Permanent homeland military ops

[memebag]

Per their website:

Yeah, I read their website. Not convincing. Why do you think we need this brigade assigned to NORTHCOM?

I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act. Again, are you opposed to the laws that limit our government's use of military force against its own people?

[TJones]

And I don't understand why anybody isn't at least a little concerned about this. It's the first time an active US combat unit has been assigned to the US. We trained them to kill foreign soldiers. Why are they here?

Because the "foreign soldiers" are in our country now meme. You and your buddies here tell everyone to "wake up". Practice what you guys are preaching. Crunch, why so much concern, are you afraid that you are on the "Gestapo List" ? Trust me, they aren't looking to lock up you and me, and the rest of our pot smoking brethern. They want the guys with a Muhammed or an Ali or a Sanchez and Rodriguez in their name. If you feel you are in danger of getting caught for something illegal you are doing, then quit doing illegal things. What I find MOST surprising is Red's take on the whole thing, seeing as how he is a BIG part of the system that seems to be part of all of y'all's problems. I am depending on Red to keep all of you and I safe at night. The Army brigade would need someone like Red if search and seizure parties became a daily occurance. Can anyone here show one instance, where this brigade is doing smash and grab raids on LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country?

BTW, macbro, Zeitgeist is NOT real. It is however very entertaining.

[memebag]

Because the "foreign soldiers" are in our country now meme.

No they aren't. The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

[Mark F. Barnes]

When all things are good, and the going is great, some people sit around and delicate flower about the "establishment" and how the Justice System is so screwed up. Sure it has it's issues, but hey when your ass get mugged or your house gets robbed, the justice system is your daddy then.

I not sure about the source of this scare mongering, is it the fact that they are training for Urban warfare? I got news for you, that's nothing new. Is it the fact that they want to have troops stationed at home, just in case there is an issue? I don't foresee any Humvees rolling down the streets, unless something breaks out domestically, and then you want them there. Just sounds like more of the same to me.

And I have news for anybody, The FBI, the NSA, and the CIA have files on everyone of you. If you have a social security card, you have a file and a number assigned already. You might not have much in it, but it's there. Some more than most. So get over it.

[TJones]

No they aren't. The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

You want to split hairs?

Now I see where the problem lies with you folks. You only want to accept things in black and white, no shades of gray.

Unfortuantely, our enemies don't parade around like this.

or like this...

or like this...

When they are in our country, they try to assimilate.

[memebag]

You want to split hairs?

The Bush administration split that hair, not me. If you don't like that distinction, take it up with Cheney and his crew.

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

Why are all of you right wingers so opposed to the rule of law?

[TJones]

The Bush administration split that hair, not me. If you don't like that distinction, take it up with Cheney and his crew.

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

Why are all of you right wingers so opposed to the rule of law?

"Right winger" ? Moi ? Hardly, my Atheist friend. Military is in place to defend against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. The Domestic ones don't proudly wear their towels on their heads as they would in say Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan. You trying to say that Insurgents wear uniforms. The terrorists of 9/11 wore rank and file uniforms ? Maybe the fake Versace shirts or perhaps the cheap off the rack suit from the local Men's Wearhouse is the uniform of choice for these domestic soldiers ?

If you still beleive that there AREN'T any foreign soldiers here in America then you have your head buried in the sand far deeper than any backhoe could get it out of.

[TheNiche]

Yeah, I read their website. Not convincing. Why do you think we need this brigade assigned to NORTHCOM?

I honestly don't know. But I do know that it isn't a particularly big deal. Not enough troops to be a big deal.

I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act. Again, are you opposed to the laws that limit our government's use of military force against its own people?

If he's violating the law, he needs to be prosecuted. Moreover, I cannot answer such a broad question as you have posed. I'm sure that there are special situations where I would think that it was OK to use military force against our own people...for instance if they are enemy combatants.

[editor]

I also read Bush's signing statement where he said he will ignore the repeal of the law that modified the Posse Comitatus Act.

