Another step closer to a police state

[checko 180]

I think the importance of this news is in the context of the times. Several years back, this would not have merited notice. But this story was at the top of the center column on Drudge for two or three full days. It is undeniable that people are starting to take notice about issues relating to privacy, civil liberties, etc, even people who don't yet own guns.

 

Whether or not this is anything other than routine, I don't really see a need to worry about it yet. But as I have repeatedly said, I will never understand the "it CAN'T happen here" mentality.

 

This story is being taken completely out of context. Its talking about military police units in conflict areas in other countries. Context is not drawing conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with said story. IMO its just an unnecessary attempt to cause panic. Nowhere does it even give an inkling that military units will be executing civilians on the side of the road. Ridiculous.

[db1775 4]

The context that I was commenting on here is not that of the story, but the political climate in which we are living, driving how one reads or doesn't read the article. In any other political context, this story would not have been a story. Whether these Marines are going to be deployed to AfPak, Louisiana or Jupiter is irrelevant, I think. With the advent of domestic drone use, TSA and Homeland Security procedures, and all of the other privacy concerns floating around, combined with a very real distrust of government out there, it is not surprising to me that the OP interpreted the story the way he did.

 

As far as executing people on the side of the road, I believe the OP was referring generally to the NDAA, not necessarily to these Marines. There is still a great deal of controversy about what exactly the NDAA allows the President to do, so I will take Shawn's phraseology here as hyperbole, not a willful desire to cause panic.

[woodentoe 14]

The problem with empowering the executive to do things while you're in control is that those powers don't suddenly go away once your opposition gets elected. (See: Patriot Act, NDAA)

 

It shows an incredible lack of forethought on both sides.

[GRIZ 3,369]

 

 

Police using military training is fine. But military policing isn't. There is a huge difference.

 

As far as the black neighborhoods I'm referring to places like Camden. The same dumb a** people who cried to the media that drug testing for welfare is racist will 100% say minorities are being picked on.

 

As far as the fine comment I've seen first hand this in action. I got a ticket in wildwood during hotrod weekend for doing a burnout. I go to court for it and the guy seen by the judge in front of me was actually there for a crime. His fines were broken down to $5 a month and suspended for 12 years until his other fines which were financed at $5 a month were paid off. I go up there and you would have thought I was a terrorist. He held at me, threatened to take my liscence and wanted every penny of my fine that day. So yeah I do have a chip on my shoulder about that. I use to go to wildwood twice a year for the car show weekend and now I refuse to go. The only thing that got me back in wildwood was the Kenny Chesney concert. I stayed outside of wildwood for that. I've seen a million times people get let go because they can't afford to pay.

 

As for the ndaa read it again.

 

Your story about you and being in court in Wildwood is purely anecdotal. It proves nothing other than what happened in that instance. Your racism is certainly thinly veiled. Interesting that your boycott of Wildwood be suspended by the appearance of Kenny Chesney. FWIW I've seen cases where the black guy paid his fine and the white guy was put on a payment plan.

 

Your telling to "read the NDAA again" indicates you have little idea of what you're talking about. The NDAA has been around for. some time and tells the military how it is suppose to spend its money and what it is supposed to do. This is done in several thousand sections. I have read most of it for some time now as these were things that impacted my military and civilian jobs. I found no phrase allowing the military to "pop you". If you don't know the section number and NDAA of what year could you more accurately relate what you're trying to talk about?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

MP's think their super cops on the bases I've been on. But a "police state?" Where already there

[Soju 153]

I found no phrase allowing the military to "pop you". If you don't know the section number and NDAA of what year could you more accurately relate what you're trying to talk about?

 

You didn't find it because it doesn't exist as he described it. Unfortunately he wasn't too too far off. I assume he was sensationalizing Sec. 1021:

 

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

 

Now this is clearly unconstitutional on a number of grounds. Does not require any proof, but rather a simple accusation. Eliminates all due process for those accused, and is simply absurd. I have actually written members of Congress that voted for this bill, and was told by 2 of them that they felt this was UNconstitutional, but that there was some other good stuff in it so voted for it on those grounds. Oddly enough they did not respond when I told them they admitted to violating their oath and that I requested their immediate resignation....

[BlueLineFish 615]

It says detain " covered" persons. It defines covered persons. Hardly seems like just anybody could be stopped. I am ok with detaining said "covered" people.

[matty 810]

No, it's EXACTLY what the people that passed & reauthorize the Patriot Act, NDAA, and other things along those lines had in mind.

 

The problem with empowering the executive to do things while you're in control is that those powers don't suddenly go away once your opposition gets elected. (See: Patriot Act, NDAA)

 

It shows an incredible lack of forethought on both sides.

