Martial Law
-
Doesn't the last line of her story sort of invalidate the whole story?
And isn't her headline - and yours - a bit paranoid? Do you not suspect that the military has contingencies for a post-WMD event? Do you think that they shouldn't?
I think that they should.
This is what the military does - prepare for every situation they can think of being even remotely likely. Ex: there are war plans on the books for invading just about every country you can think of us possibly invading. That doesn't mean Lou Dobbs should run a story with the headline "Invading Taiwan?" or that we should be worried that we're going to invade Taiwan.
-
Doesn't the last line of her story sort of invalidate the whole story?
And isn't her headline - and yours - a bit paranoid? Do you not suspect that the military has contingencies for a post-WMD event? Do you think that they shouldn't?
I think that they should.
This is what the military does - prepare for every situation they can think of being even remotely likely. Ex: there are war plans on the books for invading just about every country you can think of us possibly invading. That doesn't mean Lou Dobbs should run a story with the headline "Invading Taiwan?" or that we should be worried that we're going to invade Taiwan.
Doesn't the last line of her story sort of invalidate the whole story?
And isn't her headline - and yours - a bit paranoid? Do you not suspect that the military has contingencies for a post-WMD event? Do you think that they shouldn't?
I think that they should.
This is what the military does - prepare for every situation they can think of being even remotely likely. Ex: there are war plans on the books for invading just about every country you can think of us possibly invading. That doesn't mean Lou Dobbs should run a story with the headline "Invading Taiwan?" or that we should be worried that we're going to invade Taiwan.
Oh, the army clarified that is not what is was for. Glad we cleared that one up (after 4 weeks of no comment).
Preparing for what? WMD. In rural Kentucky, PA and Ohio? I think that is the first place a terrorist attack would happen again - Newport, Kentucky. Ok, got it.
-
It would be paranoia under Bush. Or Clinton. or Reagan. Or Carter. Or Nixon or Johnson, or JFK.
Or Ford.
Not under Obama, so much.
But, Heck, at least you didn't diss CNN like you would have dissed Fox News for the same story.
-
I don't understand your point, Kosar. You're saying this unit could only respond to the places you mentioned?
-
I don't understand your point, Kosar. You're saying this unit could only respond to the places you mentioned?
I don't understand your point, Kosar. You're saying this unit could only respond to the places you mentioned?
First, because training for WMD attacks on our major cities (killing as many people at once as you can, terrorism 101) should be done in Newport, Kentucky. Secondly, it's against the Posse Comitatus Act. Unconstitutional.
The music is gay, but you get the point.
-
I don't understand your point, Kosar. You're saying this unit could only respond to the places you mentioned?
First, because training for WMD attacks on our major cities (killing as many people at once as you can, terrorism 101) should be done in Newport, Kentucky. Secondly, it's against the Posse Comitatus Act. Unconstitutional.
The music is gay, but you get the point.
First, because training for WMD attacks on our major cities (killing as many people at once as you can, terrorism 101) should be done in Newport, Kentucky. Secondly, it's against the Posse Comitatus Act. Unconstitutional.
The music is gay, but you get the point.
So are we suppose to be afraid of Fat Chops there?
-
I still don't get what you mean. You're saying that they shouldn't be training in Newport, but in a place where terrorism is more likely to occur, but that they shouldn't be doing it anyway because it's unconstitutional? What's wrong with training them for this eventuality, and then deploying them in the event of a massive WMD attack? The tactics aren't any different because the buildings are bigger somewhere else.
Would you maintain that the Homeland Security function that these troops would be serving is in violation of the Act? I don't think it is.
If they're performing - or training to perform - some sort of every day law enforcement tactic I'd agree with you, but they're not.
-
OH, this is silly.
Maybe I -should- go find my pictures of the national guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970,
and post them on our board....
"sigh"
This is evidence of what the National Guard does.
and, the UCMJ REQUIRES all military personel to REFUSE to obey
an illegal order.
But to expect our military to obey orders to go into a town, and take their guns etc?
That's laughable.
Well, unless it's Nato forces, in which case, there will be war between civilians and those forces.
Oh, our military would kick their asses.
Silly, Just plain silly.
The Lousiana National Guard helped provide order in the aftermath of Katrina.
There isn't anything here to take seriously.
-
I still don't get what you mean. You're saying that they shouldn't be training in Newport, but in a place where terrorism is more likely to occur, but that they shouldn't be doing it anyway because it's unconstitutional? What's wrong with training them for this eventuality, and then deploying them in the event of a massive WMD attack? The tactics aren't any different because the buildings are bigger somewhere else.
Would you maintain that the Homeland Security function that these troops would be serving is in violation of the Act? I don't think it is.
If they're performing - or training to perform - some sort of every day law enforcement tactic I'd agree with you, but they're not.
If they're performing - or training to perform - some sort of every day law enforcement tactic I'd agree with you, but they're not.
Ummm heck, what do you call checking ID's and checkpoints at a Rib Cookoff and Festival in Newport, Kentucky?
-
OH, this is silly.
Maybe I -should- go find my pictures of the national guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970,
and post them on our board....