[Citation needed]

The Bush administration says you have to be in uniform to be a soldier.

[Citation needed]

If we have foreign soldiers on US soil then Guantanamo is violating the Geneva Convention.

[Citation needed]

[memebag]

Well that's easy.

[Citation needed]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitat...islative_events:

President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into LawToday, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 28, 2008

[Citation needed]

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030507-18.html:

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Citation needed]

See above.

You were really unaware of these events?

I honestly don't know. But I do know that it isn't a particularly big deal. Not enough troops to be a big deal.

How many would be enough?

If he's violating the law, he needs to be prosecuted. Moreover, I cannot answer such a broad question as you have posed. I'm sure that there are special situations where I would think that it was OK to use military force against our own people...for instance if they are enemy combatants.

Do you mean like the special situations already spelled out in the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection acts?

"Right winger" ? Moi ? Hardly, my Atheist friend.

You say that, but you sign your posts with a picture of Obama and Karl Marx. Cognitive dissonance much?

If you still beleive that there AREN'T any foreign soldiers here in America then you have your head buried in the sand far deeper than any backhoe could get it out of.

Who said I believed that?

[editor]

You were really unaware of these events?

Not unaware. But HAIF, and the internet in general, would be more useful if people provided sources when they make certain types of claims. I can't patrol the wider internet, but I can make my little corner more informative.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Please conspiracy theorists unite! I just don't see the big deal, maybe my head is in the sand and I don't know it. Could it be just the rose colored glasses. If they want to assign troops domestically for key assignments, call it strategy, not tragedy. I'd rather them here than over there. Our homeland security, despite the billions we've pored into it, is really still almost a joke. Sure they've slowed down boarding the planes and getting checked in, but our borders are still wide open. I'm still not seeing the threat of Humvees patrolling our neighborhoods anytime soon. NORTHCOM? You are referring to Northern Command I assume. They don't amount to nearly squat, what is the big deal there. Don't they just support our civil organizations? It's not like they don't need it. They came down for Ike I am pretty sure. Didn't hear ant bitching about that.

I guess I just don't get it.

[editor]

The total number of active + reserve military in the United States is 2.2 million. Considering that a certain percentage of that (20% maybe?) has to provide support services, it's not even enough troops to secure New England, let alone the entire country.

I don't think there will be Humvees rolling down anyone's streets anytime soon.

[TheNiche]

The total number of active + reserve military in the United States is 2.2 million. Considering that a certain percentage of that (20% maybe?) has to provide support services, it's not even enough troops to secure New England, let alone the entire country.

I don't think there will be Humvees rolling down anyone's streets anytime soon.

I seem to recall from years ago that the ratio was eight combat support or combat service support personnel for every one member of the combat arms. Given the move toward having more civilian contractors, the ratio is probably somewhat lower now. ...all the same.

[N Judah]

We have the National Guard and the Coast Guard for hurricanes and other events. It's always been that way. Are you saying they're not good enough?

Homeland security *is* a joke and so is the idea that the army can protect us from terrorists here. Anybody who wants to hit us can. Same with Europe. I know it's been a while, but surely everyone remembers that the original reason *we* went over *there* is because that is the easiest way to keep *them* from coming *here*. Killing bin Laden is proactive...but by the time an army soldier in front of a building in an American city notices the building blowing up then it is far too late.

Anyway the article's emphasis on crowd control says it all. There's no doubt in my mind that's what this is all about.

[TJones]

Who said I believed that?

Ummm, you did, when you said only our country's enemies soldiers wear uniforms. So, using that logic, you think the Taliban and Al-Queda are not our enemies because they don't have chevrons on their turbans, is that right ?

If you would read what you print, you would see that Al-Queda does not fall under Geneva convention, because they don't meet all the requirements, so how can the world law be broken ? Besides, you think Al Queda even abides under the Geneva convention or for that matter, ANY form of law other than Muslim law? They only heard about Geneva because some ACLU lawyers went crying about their civil rights being violated, which they aren't.

