Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
For me, the last 8 years has seen a steady, sometimes overt and sometimes insidious encroachment by CENTRAL GOVERNMENT on our civil liberties and, IMO, Constitutional protections, all in the name of some future terror attack. (Meanwhile they de-croach on bigFinance, bigMedia, bigPharm, bigContractors, bigOil, etc.)
ANY thing that continues that tendency and that appears to nudge firmly against long-standing safeguards concerns me. After attending the CT conference, I am also convinced Homeland Security is a useless and powerless smokescreen. The teeth are elsewhere, and I suspect Mr. Rasputin-Cheney has the keys. (To mangle metaphors.) I. Think. He. Is. Evil.
Finally, just to let my paranoia get a little fresh air and exercise: I don't believe the folks in charge now are going to go down without trying to throw a real heavy monkeywrench into the process between now and January (before Nov 4 is tooooo obvious). Martial Law, aided by contractors like Blackwater with their widely distributed 'bases' wouldn't be beyond their capacity.
I thought guys like you had bumperstickers that said "I love my country but don't trust my government." My mistake.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________ Hoping for Audacity
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
They are moving troops in to the 4-corners area (Farmington, NM area) in case an "natural disaster hits that area". The timing of all this seems suspicous?
Quote:
National Guard unit moves to Farmington
— By Steve Lynn — The Daily Times
Article Launched: 10/08/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT
Click photo to enlargeLt. Col. Rick Ryczkowski, who will lead the new 226th... (Lucas Ian Coshenet/The Daily Times)«12»FARMINGTON — A new military police battalion is headed for Farmington, creating nearly 150 new part-time jobs and more relief if a disaster strikes the Four Corners area.
The New Mexico Army National Guard aims to employ 73 guardsmen by the end of the year and 78 more two years from now. Those guardsmen will be part of the new 226th Military Police Battalion in Farmington.
Six jobs are fulltime jobs, but some are filled by high-ranking officers who have moved from other parts of the state.
The National Guard also plans to expand its armory near Farmington Four Corners Regional Airport as it becomes the state's first and only military police headquarters. Farmington commanders will lead three military police companies — one in Albuquerque and two in Farmington. Guard officials held a ceremony to introduce the new battalion Tuesday at All Veterans Memorial Park.
"The county, the Four Corners have never had this before," said Lt. Col. Rick Ryczkowski, who will lead the battalion.
The National Guard,
whose soldiers respond to national emergencies and serve overseas, will recruit its new members from the Four Corners.
"We look at San Juan County and Farmington as having tremendous potential," Ryczkowski said. "I'm just glad to be the one here."
Fifty-one guardsman already were stationed in Farmington as part of a transportation unit, so the battalion would swell local guard ranks to 202 people.
Military police provide security after hurricanes strike the Gulf Coast, at refugee and detention camps and they make sure routes are safe for convoys in Iraq.
They also respond to local disasters, such as when the roof of Chama's only grocery store collapsed from heavy snow and floods in Ruidoso.
"These guys are here to protect us," Staff Sgt. David Montoya said. "We can sleep good at night knowing these guys are out there."
Major Xavier Miller moved from Albuquerque to help command the battalion.
"For me, it's not that difficult," Miller said. "For my family it's a huge deal. We're looking forward to the challenge."
The new battalion will give more opportunity for people who want to join the guard, Miller said.
Mayor Bill Standley said he would feel safer with more guardsmen in Farmington.
"What an honor it would be to join this distinguished group," he said.
For me, the last 8 years has seen a steady, sometimes overt and sometimes insidious encroachment by CENTRAL GOVERNMENT on our civil liberties and, IMO, Constitutional protections, all in the name of some future terror attack. (Meanwhile they de-croach on bigFinance, bigMedia, bigPharm, bigContractors, bigOil, etc.)
ANY thing that continues that tendency and that appears to nudge firmly against long-standing safeguards concerns me. After attending the CT conference, I am also convinced Homeland Security is a useless and powerless smokescreen. The teeth are elsewhere, and I suspect Mr. Rasputin-Cheney has the keys. (To mangle metaphors.) I. Think. He. Is. Evil.
Finally, just to let my paranoia get a little fresh air and exercise: I don't believe the folks in charge now are going to go down without trying to throw a real heavy monkeywrench into the process between now and January (before Nov 4 is tooooo obvious). Martial Law, aided by contractors like Blackwater with their widely distributed 'bases' wouldn't be beyond their capacity.
I thought guys like you had bumperstickers that said "I love my country but don't trust my government." My mistake.
So Zenny are you implying that the Bush administration speer headed by Cheaney is planning some sort of major event against American Citizens on our own soil in order to justify putting out marshal law nationwide? Thus giving the order to hurt and mame thousands of Americans themselves?
In turn trying to sway the American people into a cowering fear and thus elect McCain to the Presidency? Or are you implying that the Bush administration will try and use its powers as Commander in Chief to try and retain power of this country regardless of what the people want?
What exactly do you think they are up to in your mind?
__________________
“They said the road comes through Seattle. We came through here and took care of business.” Anquan Boldin
Or are you implying that the Bush administration will try and use its powers as Commander in Chief to try and retain power of this country regardless of what the people want?
Yes.
Quote:
What exactly do you think they are up to in your mind?
Depends how paranoid you want me to be.
__________________ Hoping for Audacity
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
I hope I'm wrong and we crawl to the election, not willing to get my hopes up though.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Minus a major terrorist attack everything will go off without a hitch. If anything Zenny the adminstration would be orchestrating a hit on Obama. That would be by far the easiest thing to do and create what you are thinking IMHO.
