Posse Comitatus Act

[RoyJackson]

I was reading in this morning's Washington Times that certain elements in the government want to "amend" the Posse Comitatus Act. This Act prevents the federales from using the military to arrest civilians.

To me, this is extremely dangerous. We have quite enough concerns about the civilian law enforcement aspects (remember Ruby Ridge, Waco and that image of the FBI agent pointing an MP5 machine gun at the cuban boy in Miami a few years back?). Also, if you've ever seen the movie "The Siege" (Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis)...a foretaste of the future?

The military isn't trained to safeguard Constitutional rights...it's there to kill people (I was in the Navy for almost 10 years, so don't think I'm a flower child).

And, for we gun owners, how better to confiscate firearms then roll up to your home with heavily armed military personnel?

The military can already be called into to situations for consulting and other expertise. Do we, as citizens, want this expanded?

An extemely dangerous debate going on in Washington...what do you all think?

 

[centex]

I think virtually everything that the government has done in the last year in the name of increased security is extremely dangerous and does nothing to stop or prevent terrorism. It is appalling to see how many people in this country want to give up all their supposed freedoms and go to a totalitarian form of government with a secret police force, ala KGB. Even Israel with all their security is totally powerless to stop terrorism even if they wanted to which they don't. It makes me thankful to be getting old because I don't like very much at all about the way this country is headed. I helped develop computer systems that the law enforment and government spy agencies are now using. I remember thinking that it would be the worse possible senario if they all got together and pooled their resources. Because they did not talk to each other and more importantly did not have a seamless network for their computer systems they could not begin to track every individual in the country. Well now they have the technology to do this and the so called "War on Terror" has given them the mandate to do it. Bush's move to consolidate all the spy agencies is the last straw. Within the next couple of years the government will be able to keep computer records of every move you make from making cell phone calls to using credit cards. Any personal freedom and privacy which you thought you had is gone by the wayside. I think an even more ominous trend is developing in that I just received an invitation to a planning session for a community spy network. They want to organize the neighborhood to spy on their neighbors and report anything that they think is suspicious or that they don't like. I had to read this twice because it is not the ordinary neighborhood watch type program. This one targets your neighbor not outsiders and it references "Homeland Security". This sounds just like what Stalin, Mao Se Tung, ******, and McCarthy did. Is is interesting how G. Bush can emulate them with great public support until it is too late. Personnally I am far more afraid of the government than any terrorist.

 

[Chuck52]

I'm proof that you don't have to be concerned with Waco or the FBI agent having a machine gun in the presence of the little Cuban boy to worry about the federal government infringing on our rights. When John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General, that was enough to make me worry. I suspect he could give J. Edgar's memory a run for it's money.

Chuck

 

[Wingnut]

<font color=blue>When John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General, that was enough to make me worry. </font color=blue>
as opposed to Janet Reno who proved you did have to fear a Justice Department run amok?

Yeah ... I do worry when they start infringing on citizens rights. Since non-citizens have NO protection under the Constitution, I have to wonder why we need some (many) of these security measures. Maybe if they started enforcing current laws and profiling terrorist types instead of being PC??

 

[Chuck52]

Poor Wingnut. Did Janet run into your mok? If Ashcroft is as ineffective at attacking his favorite "extremists" as Reno was in eliminating right-wing nut cases, I'll be content. I suppose a little amoking at both ends helps maintain a balance, as long as the folks in the middle remember to duck.

Chuck

 

[Ozarker]

You are right to be concerned. The last time Congress had this type of debate we ended up with the military assisting law enforcement in the drug war. That has gotten us no benefit but it got us an 18 year old sheep herder killed by Marines, a child killed when a fighter in Peru shot up a private aircraft with the OK from an American AWACS and a private residence being torn down by Combat Engineer CEV's in Waco.

Law Enforcement is not a function of the military.

 

[cowboydoc]

Personnally I am far more afraid of the government than any terrorist.


I agree 100% with you Don. We are definitely headed down one heck of a slippery slope. Just like government being so big now, once you have it it's virtually impossible to get rid of.

 

[dmccarty]

Chuck,

As far as I can tell Ashcroft has not bungled a staged media
event so that it turned into a BBQ of 80 some odd people at
Waco. We don't know and never will know how many people
died in the fire. Regardless of who started the fire the Federal
actions that caused Waco to occur and the decisions made
during the siege caused at least a dozen or so children to die.
They, if no one else where, innocent. Reno was responsible
for that C..... F.... She and a bunch of ATF and FBI agents
should be in prison.

Think about it this way. If a bunch of innocent people are
taken hostage in a bank, is the proper response to pump
gas into the building with a tank? No, its not. If the hostage
takers start killing people you send in the SWAT team and
minimize casualties. But Reno went at this like it was a siege
and it ended like most sieges have throughout history....

Ashcroft is proposing some things that I'm not real happy with
but so far he has not made the decisions that killed a bunch
of innocent people.

Later,
Dan McCarty

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Dan:
Although you may be right as to who bungled things so far, and who hasn't yet, the problem is really cumulative. Even if the screwup isn't at the top, giving law enforcement and perhaps the military more power to mess with people on suspicion, and reducing the curbs on those powers, invite the types of over-enthusiasm that characterized Waco, Ruby Ridge, the drug SNAFUs, the burning of the residential block in Philadelphia, etc.
There are a lot of people who genuinely believe in military or quasi military action within the US to protect us from the bad guys of the moment. I'd far prefer not to give them or their successors that authority.

 

[Chuck52]

Dan,

Most accounts I have read state that the flammables which destroyed the compound were placed by the occupants. There is considerable question as to how they were ignited. Even in the movies, SWAT teams are not always successful in preventing casualties. What happened in Waco was bad enough without imagining that wild-eyed maniacal FBI and ATF agents deliberately set out to kill innocent children. That said, I too worry about government agencies and actions limiting our freedoms. Because of his ideology, I think Ashcroft, given too much leeway, could prove particularly dangerous in this aspect.

Chuck