Posse Comitatus Act. (Military operations on and against Americans.)
Basically, this law restricts the user of Military operations on American soil, against Americans.
There are many instances of military operations against those participating in the Civil Rights movement.
Do you agree with government military operations against protesters that are getting out of hand?
What about past "offenses" from the US military against those in the civil rights movement and other protesters? Are there cases that military operations were effectively used and prevented both damage and loss of life?
More generally, what are your thoughts of government military actions directly against it's people?
Use historical examples to support your points and discuss your thoughts on those examples. And, please, be as politically philosophical as you want.
Of course they should. The military and police are both arms of the government, it's totally arbitrary that one should have force on US soil and the other should not.
While I admit I have little knowledge on this specific area, I believe I would say that the military should never be used against US citizens on US soil. That's what law enforcement agencies are for. Strictly speaking, I think allowing the military to operate on US soil against citizens sets a dangerous precedent. It starts with using soldiers at large protests, and ends with the military being granted broad authority to round up 'seditious' elements who are then subject to military tribunals rather than civilian courts. God help us if the military is let loose on a future McCarthy era.
The road to hell begins with one step and all that.
__________________ In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during an interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."
Last edited by Kinneary on Aug 8th, 2010 at 02:26 AM
That doesn't answer my question. Why is it OK to have armed civil servants controlling the population if they are called "police", but once you call them "military" it's suddenly evil?
Because subjects tried in military courts are not afforded the same rights as those in civilian courts?
__________________ In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during an interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."
That's arbitrary. Not every country affords the same rights to it's citizens. That would have to not be part of the equation if we're looking at this from an international angle.
__________________ In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during an interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."
I think that the communities should enforce their own civility and not the "state", only because the nation's "police" should only be protecting the nation from foreign and domestic threats to his sovereignty or it's people's right to live.
I'm torn between a "anarchist" type of militia and a local police force. It amounts to the same thing, really...as long as the militia is of the people and for the people.
Protesters DO get out of hand. Someone's got to lay the smack so that innocent people and business owners don't get mixed up in their stupid shit.
Well, to address what you were really trying to ask: I am all for the military being used on it's own citizens. As long as it saves more lives had it not been used, know what I mean? I'm all about preserving as much life as possible...while trying to preserve as much freedom as possible. So there is obviously a balance...and it's very vague, imo.
If they had the muzzle to hold one. They don't. The police purposely don't buy military equipped armored vehicles.
Where mass murder is at the click of a button. Most policemen will not be carrying anything beyond a 16 round pistol. A soldier will be holding an assault rifle with 200+ in ammunition. And as seen in other nations, outside of MPs, military personnel don't do well in high stress occurrences when deadly force is not first choice. They are trained to be killers, not protectors.
The military isn't inherently bad, or any worse than the police, or any worse than local police/militia. In fact I would actually prefer a large scale FBI type operation to local police, because if the local police are corrupt then there isn't anyone for them to answer to. In my city the police have tazed people left and right for some less than convincing reasons, and the citizens can't do shit about it because they have a lot of influence in city government.
Also, on the topic of enforcing facism, in 1984 the military didn't do anything. All the restrictions were from the police.
The law seems wholly symbolic to me. A government that is willing to slaughter its own population isn't going to be stopped by a rule that says "don't send the military at citizens".
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 8th, 2010 01:42 AM