But a little paranoia never hurt anyone. No matter how far fetched it may be.
__________________
“They said the road comes through Seattle. We came through here and took care of business.” Anquan Boldin
I too have been trying to discuss this and I have been shocked that most have just ignored it. This goes against our constitution and is a frightening development in our country.
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; October 9th, 2008 at 11:09 PM.
I too have been trying to discuss this and I have been shocked that most have just ignored it. This goes against our consitution and is a frightening development in our country.
How so? Can you quote an exerpt of the constitution that backs that up?
__________________
“They said the road comes through Seattle. We came through here and took care of business.” Anquan Boldin
The Posse Comitatus Act raises at least three constitutional questions. (1) To
what extent does the Posse Comitatus Act track constitutional requirements, beyond
the power of the President or Congress to adjust or ignore? (2) To what extent do the
powers which the Constitution vests in the President limit the power of Congress to
enact the Posse Comitatus Act or any other provision restricting the President's
discretion to involve the armed forces in civilian affairs? (3) What specifically are
the military law enforcement activities "expressly authorized in the Constitution" for
purposes of the Act?
Constitutional Origins
Lord Coke and his colleagues, in crafting the Petition of Right of 1628, found
within that chapter of the Magna Carta and subsequent explanatory statutes which are
CRS-12
26
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 3, 123-25 (1866); Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11
(1955); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957); Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960); Grisham v. Hagan
, 361 U.S. 278 (1960); McElroy V. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960);
O'Callahan v. Parker
, 395 U.S. 258 (1969); but see, Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435
(1987), holding that the jurisdiction of military tribunals depends upon whether the accused
was a member of the armed forces at the time of alleged misconduct and contrary to O'Callahan
not whether the crime was "service connected."
the antecedents of our constitutional due process clauses a prohibition against martial
law -- a proscription which in times of peace would not abide either the quartering
of troops among civilians or any form of martial law, be it imposed by tribunal or
more summarily dispatched by soldiers controlling or punishing civilians.
The Declaration of Independence lists the imposition of martial law upon us
among those affronts to fundamental liberties which irrevocably ruptured our
political ties to Great Britain.
Finally, it possible to see in the Second, Third, and Fifth Amendments, with their promises of a civilian militia, of freedom from the quartering of troops among us, and of the benefits of due process, the visible protrusions of a larger, submerged constitutional principle which bars the use of the armed forces to solve civilian inconveniences.
This view is not without judicial support. The courts have demonstrated a rather
long standing reluctance to recognize the authority of military tribunals over
civilians.26 And members of the Supreme Court seem to acknowledge possible
components of a larger principle in both Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
27 "Article II, Section 2 make the Chief Executive the Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy. But our history and tradition rebel at the thought that the grant of military power
carries with it authority over civilian affairs," 343 U.S. at 632 (Douglas, J., concurring).
"Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander
can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for
the Third Amendment says, `No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.' Thus, even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by
Congress. It also was expressly left to Congress to `provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . ." Such a
limitation on the command power, written at a time when the militia rather than a standing
army was contemplated as the military weapon of the Republic, underscores the
Constitution's policy that Congress, not the Executive, should control utilization of the war
power as an instrument of domestic policy. Congress, fulfilling that function, has authorized
the President to use the army to enforce certain civil rights. On the other hand, Congress has
forbidden him to use the army for the purpose executing general laws except when expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress," 343 U.S. at 644-45 (Jackson, J.,
concurring)(emphasis in the original).
In Youngstown, the Court held that, when Congress had specifically refused to grant
such authority by statute, the President's constitutional and statutory powers as President and
Commander in Chief were not sufficient to support an executive order authorizing the
Secretary of Commerce use the resources of the federal government, including its armed
forces, to seize and operate the country's steel mills which were then threaten by a nationwide
strike.
28
"The concerns of the Executive and Legislative Branches in response to disclosure of the
Army surveillance activities -- and indeed the claims alleged in the complaint -- reflect a
traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs.
That tradition has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in the
Third Amendment's explicit prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes without
consent and in the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military. Those
prohibitions are not directly presented by this case, but their philosophical underpinnings
explain our traditional insistence on limitations on military operations in peacetime," 408
U.S. at 15-6.
In Laird v. Tatum, the Court refused to order the military to stop collecting information
about civilians unless the civilians could show how they had been hurt by the what the
military was doing. (More precisely the Court held that, in the absence of any showing of
specific harm or the realistic threat of specific harm, a claim, that the data gathering
activities of the military services had been conduct so as to chill the First Amendment rights
of the targets of those intelligence collection efforts, was nonjusticiable).
29
See, Bell, The Third Amendment, Forgotten But Not Gone, 2 WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF
R
IGHTS JOURNAL 117 (1993); Fields & Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the
Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL
H
ISTORY 393 (1991); Fields, The Third Amendment: Constitutional Protection From the Involuntary Quartering of Soldiers, 124 MILITARY LAW REVIEW 195 (1989).
Once again show me an exerpt supporting your claim. because this:
"the Third Amendment says, `No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.'
Doesnt do it.
__________________
“They said the road comes through Seattle. We came through here and took care of business.” Anquan Boldin
Finally, it possible to see in the Second, Third, and Fifth Amendments, with
their promises of a civilian militia, of freedom from the quartering of troops among
us, and of the benefits of due process, the visible protrusions of a larger, submerged
constitutional principle which bars the use of the armed forces to solve civilian
inconveniences.
During Katrina or 9-11 or is it just convienent for you now during time of paranoia?
__________________
“They said the road comes through Seattle. We came through here and took care of business.” Anquan Boldin
Space Invaders Champion!