"sigh"
This is evidence of what the National Guard does.
and, the UCMJ REQUIRES all military personel to REFUSE to obey
an illegal order.
But to expect our military to obey orders to go into a town, and take their guns etc?
That's laughable.
Well, unless it's Nato forces, in which case, there will be war between civilians and those forces.
Oh, our military would kick their asses.
Silly, Just plain silly.
The Lousiana National Guard helped provide order in the aftermath of Katrina.
There isn't anything here to take seriously.
OH, this is silly.
Maybe I -should- go find my pictures of the national guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970,
and post them on our board....
"sigh"
This is evidence of what the National Guard does.
and, the UCMJ REQUIRES all military personel to REFUSE to obey
an illegal order.
But to expect our military to obey orders to go into a town, and take their guns etc?
That's laughable.
Well, unless it's Nato forces, in which case, there will be war between civilians and those forces.
Oh, our military would kick their asses.
Silly, Just plain silly.
The Lousiana National Guard helped provide order in the aftermath of Katrina.
There isn't anything here to take seriously.
This isn't the National Guard, Cal. "MP's" from the Army.
-
Aren't those members of the Army National Guard in Kentucky?
-
OH, this is silly.
Maybe I -should- go find my pictures of the national guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970,
and post them on our board....
"sigh"
This is evidence of what the National Guard does.
and, the UCMJ REQUIRES all military personel to REFUSE to obey
an illegal order.
But to expect our military to obey orders to go into a town, and take their guns etc?
That's laughable.
Well, unless it's Nato forces, in which case, there will be war between civilians and those forces.
Oh, our military would kick their asses.
Silly, Just plain silly.
The Lousiana National Guard helped provide order in the aftermath of Katrina.
There isn't anything here to take seriously.
Maybe I -should- go find my pictures of the national guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970,
I think that is the point and may I quote you "they were throwing rock and sticks" and that is why they gunned down 4 people in Kent. Do you see any resemblance of that situation here? That's the point. If anything this is a misappropriation of tax payer money. Hey, but at this point what's another $800,000 for weekend security.
-
I think the point is that these are members of the Army National Guard of Kentucky.
-
I think the point is that these are members of the Army National Guard of Kentucky.
I think the point is that these are members of the Army National Guard of Kentucky.
And should be defending the streets of Newport, Kentucky? Shouldn't they be watching the boarder for ummmm, terrorists? LOL
-
Whoa, whoa. You suggested that these people are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, did you not?
Well, if they're Kentucky National Guard troops, which is what they appear to be, they're not. They're under the command of the Governor of Kentucky. So you can relax. No violations. No police states. No martial law.
Feel better?
-
Whoa, whoa. You suggested that these people are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, did you not?
Well, if they're Kentucky National Guard troops, which is what they appear to be, they're not. They're under the command of the Governor of Kentucky. So you can relax. No violations. No police states. No martial law.
Feel better?
Whoa, whoa. You suggested that these people are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, did you not?
Well, if they're Kentucky National Guard troops, which is what they appear to be, they're not. They're under the command of the Governor of Kentucky. So you can relax. No violations. No police states. No martial law.
Feel better?
First off this was in Ohio and Kentucky.
Washington is desensitizing us.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H. R. 5122) as including language allowing the federal government to take control of the national guard for a natural disaster anywhere within the United States or its territories. I understand this was not one, but you have to train first, right. LOL
Presidents use of National Guard
Governers lose veto power for National Guard
I quote from you "If they're performing - or training to perform - some sort of every day law enforcement tactic I'd agree with you, but they're not."
Can you explain that statement?
What ever reason we BOTH argue here, do you want troops on the streets like Russia or in Jakarta? WTF
-
When was this EVER done? Unfamiliar urban environment? Who the f'ck hasn't been to Indiana? LOL
p.s. Heck these are soldiers who were ALREADY trained for warfare in cities
I thought we need MORE troops oversees?
-
Have you gone all T on me, Kosar? This is Ron Paul stuff. That should tell you something.
Now you're upset that Marines are doing urban-combat training? Really?
Let's get back to your original post. The act you're citing is about federal troops. National Guard troops are not federal until they're federalized because of some action, like when they're called up for the War in Iraq. At that point they're under command of the president. Before then, they're under command of the governor of each state and, yes, can be used at things like public events. (Though they're usually not.)
If you'd like to take it up with the governors of Ohio and Kentucky, that's fine. But these National Guardsmen are not under federal control. They're not creating a police state, or violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
If you're asking me if I want the marines pulling people over for traffic stops, of course not. But that's not what's happening here.
As for the troops that are training for a post-WMD event, that's the type of situation where the military might be called upon to serve a Homeland Security function. In the age of WMD and terrorism, I think it's wise to prepare for this type of event.
But I don't want them pulling people over for traffic stops in their spare time either. Because that would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
I think this is a case of something that scares Ron Paul types, but isn't something you need to worry about. I mean, come on - the guy drove around in a car and filmed National Guardsmen in the streets. I used to live right by a National Guard base and saw soldiers and men coming in and out of the base all the time. I suppose I could have made a scary video too. Every day.
-
Yes, yes, I know. They're coming for us all. But don't you realize that by declaring that you're on to them you make yourself a target?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login