In this story they talk of President Bush "considering" the deployment of the military in the streets of Buffalo.
The final line is: "Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War."
Have we all forgoten Kent State? I was only a baby when it happened, but I do believe the National Guard was included in that fiasco.
In this board many of you argue about how the Union "isn't needed anymore".
You forget about the sweat shops in the deep south and the child labor we had in this country just in this past century. Now they are forgetting one of the darkest pages of U.S. History a little over 40 years ago.
We are living in a time where we can either make a difference for our children or leave them with a legacy of uglyness and greed. Maybe even tottering on the brink of revolution. If this board is representative of the mindset of Americans I truly am afraid for every one of us.
When I lived in Europe, many of the locals would poke fun at "American" journalism. After living there I half agreed with them.
I believe the AP has made their point for them.
>>> Do you really think we can call ourselves a free nation if the government has these powers?
How do you propose to stay a free nation if you don't give the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to go after enemies during a time of war?
1. Your judicial system for stripping American Citizens of their right to due process, poor as it is, was not envisioned by the Bush administration.
2. The threat of being declared enemy combatants after capture drove the Lackawanna Six to change their "Not Guilty" pleas to "Guilty." In other words, the threat of being stripped of their due process rights and possibly tortured drove them to plead guilty to very minor crimes.
3. Some of these men are already free after serving minor sentences for vague charges.
Do you really think we can call ourselves a free nation if the government has these powers? Terrorism is an undefined term. So is enemy combatant. This is a case of perpetual war What happens to members of the Militia Movement? The Branch Dravidians? The Weather Underground? All those nutcases stockpiling weapons and ammo?
There is no way we remain a free country if the government has the power to strip citizens of their rights on a perpetual basis when we are not on anything resembling a real war footing. I won't let 19 guys with boxcutters do that to my country.
Despite Cheney's allusions, I'm not convinced of the efficacy of torture. Even if it was effective in a particular case, the harm to our moral standing and moral beings outweighs any potential benefit. In any case, we should never legitimate it as a matter of law or use it as widely and freely as we have over the past 8 years.
Bush released most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees because most of them weren't "terrorists." They were guerillas, who have traditionally been granted Geneva Convention protections despite not fitting the definition.
Your view of the Geneva Conventions is internally coherent, but again I disagree. I believe the treatment of the Blackwater mercenaries was abhorrent, but no more abhorrent than our treatment of Iraqi or other detainees. We lost the moral high ground in Iraq and we'll never get it back.
>>> 1. It was six, basically unarmed people that did not pose anything resembling a military threat.
>>> 2. It was pursued (though not done) for the express purpose of denying American citizens access to courts due to a lack of evidence. Not for any public safety reason.
IT WAS NOT DONE AT ALL. IT WAS DEBATED.
>>> Do you really want the President to have the unilateral authority to declare American citizens on American soil in non-combat situations "enemy combatants" and violate their right to due process in civilian courts? You do know what we call that when it is done in other countries?
During times of war, the president should have the ability to declare persons on American soil 'enemy combatants'. If they are not American citizens, then they should be turned over to the military and tried in a military tribunal. If they are citizens, then they should be entitled to some judicial review to determine if they are 'enemy combatants'. If it is determined they are, then they are held by the military and tried by military tribunal. If they are not found to be 'enemy combatants', then the court retains jurisdiction for any laws violated.
>>> The Vice President was pushing for this. Not some random dude in the House or the California legislature. The Vice President. Next in line. This should scare the ying yang out of you.
This scares me less than our court system dealing with 'enemy combatants and the folks being held at Gitmo. Given our court system's track record, they probably would let the Gitmo dudes out with a slap on the wrists. Lord only knows which American city the really bad dudes from Gitmo are going to end up once released... That should scare you!
>>> A mercenary does not have right to Geneva protections either. Remember those Blackwater mercenaries that were executed in Fallujah? That was such a crime we had to empty and nearly flatten the city. Mercenaries are the original enemy combatants, and we use them ridiculously.
You are correct in saying that mercenaries don't get Geneva Convention protections.
You are wrong about the battle of Fallujah. Tribal forces there were making that a strong-hold that wasn't accepting of the peace agreement in Iraq. So we had to use force to change their minds. The Blackwater incident may have been the tipping point, but they were not the reason for the battle.
>>> You can't have these things both ways. Either you follow the Geneva conventions to a T, or you don't.
I agree. For uniformed combatants that meet the criteria, they should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. As I've stated, mercenaries and folks who don't fight in uniform (terrorists), aren't entitled to Geneva Convention treatment. Just as in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, these folks get what they get (hanged or shot is fine). Iraq wasn't treated differently by the administration -- just by liberals in congress and the media.
My personal opinion is that we should treat all people captured in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It gives the US more moral authority when terrorists behead one of our military members or a civilian journalist, or simply don't treat them humainly, which often happens. But I'm also a realist, and understand that waterboarding works. For those who aren't eligible for Geneva Convention protection, if they can provide information that will save American lives, I say do what is necessary.
There are two things that differentiate this case:
1. It was six, basically unarmed people that did not pose anything resembling a military threat.
2. It was pursued (though not done) for the express purpose of denying American citizens access to courts due to a lack of evidence. Not for any public safety reason.
Do you really want the President to have the unilateral authority to declare American citizens on American soil in non-combat situations "enemy combatants" and violate their right to due process in civilian courts? You do know what we call that when it is done in other countries?
