December 3, 200817 yr By 2011 to help fight terrorism. This should get a few of you riled up. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/565
December 3, 200817 yr By 2011 to help fight terrorism. This should get a few of you riled up. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/565 What's your take on it?
December 3, 200817 yr This has the potential to be very VERY bad and I don't think I am alone in thinking that.
December 3, 200817 yr This has the potential to be very VERY bad and I don't think I am alone in thinking that. How so, Pep?
December 3, 200817 yr The question that logically springs to mind is: "Why not bring the National Guard home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. so that they will be available for deployment in emergencies by the state governors, rather than go down this dangerous road of nationalizing and militarizing our police powers?" But when has our government ever been "logical"??
December 4, 200817 yr What's your take on it? Yes, Pat, give us your take. That way, RTS can formulate his opinion as the exact opposite of yours.
December 4, 200817 yr How is this legal without martial law being declared. This is a very slippery slope. When Nixon finally faced the fact that he didnt have enough support in the Senate to survive an empeachment, it has been said the Alexander Haig told him that he always had the army. What would happen if Nixon had decided that he wasnt going anywhere and declared martial law, brought in the military to enforce his presidency? We think these kind of things cant happen in the U.S. but it certainly wouldnt be the first time a government was overtaken by its own army. Placing federal troops without an active domestic enemy is a dangerous situation. Why not send these federal troops abroad where they are needed and keep our National Guard here where they belong where state governors can call them out for needed situations. And before someone points it out, I realize that the question of who ultimately controls the Guard was decided during the 1950's during the civil rights movement and the President is ultimately in charge but state governors have been allowed the courtesy of using the Guard at their discretion!
December 4, 200817 yr Author What's your take on it? Why, I'm thrilled my opinion matters that much to you. I'm not as scared about it as some people are. I find it curious, but if it is only what they say it is- for teaching domestic forces in counter terrorism- then I don't see it as a huge deal for a limited time. The chances of a coup in the US is minute.
December 4, 200817 yr Why, I'm thrilled my opinion matters that much to you. I'm not as scared about it as some people are. I find it curious, but if it is only what they say it is- for teaching domestic forces in counter terrorism- then I don't see it as a huge deal for a limited time. The chances of a coup in the US is minute. For now..........
December 5, 200817 yr This is what the national guard is for, pull them out of over seas's operations first and then give them these duties. It's what they're meant to be doing.
December 5, 200817 yr This is what the national guard is for, pull them out of over seas's operations first and then give them these duties. It's what they're meant to be doing. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow you to use the National Guard if they've been nationalized.
December 5, 200817 yr Anyone else excited about the possibility of discussing the 3rd Amendment? No quartering of troops during peace time?!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.