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.

Originally posted by King Kandy
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.

Some anarchists, especially those from the 60s and 70s, saw the man as a giant oppression machine and the military was the fists of that machine.

Post Civil-War churned out this legislation. People feared the government slaughtering the citizens.

I do know that China has NO qualms over ****ing their citizens up for even thinking about protesting.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some anarchists, especially those from the 60s and 70s, saw the man as a giant oppression machine and the military was the fists of that machine.

Post Civil-War churned out this legislation. People feared the government slaughtering the citizens.

I do know that China has NO qualms over ****ing their citizens up for even thinking about protesting.

Because subjects tried in military courts are not afforded the same rights as those in civilian courts?

Originally posted by King Kandy
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?

Originally posted by Kinneary
Because subjects tried in military courts are not afforded the same rights as those in civilian courts?

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.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Because a .38 isn't going to kill as many people as a flechette round from an Abrams.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Because a .38 isn't going to kill as many people as a flechette round from an Abrams.

I bet a flechette round from an M1 Armored Police Vehicle would kill just as many.

Originally posted by King Kandy
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.

Originally posted by King Kandy
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?

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I bet a flechette round from an M1 Armored Police Vehicle would kill just as many.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
A soldier will be holding an assault rifle with 200+ in ammunition.

No such thing for him to hold.

Battle rifle, or whatever you wish to call it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Battle rifle, or whatever you wish to call it.

That has a 200 round magazine?

No, I meant by 200 is 200 on the person. I should have put an extra magazine for cops as well, so about 200 to 32.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Also, on the topic of enforcing facism, in 1984 the military didn't do anything. All the restrictions were from the police.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, I meant by 200 is 200 on the person. I should have put an extra magazine for cops as well, so about 200 to 32.

Okay. Back on topic.

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".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No such thing for him to hold.

You, sir, are definitely wrong:

Behold, a 200 round gun:
YouTube video

BTW, this is one of those instances where it is awesome to be wrong...cause that effin' magazine is just so ****in' sweet.