The Vice President was pushing for this. Not some random dude in the House or the California legislature. The Vice President. Next in line. This should scare the ying yang out of you.
A mercenary does not have right to Geneva protections either. Remember those Blackwater mercenaries that were executed in Fallujah? That was such a crime we had to empty and nearly flatten the city. Mercenaries are the original enemy combatants, and we use them ridiculously.
You can't have these things both ways. Either you follow the Geneva conventions to a T, or you don't.
It has become the world example of how to lose power and money. It is simple: let the fox run the henhouse, and soon you will have no eggs to eat and a fat happy fox. Now all your wealthy people are fat and happy while everyone else starves or was eaten up. Change or die, America.
Here's an interesting story about the military deploying inside of the US to help local officials combat the H1N1 flu, perhaps as early as this fall...
you really need to learn some American history.....
1) National Guard (used at Ken State) is not active duty military...
They belong to,, and are lead by the Governor of the state...
unless they are "lent" to the president.... (who actually has to ask the State Governor for them)..
2),, Bush turned down the order.. despite his lawyers telling him it was OK..
3) this is the same law,, which prevented Bush (or any president) from sending federal troops into New Orleans after the hurricane..
so as much as you hate Bush.... even you must admit,, he called this one right...
>>> The final line is: "Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War."
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1864 prohibits the military from getting involved in civilian law enforecement activities, unless specifically authorized by the president. The law was passed by Congress because local civilian law enforcement agencies were angry that the Army interfered (remember that 'all politics are local' -- and the Army wasn't local).
For a time, I was a security specialist in the US Air Force. I received riot control training -- in case called by the president to duty.
>>> Have we all forgoten Kent State? I was only a baby when it happened, but I do believe the National Guard was included in that fiasco.
You are correct. But remember, unless federalized, govenors control the National Guard. And the Guard does not fall under the Posse Comitatus Act with regard to responding to their govenor's call to duty in their particular state (while not federalized). The Guard falls under the state statutes.
I might add that I know that active duty military were deployed during Hurricane Andrew (I knew members of the 82nd Airborne, from Fort Bragg, who were deployed). They were sent to Florida in the role of military police, until the regular police could recover from the storm.
You also need to remember that while President Bush 'considered' deploying the military, he did not (it is common for a president to be given at least three scenarios to consider for action in a case like this).
>>> We are living in a time where we can either make a difference for our children or leave them with a legacy of uglyness and greed. Maybe even tottering on the brink of revolution. If this board is representative of the mindset of Americans I truly am afraid for every one of us.
So let me provide you with a scenario and ask a question...
You are the President. You have a riot in a city -- say Buffalo. The local law enforcement agencies cannot handle the situation. Anarchy has broken out. People are getting hurt in the streets. Windows are being smashed. Private property is being damaged. Looting is occurring. The govenor of the state is asking for your assistance. You have a trained military unit that can bring order to the situation if you authorize it under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1864. What do you do?
Call an emergency session of Congress and ask for a legal authority. Remember Shay's Rebellion? We have a process for this.
The problem here is that Bush considered using the military to arrest US residents on American soil to avoid US due process laws. It was not to address a riot or another immediate threat to life or property.
It was to avoid the Constitution.
Media is failing not because it no longer has the potential for success but because it belongs to the rich- who publish or broadcast whatever best serves their agendas instead of whatever the majority finds useful- and interesting.
By the same token, the demographics on this board are skewed away from the norm by it's central purpose (a joint interest in a particular stock and its potential for profit or loss) the simple availability of leisure time required to post at all, and the cost of both the equipment and the internet access required to make posting a convenient prospect.
This is not the place to expect social consciousness, enlightened attitudes, or aversion to greed. Yes, people like those who most often post here have a disproportionate impact on the direction of politics in this country, nor is that likely to change while most congressmen remain for sale to the highest bidder.
Is revolution a probable consequence? Unlikely in my opinion, but only time will tell. Arrogance and ignorance in combination are a very volatile mix because they cause oppression, giving rise to the motivation required to terminate unresponsive rulers.
Are we there yet? Let the remaining plutarchs hamstring efforts to rectify the debacles of tax cuts deregulation and other legislation passed to serve the rich, and it could get ugly overnight. Under those circumstances, there may be a distinct possibility of newly bloodstained and pockmarked walls on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and in
Washington D.C. being left unrepaired for generations as a reminder of the consequences of unfettered greed.
Is there any chance that I'll be involved in anything like that? No- thirty years ago, I might have been, but middle aged revolutionary partisans are comic relief at best. I think I'll leave that to younger hands if it should ever come to that.
Regardless: change is coming. It can be easy, or it can be ugly. Either way, as always, it'll be a surprise to most people when it comes.
Change is attempting to come but it won't make it now that's it's looking more and more like a power grab by our government.
Back to the original poster, I read the article. Bush considered, but did not use the military. End of story. The National Guard troops deployed at Kent State in the 60's were deployed by the Governor of Ohio, not the president of the United States.
The ability to organize labor, when needed, is essential and must be maintained. However, in some cases labor unions are no longer needed and can bankrupt a company. GM is an excellent example of organized labor's greed. The CWA members on this board need to consider more than their employer's current profits during contract negotiations. AT&T just reported a nice 2qtr profit that was 15% less than it was one year ago and we are in the the worst economic recession in over 30 years.
Accept the company's offer. It's fair and it's only 3 years. You can negotiate to improve it after the economy improves.