Judah, I agree with you. I will take a CoastGuard to get me out of the water if my boat tumped over in a storm, over a Navy Seal, anyday.

Crunch, what would you have our Govt. do with our Military, once we bring all our young men and women home ? I much prefer them to be on the borders or working airports and our marine ports. Protecting something, not just sitting around on base, waiting for something to happen.

[memebag]

Ummm, you did, when you said only our country's enemies soldiers wear uniforms.

I said that's what the Bush administration said.

[TJones]

I said that's what the Bush administration said.

You took that part to heart, yet you conveniently left out the fact that there are provisions for AlQueda and Taliban combatants ? Why is that meme ? So, not all Foreign soldiers on U.S. soil wear a "standard uniform" even under a Bush Doctrine, isn't that correct ?

[editor]

Seaports. That's a good idea. They're huge targets and woefully underprotected. Let's put the military there.

[memebag]

You took that part to heart, yet you conveniently left out the fact that there are provisions for AlQueda and Taliban combatants ? Why is that meme ? So, not all Foreign soldiers on U.S. soil wear a "standard uniform" even under a Bush Doctrine, isn't that correct ?

Nope. Bush says if they aren't wearing a uniform then they aren't a soldier. That's what he said, and that's what I've repeated here. If you have some other information about the Bush administrations position on this, please share it.

[editor]

Let's get back on topic.

[TJones]

Nope. Bush says if they aren't wearing a uniform then they aren't a soldier. That's what he said, and that's what I've repeated here. If you have some other information about the Bush administrations position on this, please share it.

It's all right there in the links you provided. Thanks.

and I quote...."Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty. "

There are 4 criterias that have to be met. A uniform is ONE of the four, you keep omitting the rest to fit your skewed view.

Taliban and AlQueda soldiers "uniforms" would be , whatever the clothes on their backs are.

Seaports. That's a good idea. They're huge targets and woefully underprotected. Let's put the military there.

THanks Editor.

[Mark F. Barnes]

If people only knew how wide open the container import system was, it would scare them.

[editor]

Reminds me of this:

[N Judah]

While researching the bailout I actually found a mention of this.

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/10/03/us-d...urrency-crisis/

[crunchtastic]

While researching the bailout I actually found a mention of this.

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/10/03/us-d...urrency-crisis/

Hmm. I don't disagree.

I'm still buying gold.

[TJones]

Hmm. I don't disagree.

I'm still buying gold.

Crunch, you were acting like you didn't have 2 nickels to rub together a few days ago. No you're buying GOLD ?!?

Man, I wish I had your "money troubles".

[Montrose1100]

Isn't that what Riot Control, SWAT, and the Police are for? National Guard?

[dbigtex56]

But a few pissed off Muslims killed a lot of folks.

I guess the folks killed by good Christians don't matter (i.e., Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Unabomber, the compound at Waco, ad nauseam....)

Frankly it strikes me odd that there's so few pissed off Muslims; apparently, only 20 or so, most of whom were killed on 9/11.

However, it provides a perfect excuse to put a noose, loosely, around our necks "for our own protection", and a trap door under our feet "for our convenience".

[TheNiche]

I guess the folks killed by good Christians don't matter (i.e., Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Unabomber, the compound at Waco, ad nauseam....)

However, it provides a perfect excuse to put a noose, loosely, around our necks "for our own protection", and a trap door under our feet "for our convenience".

It doesn't really seem like these troops are going to be used in sweeping counterterrorist operations--and if they were, it would seem like there might be some jurisdictional conflicts with other federal law enforcement organizations. But once again, I would remind you that the small number of troops being allocated to this brigade are pitifully inadequate cause for alarm as it might pertain to the enactment of marshall law or some kind of systematic repression of civil rights.

Frankly it strikes me odd that there's so few pissed off Muslims; apparently, only 20 or so, most of whom were killed on 9/11.

There are way more. Luckily one of the unintended consequences of our foreign wars is that they seem to act like flypaper for pissed off Muslims.