The moment that the news hit the stands, "the excrement hit the air-conditioning" *. The news of 20,000 troops being assigned to the USA caused a great furor as it "threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement."
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute began sounding warnings over this.
Immediately a new report was released, inevitably warning of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) attack that is going to come our way. And news organizations picked up the story, linking it to the first story (except the troop number immediately dropped to 15,000).
The government is scrambling to justify a military build-up within its own borders. It's hoping that the American Public will be gullible and frightened enough to agree that this is in our best interest.
But it is not in our best interest. Not at all.
This is the same attempt the government made when it initially justified The Patriot Act. Two years ago, I wrote in my article The Dangerous Encroachment Upon Our Liberties:
"I hear so many people say scornfully, "Oh The Patriot Act is no big deal. I'm willing to sacrifice something to be safe" or "*I* have nothing to hide! Who cares if they're eavesdropping on my telephone and email conversations?"
It isn't a question of what you have to hide, or what sacrifices you are willing to make. Instead, it is a question of what we, as a nation, are willing to pass down to our children and future governments which we know nothing about. That's what the Founding Fathers worried so much about, and that's why they crafted a Constitution which is now being violated repeatedly. They didn't want to leave any loopholes that would allow a despotic government to arise."
The government is frightening us with both real and imagined terrors. But are we chidren to be so manipulated and malleable?
What price freedom?
This latest abuse, again initiated by George Bush under the auspices of The Patriot Act, brings us one step closer to Martial Law. It is in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was put in place to protect us. It is dangerous, and we are fools if we allow it to happen.
*Kurt Vonnegut, Hocus Pocus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Glad to see you read Vonnegut, man is a legend.
And 20,000 troops must've had a reason for being put in the US, although why the bolster domestic security nonsense I've no idea.
As if 20,000 soldiers could stop the American people from rising up if they so wished.
No chance! Especially as so many of you are armed...
Daniel, ;D Many of us are armed, but we would have to have entire arsenals to withhold against the military, including uzis, choppers, tanks, etc. Even being armed is to only allow us to sting a little as we die.
I love Hocus Pocus by Vonnegut. I've often been told my fiction writing style is similar to his.
There is definately a reason for placing the 20K troops, but it's not the reason they're stating. OR, even if it IS for the reason they're stating, and their intentions are pure (I doubt it) then it certainly will open doors that should be left shut. AND be against the law.
Home arsenals are more than enough to stand up against army troops. If the last 40+ years of warfare havent taught you that, then you need to move to Switzerland. We would have the added advantage that U.S. Army soldiers would be reluctant to act against their own countrymen.
Foriegn-born Blackwater mercenaries on the other hand...
Dave, Good points, all - and I hope you're right about the military's hesitancy to act against their fellow citizens. But we don't know what lines they'll be fed, either.
Let's not forget the Nazis troops who acted not only against their own countrymen but their own families, at times. I wouldn't count on military loyalty to the civilian populace.
Blackwater is definately a group that is loyal to no one but the almighty Dollar, from what I've seen.
I fully support the Posse Comatatus Act. When I was a reporter in D.C., I covered the Pentagon and am familiar w/ the issue.
It is the wrong thing to do and why should Americans be subjected to an occupying force in their own country? Look. Most G.I.s abroad say they don't view civilians in a war zone as innocents. This is dangerous.
Why not just have a beefed up civilian police force? Why not spend that money beefing up state forces? Only the National Guard should ever be mobilized to patrol in this country and even then under only dire circumstances such as eminent warfare and disaster.
This is a really shitty idea and I doubt everyone at the Pentagon is absolutely thrilled w/ it.
So to clarify. Why not send federal money to state police organizations and equip special units with advanced weaponry?
Dave - the USAF could easily take out an entire city - and millions of people - from 50,000 feet.
Hell, they could do it from space.
I have a retired from duty Swiss military rifle. It is a great gun. I think it was retired in the 50s, when it was replaced with a more modern select fire rifle. I have a K-31 Carbine, which has a straight pull bolt, holds 6 rounds (plus one in the chamber I suppose), and was made for marksmen as the Swiss value shooting skill.
The Swiss military requires people to give up government issued guns at age 32 - the age most people leave the reserves.
Not everyone in Switzerland has guns. There are actually many in Switzerland trying to ban private ownership.
Anyhow - the idea private gun ownership in the USA prevents government oppression is a joke. The US Navy can shell any coastal city from 25 miles out to sea. The USAF can lay waste to cities from 25,000 (and up) feet. The Army and Marines have tanks.
Soldiers are trained in combat.
Besides, all the second amendment freaks sat back and did NOTHING while Homeland Security and the Patriot Act (part 1 and 2) was put into place. Because the NRA gave Bush an A+ grade.
As for a force of 20,000 federal troops on US soil - I have been expecting this for some time now. Many people have been demanding a force larger than that on the border to keep Mexicans in Mexico.
In a way, the government is boned here. Lets say they do nothing, and there is an attack that is beyond what FEMA can handle. Like Hoover Dam is blown up (which would be hard - even for the USAF), or a WMD attack. What then? People will want to know why nothing was done, and so on.
So they create a rapid response military team that operates inside the USA. Well then if nothing happens people will be leery of its creation.
I heard a pretty good suggestion from some ass on TV. Rename "Homeland Security" to "The Office Of Civil Defense". We had an office of civil defense during the cold war. It was a "civilian" agency, but had very close military ties and operated with the Pentagon.