[Soju 153]

Indeed. The issue is the only thing required to become a 'covered' person is for the government to accuse you of being one. This is in fact, sort of the reason for things like 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment. If they prove you to be such, that is a different story. The problem is, they ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED to prove anything! That is a direct violation of the US Constitution. Even if I were to agree with it's purpose, it is still unlawful. There are ways to do things legally. This is not one of them.

[GRIZ 3,369]

 

 

You didn't find it because it doesn't exist as he described it. Unfortunately he wasn't too too far off. I assume he was sensationalizing Sec. 1021:

 

 

 

Now this is clearly unconstitutional on a number of grounds. Does not require any proof, but rather a simple accusation. Eliminates all due process for those accused, and is simply absurd. I have actually written members of Congress that voted for this bill, and was told by 2 of them that they felt this was UNconstitutional, but that there was some other good stuff in it so voted for it on those grounds. Oddly enough they did not respond when I told them they admitted to violating their oath and that I requested their immediate resignation....

It says detain " covered" persons. It defines covered persons. Hardly seems like just anybody could be stopped. I am ok with detaining said "covered" people.

Indeed. The issue is the only thing required to become a 'covered' person is for the government to accuse you of being one. This is in fact, sort of the reason for things like 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment. If they prove you to be such, that is a different story. The problem is, they ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED to prove anything! That is a direct violation of the US Constitution. Even if I were to agree with it's purpose, it is still unlawful. There are ways to do things legally. This is not one of them.

 

I really don't have a problem with what is defined as a covered person being detained IAW the Rules of War. Dealing with terrorism as only a police problem doesn't work. This was proved in Munich in 1972. That's why in Europe they use the military, like the SAS or GSG9 to deal with terrorists. This can't be done here under present laws. German spies and saboteurs in WWII were dealt with by military tribunals not the criminal justice system even if they were US citizens.

 

Most people read section 1021 and became so incensed when they read the detention provisions they didn't read the rest of 1021 or go on to read 1022 to find out there are protections for the accused. Some argue that these protection provisions really don't give any.

 

All of this is a moot point as a Federal Court ruled in May that Sect 1021 is unconstitutional. The Obama administration has taken the position that this ruling only applies to those that filed the suit. They know this is bs. How does something be unconstitutional for a handful of people and not everyone in a similar situation? The government didn't appeal this ruling as they could see it wasn't going to get them anywhere. Holder will take any terrorism case that originates in the US through the criminal justice system and not try to use Section 1021 as it would really get ugly for the administration.

 

 

[Soju 153]

That is good to know (court ruling) and disturbing to hear (position of BO's & company).

[Shawnmoore81 623]

you gotta look at each thing as bricks in a wall. the ndaa, obamas eo's, cameras everywhere, militarized police, drones, fema camps, ect. not one thing is gonna end it all but when you add em up its gotta throw a flag. you can not believe em all you want but these bills, acts and orders are being passed. not that long ago i would have never thought any other this ct stuff was possible. i remember working with a guy who thought the government created aids to kill castro. he sounded nuts to me. i still dont believe that one. but whats going on now is happening right in front of our eyes. its up to you to notice em. a smart person wont go out and start a riot. but being prepared wont hurt. when you go food shopping buy a few extra cans of something, maybe a case of water. at the gun shop get an extra box of ammo. all this stuff will never hurt you. its about protecting yourself and family. if its all just made up oh well you have some supplies incase your broke.but if any of its true that stuff is priceless. i stongly believe the government is not informing us properly about whats going on. they have to much power and are hungry for more. this election might be the most important one in 200 years. we may be looked at as the generation that saved our way of life or the last free generation. or it could all just stay the same. but you gotta ask yourself with all the debt this country is racking up, with all the useless people being born everyday, with the jobs disappearing overseas can this really continue without something drastic happening.

 

(when i say useless people i mean people not contributing to society)

 

 

obama's executive orders

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/do_obamas_executive_orders_reveal_a_pattern.html

 

 

tea party is the enemy

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/army-colonel-ignites-firestorm-with-article-on-crushing-a-tea-party-insurgency

 

todays world can make a normal person a ct

http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2012/07/musings-after-midnight-with-all-of-this.html

[Anselmo 87]

FEMA camps?

 

Useless people being born everyday? They're babies. What do you want them to do?

[Soju 153]

FEMA camps?

 

 

Yes. It isn't a very long bill either.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr645/text

 

If they don't exist then that would be a violation of the law. What are they used for? Don't know, but they can be used for absolutely anything at the discretion of DHS, so who knows.