Obama will take away your guns!

[Buckaroo]

No I wouldn't. I agree with him and there is that pesky Posse Comitatus thingy to deal with

 

 

Where do you get your news? You should try to expand those sources. Bush has been working to dismantle Comitatus since he got into office. It's effectively already gone. In fact the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division is deployed in NA as we speak. Guess they don't report this stuff on Faux News ehh?

 

Salon Article

 

Wednesday Sept. 24, 2008 12:26 EDT

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?

 

(updated below - Update II)

 

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

 

 

 

.....

 

 

 

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

 

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

 

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

 

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

 

 

 

.......

 

 

 

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

 

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

 

The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.

 

As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

 

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

 

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

 

-- Glenn Greenwald

[akhalteke]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

[minx]

frankly, after having been shot at by a dumbass hunter this w/e. i think obama should take away your guns. he can have them. fuck knows most of you shouldn't!

[akhalteke]

frankly, after having been shot at by a dumbass hunter this w/e. i think obama should take away your guns. he can have them. fuck knows most of you shouldn't!

 

I have been shot twice. Still like them for recreation as well as the final checks and balances they provide.

[Bug]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

OK try this.

List the weapons that the British military has at its disposal now that it didn't have 225 years ago.

How would a rag-tag band of patriots with hunting rifles fare against a modern military?

So your point is rediculous.

Second, are you in favor of keeping a strong, unbreached posse comitatus act?

[akhalteke]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

OK try this.

List the weapons that the British military has at its disposal now that it didn't have 225 years ago.

How would a rag-tag band of patriots with hunting rifles fare against a modern military?

So your point is rediculous.

Second, are you in favor of keeping a strong, unbreached posse comitatus act?

 

Bug. What did the invading units in Afghanistan have that the Soviets didn't have at their disposal? They rode horses and shot Kalashnikovs for Christ's sake. Ever hear about Roger's rangers? Unconventional Warfare is a motherfucker man. Don't underestimate.

[ivan]

 

Bug. What did the invading units in Afghanistan have that the Soviets didn't have at their disposal? They rode horses and shot Kalashnikovs for Christ's sake. Ever hear about Roger's rangers? Unconventional Warfare is a motherfucker man. Don't underestimate.

american provided stingers seemed to make a pretty decisive difference for the mujis though

[rob]

No I wouldn't. I agree with him and there is that pesky Posse Comitatus thingy to deal with

 

If there were a band of domestic terrorists waging war against the United States and the Constitution, you would refuse an order to open fire on them because they're your "brothers and sisters?" I thought you were a military man.

 

Remember the Civil War? The U.S. Army sure didn't have a problem firing upon their "brothers and sisters" then.

 

Why is Fort Knox protected by the military? Sounds like the military would never think to attack U.S. citizens. We should just walk over there, kick open the gate and take some of that gold.

[AlpineK]

 

 

Don't fuck with me. I have a bb gun, and I ain't afraid to defend myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ivan]

 

Don't fuck with me. I have a bb gun, and I ain't afraid to defend myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

a good half-dozen rats learned this hard, hard lesson in my back yard this summer

[tvashtarkatena]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

 

Three words: National Guard, FBI, local police.

 

Start flashing your gun around and see who shows up at your doorstep. It needn't be the 82nd Airborne.

 

Plus, "...all enemies foriegn and domestic." Remember?

 

The way to fight government injustice without being branded and kook and exterminated is through non-violent means.

 

It's interesting that Bill and others advocate killing fellow American's to "protect their freedom" or some such amorphous shit, yet they do not believe that the authorities, even after a couple of hundred years of doing so, will do the same.

 

It's also interesting that Bill and others consider this such a concern that they invest a great deal of time, money, and emotional effort. In contrast, Bill and others put little to no effort in being involved in the political process, even to the point of voting for people who aren't even running for office. Have we ever had an election cancelled? No. If you want change, don't start stocking up on ammo: get off your ass and get involved in the democratic process.

 

Kooks: do yourselves a favor and throw away your multiple copies of Red Dawn.

Edited October 23, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

I hope Obama does take away your guns. For all the bullshit about the last line of defense for our rights, you sure as hell weren't doing anything with them against Bush's Constitutional confetti party. Obviously, that argument is just pure cover for your tiny wiener syndrome.

[tvashtarkatena]

frankly, after having been shot at by a dumbass hunter this w/e. i think obama should take away your guns. he can have them. fuck knows most of you shouldn't!

 

I have been shot twice. Still like them for recreation as well as the final checks and balances they provide....

 

....in a coo coo clock's mind only. Ever notice the difference in how the government responds to a person waving a gun around versus one that doesn't?

 

And this leads me to my original point: The whole imaginary checks and balances gun thing, aside from revealing a lack of understanding of what checks and balances means, is just a beat off fantasy for guys who are not adequately occupied otherwise.

 

As a practical matter, if the government ever decides that you are threat, you'll never see them coming. Standard procedure is to blow your door in the middle of the night. If you don't show both hands, you die.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Don't fuck with me. I have a bb gun, and I ain't afraid to defend myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a good half-dozen rats learned this hard, hard lesson in my back yard this summer

 

Put one foot on my property and my cat will chew your head off and play with your body.

