren't they the ones constantly bitching about how liberties are being removed and so forth? Or is this maybe just their way of building a smoke screen? People rage over anything that even relates to the 2nd ammendment, and in the meantime, the senate and the congress do what they want, because you're too preoccupied with believing that taking away some guns and restricting who gets them is an infringement on your rights, when in reality the ruckus they cause is just a smokescreen to keep people busy. If republicans are so against a strong federal government, why isn't there a strong republican front against this issue?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
CleverFox
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:32:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
To me this means we need to fight this now in congress and with the president. If it comes to an armed rebellion because the military has decided to take over the country it is too late. All of the arms stockpiled by the self-appointed militias won't make a rat's ass difference. The resistance in that case would be guerralla at best.

Now you can ask me if I would march to the gas chamber voluntarily and I would say "No!" But if it comes to a physical fight with the US military I can assure the gas chamber will be dropped on you from the sky and the military wouldn't be all that concerned about collateral damage.
Guest
Posted: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:10:19 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
The Obama Administration is working hard on making this a police state. Look at what he did in FA sending DOJ officers to help the so called demonstrators with "protection". It wasn't their business nor was it Obama's. He can stick his nose in local things and try to create racist and class and sex warfare to divide the people but when it comes to things he is suppose to take responsibility for he and his Chicago gangsters all come out with the same thing. "I don't know anything about that." The man is now out campaigning, the only thing he knows how to do. He can run for office, but doesn't know how to run the office.

If you have noticed the military is being reduced and forced to take on actions that the Administration is pushing. Obama said in 2008 that he planned to bring the mlitary of the U. S. down to a level where it would no longer be feared by his brothers in the Middle East. Did you know that they now have a Morals Police in the Navy? That they kicked out thousands of trained petty officers and then put out a noticce that they were short handed and needed to recruit? It isn't the miltary, but those who command it and that command comes from the Commander in Chief and the top Civilians, Generals and Admirals that have been hand picked to be his puppets. This country has never had to fear our own miltiary, but we now have to fear the people who lead us. They own the media, control us with their state police (the IRS and NSA) and our freedoms as stated are being taken from us, they create a state religion where we have to believe in our Beloved One and that he can do no wrong and if he does and even admits it one day, the next day he sends out his puppets and says "everything is made up" and we are to put our heads in the sand and say "Our Ceasar is God." Anyone who says anything against him is attacked by his Religious Cult followers who want to burn us at the stake.

Our far left (commies) and far right (progressives) have all stated that they believe dictatorship type of governements like in China, Russia and the Middle East and South America where a hand full (who think they are royalty) control the many is what we need and not the Constitution (which they say is outdated) and taking control of the military for the first time in our history as a police arm is part of their agenda.

Our military is made up of Americans and today it is made up of volunteers only, people who belive strongly in the American way of life and the Constitution. The military people are the best in the nation and we all agree to that. So it isn't the military arm as in the countries that the left and nazi progressives desire, but if we don't put the brakes on the Administration who knows what will happen in the future.
Monocle
Posted: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:22:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
ScottFord, I haven't seen better delusional ranting outside of Fox News all week. Bravo.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:31:56 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
Scott Ford is so not ready for prime time. I gotta say...I've never seen anyone call the far right "progressive". And calling the far left commies is so....1960's. you left out bleeding heart liberals, Scott. I think there is a spot reserved for you in Gilberton, Pennsylvania with Police Chief Kessler, Scott. And let me remind you, Obama is not the one who crammed the Patriot Act down our throats. Another thing...on Obama out "campaigning"...if you had a congress that is on track to be the worst in history, worse than the 1940's congress which was the worst do-nothing congress in our history...what would you do? Obama wants Americans to get off their asses and get involved and the right just can't stand that idea. One last thing, Scott, if you want to be taken seriously...throw away the Fox talking points rhetoric. Be original with your thoughts.

As for MrNudiePants topic...we lost our country a long time ago. I think one of our biggest mistakes was to allow citizens the right to become Professional Politicians. I don't think that was the original intention. But we allowed it and look at the government they have created. They rammed the Patriot Act down our throats and they laughed at Michael Moore when he hi-jacked an ice cream truck and drove around reading the act by ice cream truck bull horn in Washington D.C. Now these politicians are saying "Ooops' and giggling like Beavis and Butthead.
We do live in a military state. The America my parents lived in and the America they taught us in school is long gone. So why wouldn't all these changes flow upwards to the highest offices of in the land?
These guys are the ones who created it.
Furthermore...my guy Obama lied to us with his campaigning promises of 2008! I expected him to go after Bush for lying to Americans about Iraq. And now we have the NSA who is spying on us in such a way that the Obama administration refuses to release just what they are doing TO SENATORS who are requesting this info. Obama's domestic drone operation....I could go on and on. Look at what a lot of Republican state politicians are doing...they run on certain issues and once elected...they abandon those issues and blindside the people with legislation that was never even talked about. I give you Scott Walker, John Kasich, and now the Gov. of N.C., who campaigned saying he would NOT change abortion laws if elected and went ahead and did just that a week ago.
Remember how the last election was all about jobs? No jobs bills bills are even being discussed. But the Republicans have the time to submit 634 bills on womens bodies in 2013. YES! 634 bills introduced in congress so far this year regulating womens bodies and not one jobs bill.
But for the most simple proof of a military policing state I submit this You Tube video. In the last minute of this video the woman describes how she was violated by a female cop in the street. These cops knew what they were doing, knew what they were going to do and did it. At the end of the video is more atrocious You Tube selections on this subject.



This isn't the same America. And it's only going to get worse.
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:48:28 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,832
Location: Atlanta, United States
Term Limits! The Democrats don't support it and the GOP doesn't support it. If you want to get the professional politicians out, we need term limits. Not only that but we need to abolish the professional lobbyist system and make it illegal for politicians to receive gifts from them. Don't expect your congressman/congresswoman or senator to support those ideas. A very few play lip service to those ideas but I doubt they'd ever back it up with action.

KristinD is right about Obama. He is just another George W. Bush. He was once the most outspoken opponent of the Patriot Act in the Senate, now he relishes in the power it gives him.

Government power over us grows stronger each year.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
— Thomas Jefferson




Monocle
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:28:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
Lobbying restrictions? I'm all for that. And permanent ban on former officerholders joining lobbying firms. Term limits, meh. It'll just shift the problem. Less experience in office, more unelected advisers pulling the strings.

Equating Obama with Bush is to be woefully forgetful of the first 8 years of this century.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:38:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I'm not finding it difficult to avoid all the military checkpoints and black helicopters that are supposedly flying around, but it's hard not be affected by the economic consequences of too much federal government. Everybody blamed GWB for not riding into New Orleans on a Jet Ski with million of troops in the eye of Hurricane Katrina when the Louisiana Governor sat on her thumbs and didn't authorize federal entry. Those chickens sure came home to roost.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:50:13 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,832
Location: Atlanta, United States
Monocle wrote:
Lobbying restrictions? I'm all for that. And permanent ban on former officerholders joining lobbying firms. Term limits, meh. It'll just shift the problem. Less experience in office, more unelected advisers pulling the strings.

Equating Obama with Bush is to be woefully forgetful of the first 8 years of this century.


I agree with you on banning former office holders from lobbying firms, but disagree that term limits will just shift the problem. It would greatly curb the corruption, though it would not totally eliminate it. Making it as easy to fire incompetent and corrupt government workers and appointees as it is workers in the private sector would be a great start.

I well remember the first 8 years of this century. I have no problem equating the two. I just hope we recover from the two.

Lobbying in Washington, D.C. is like a great cancer in our political system for sure.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.