So we bring that back. Now the 20,000 "federal troops" become a rapid response civil defense force, which operates under an arm of FEMA. With close military ties.
Some of the civil defense force would be full timers, but the bulk could be like the reserves. Part timers. Or even volunteers who are willing to go through whatever training is required.
Don't know if that would work however.
The White House is also scrambling to create as many things as it can before noon on January 20, 2009. This may just be something else being pushed through now so that if it is undone and there is another incident it can be blamed on the new administration.
but who really knows.
I really do not care. So much was gleefully passed over the past 8 years that can end up taking away freedoms that one more does not matter.
The Switzerland reference refered to their neutrality, rather than any preparedness for war.
And don't forget about legislation like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. All of these Satanically-inspired pieces of legislation are designed to crack down not on real terrorism, but on the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to redress grievances against their own government. I am stunned given the fact that most Evangelicals, who are supposed to be familiar with prophetic scriptures regarding an end time totalitarian government, are not discerning enough to be able to connect the dots regarding such pieces of legislation. Christians such as myself are in a tiny minority when it comes to recognizing and resisting the evil encompassed within such pieces of garbage.
To Christian Evangelicals: Where were you when we needed you? You did nothing when we tried to warn you of such things, pretending instead that the Bush Administration was acting in your best interests simply because he is a Republican instead of a Democrat, and because he rubbed shoulders with mainline Christian leaders. Shame on you for not using the discernment that God gave you. And shame on you for preferring to bury your heads in the sand instead.
And don't blame Barak Obama when the above-mentioned pieces of legislation becomes manifest, you can thank the phony conservatives (neocons) currently in the Whitehouse for that. The course has been set, largely because of you.
You will get the government you deserve but I promise you won't like it. I suspect the coming persecution may be God's way of separating the wheat from the tares. To that end, God's Will be done.
My venting is not directed at you, Saur.
I still love my true Christian brothers and sisters but I have to write this.
Denise, I don't know who you are (are you possibly one of my friends? Write me at saurblog at hotmail dot com), but I couldn't have said it any better myself. Welcome, and I hope I see a great deal more of you.
Lazy, Excellent contribution and thoughts. I'm interested in the concept of renaming Homeland Security. We may be gullible enough to fall for such a ploy. But as you say, I doubt it.
M@, I agree entirely. What you say here is so full of common sense - why is common sense never common? I guess I need to reword that - let's substitute the word 'wisdom' for 'common sense'.
Saur - its not a "ploy". Homeland Security is far too large. It was SUPPOSED TO just see that agencies communicated among one another. Now their logo is EVERYWHERE and it has turned into the largest agency in the government.
It has its fingers in the Department of Transportation (a civilian operation) and the US Coast Guard (military). Just for an example.
I worked for TSA when it was under the US DOT. Things got A LOT worse for employees when it was moved to DHS.
When DHS took over Customs, Immigration, and the USDA it was a complete mess.
So I think it does need reorganization. You can keep DHS, but make it what it was supposed to be in the first place. An oversight agency. Something somewhat small. Not a domestic army.
Having an office of civil defense would be a civilian force, not military. It could stand alone, or be an offshoot of FEMA. It could train police and fire rescue employees around the nation. And so on.
Denise - "To Christian Evangelicals: Where were you when we needed you? You did nothing when we tried to warn you of such things, pretending instead that the Bush Administration was acting in your best interests simply because he is a Republican instead of a Democrat, and because he rubbed shoulders with mainline Christian leaders. Shame on you for not using the discernment that God gave you. And shame on you for preferring to bury your heads in the sand instead."
I guess you have not come to the same conclusion I have come to yet. The danger in the "evangelical" movement is that they have a vested interest in creating conditions that they think will lead to the end of the world.
They WANT a major war in the middle east and in the holy land. They WANT all the things they think will lead to the "rapture" (which word does NOT appear in the Bible - unless you have a Darby version of the Bible). Because they think that this is the only way Jesus can return, and since they will be magically transported to Heaven (the "rapture") before it happens anyway - what do they care about what happens here?
This is why I think they have sat back, allowing things to just roll along. Not saying anything. Content to not only say nothing - but SUPPORT what is going on. As long as it fits in with their end times ideas - they love it.
Anyhow that is what I think. And that is why I think they say nothing. Well now that their people got massively voted out they will start complaining. The world may actually move AWAY from their "end times" ideas meaning they do not get raptured.
Now WHY do they want Palin? Someone with only a 4 year degree in Journalism from a mostly unknown state university? Someone who can not even manage a turkey photo op without screwing it up?
Anyhow that is my theory. For what it is worth. It DOES answer your questions - although it may be an unpopular view.
Lazy, There IS something to what you say. It IS possible that these nutty charismatic type evangelicals really ARE trying to hurry along the end of the world, just as the Muslim terrorists/extremists are. But there's less of a concerted effort with the Christians than there is with the Muslim terrorists/extremists (look at the gov't. in Iran where they admit they're trying to hurry along the end-times).
I don't think you understood what I meant when I said it was a ploy to rename it. I meant that you can call an onion a 'rose' but it's still an onion. They can rename it all they want, but it still stinks.
The Palin turkey-op photo was hillarious. She turned out to be a horrific disappointment. I hope we don't hear anything more of how she could be the next female Ronald Reagan. Thanks, I'll pass and wait for something more believable.
Post a Comment