Edited October 23, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Bug]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

OK try this.

List the weapons that the British military has at its disposal now that it didn't have 225 years ago.

How would a rag-tag band of patriots with hunting rifles fare against a modern military?

So your point is rediculous.

Second, are you in favor of keeping a strong, unbreached posse comitatus act?

 

Bug. What did the invading units in Afghanistan have that the Soviets didn't have at their disposal? They rode horses and shot Kalashnikovs for Christ's sake. Ever hear about Roger's rangers? Unconventional Warfare is a motherfucker man. Don't underestimate.

Realistically, you would be isolated and ineffective. How many US citizens do you think are going to join you? How will the news coverage go?

Your machismo is misguided and your effectiveness overestimated.

A Gahndi style approach coupled with the internet would have a better chance of success imo.

[Buckaroo]

What military actions have 3rd ID completed? None? Right. So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers? I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article. I get my news from many sources from many countries, many in different languages.

 

Counterpoint: If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? Seems a little backward to me. Just a thought.

 

You are making too many assumptions.

 

First of all a fact is a fact regardless of where you get it. Don't trust Salon, try one of THESE.

 

Secondly, I strongly support gun rights. I've owned numerous guns over the years and enjoy shooting. Like others on here I don't think you are going to hold off the swat teams if they really want you but guns may serve as somewhat of a deterrent to a fascist takeover.

 

My main point is you guys blame Gore and Obama and whoever comes along from the dems for wanting to grab guns by legislation, which, even though they may want some sort of controls, is highly problematic given the NRA and blue-dog dems. In other words it's not going to happen. And at the same time you're blaming the dems the repugs under bush are in fact physically taking away guns on a trial balloon basis, preparatory to being able to do it on a larger scale.

 

"So what is the difference between garrison soldiers and NorthCom deployed soldiers?"

 

THEIR MISSION, why don't you read the article, afraid it might turn your faux news thinking on it's head?

 

"If the posse comitatus act has been breached, then why oh why would you give up the only thing that stopped the british 225+ years ago? "

 

EXACTLY. (Where did I say give up guns, I didn't) So quit worrying about just the guys with the D and start looking at the corporate R's too, where the real threat is coming from.

 

 

[rob]

If your rifles + unconventional warfare are enough to take on the U.S. government, then why are we spending so much money on toys?

 

225+ years ago, we fought muskets with muskets. We didn't go up against the british with spears, which is analogous to the firepower American citizens have against the U.S. Military might.

 

If you want to use Afganistan vs. Russia as an example of how "all you need are AKs", then are you admiting that we have no chance of success in that campaign, ourselves?

 

If the U.S. Army can defeat ill-equipt guerrillas in Iraq and Afganistan, as the republicans claim is happening, then why could they not defeat ill-equipt guerrillas here in the U.S.?

 

Your arguments are full of holes when you try to claim that your rifles are a deterrent to the U.S. Government's military.

 

 

[prole]

One more time: The gun nuts are on the government's side.

[rob]

One more time: The gun nuts are on the government's side.

 

This is a good point. The gun nuts are so busy worrying about their guns that they aren't doing shit to push back against the free-for-all abuse of our other constitutional rights. Voting for candidates that aren't in the election as a "protest" is a pretty impotent way of fighting for our rights.

 

Realistically, I prob need guns, not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from the gun nuts.

[Doug]

The Gun argument is no different than the abortion argument; a platform plank which will fire up portions of the base. The liberals use the abortion plank and the environmental plank the same way. People need to pull these planks out of their respective arses.

[tvashtarkatena]

Regarding the stupid 'don't underestimate unconventional warfare' post:

 

The Afghans drove the Soviets out with shoulder launches missiles, not AKs. They were losing prior to the introduction of those weapons. Got any of those stored next to your crates of canned food?

 

The Iraqis (funny, they weren't mentioned by this poster) has kicked our ass with IEDs made from artillery shells.

 

Got any of those stored in your basement? Furthermore, are you willing to indescriminately blow people up to 'protect yer rahts'?

 

Bush has been gutting the constitution for 8 years now, and AKA: you've done nothing but stroke his johnson.

 

You're all talk.

[Buckaroo]

The Gun argument is no different than the abortion argument; a platform plank which will fire up portions of the base.

 

Agree, if the repugs didn't do anything about abortion when they held all 3 branches for 6+ years, they are never going to do anything about it. Why? Because it gets votes.

[Buckaroo]

Realistically, I prob need guns, not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from the gun nuts.

 

Actually when they took away guns in Australia, crime went up because criminals knew their victims were undefended.

[tvashtarkatena]

The GOP loves sideshows like guns and abortion because it fills the time. They have no viable plans for actually solving America's problems, so they need a lot of filler.

[Buckaroo]

I should have suspected that you would post a salon.com article.

 

the primary source of the Salon article is the Army Times, what's the matter, don't trust them either?