military unit to be illegally deployed in the U.S.

[johnhpus]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

Oh, what cheerful news. Another major rule that protects the people will be broken by our president. Good times.

If anyone has a house for rent in Canada, New Zealand or one of the Nordic countries, get ahold of me.

[warmi]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

Oh, what cheerful news. Another major rule that protects the people will be broken by our president. Good times.

If anyone has a house for rent in Canada, New Zealand or one of the Nordic countries, get ahold of me.

Hmm ... are you sure it hasn't happened before ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Litt ... orting.jpg

[johnhpus]

Oh, well look at that. I thought that only the Arkansas National Guard were involved in that, but a quick scan of the article has filled me in.

But I didn't actually say anything about whether this has happened before. I said that it isn't supposed to happen.

Reading the Wikipedia article, it's also unfortunate that the federal government can take away a state's national guard to eliminate opposition.

I guess if you send them to Iraq under Army command then they're already been taken away.

[warmi]

But I didn't actually say anything about whether this has happened before. I said that it isn't supposed to happen.

True, you didn't but whoever wrote the article you linked to ,did.

[xavier]

RE: the title of the thread, if the law was signed it's not illegal anymore. And this President is no longer in power in a couple of months, so if he hasn't exercised the power yet he's not going to (and I don't want to hear about how he's going to declare martial law before the election to keep himself in power -- I heard the same nonsense about Clinton in 2000).


If you move past the hysteria over the issue, however, and consider its actual practical endpoints, you would certainly realize that these volunteer armed forces are not going to obey orders to fire on American citizens -- you will have mass desertions before that happens. There are so many differences between the US Armed Forces and a junta-style military organization that any comparisons between the two would be farcical.

That said, it's still disturbing, but the likelihood of any President actually exercising the extreme powers afforded under this provision, is extremely low, and in the meantime, there is always Nov 5th for the Congress to evict this provision in subsequent legislation.

[johnhpus]

Alright, maybe the title of the thread isn't accurate. But I'm not suggesting that Bush is about to declare martial law to keep himself in power (and if he did, that's it, he wins; I'm not going to see my son's testicles crushed).

My real complaint is that it's just another expansion of the federal government, and it's alarming, and particularly noteworthy and unfortunate because it is, for whatever purpose, being supplied with the equipment to supress the people.

To put it more simply, the government has announced their willingness and preparations to use the military against the people.

Again, I'm not saying that Bush is going for some coup. What I do expect is that mass protests (think of what would happen if there were another Gore/Bush style voting scandal that resulted in a win for McCain), which are already assaulted in mass by heavily armed and armored police, may soon be quelled instead by military forces. And that's a shame.

Edit:

And yeah, I agree that "the military" isn't going to just start killing and rampaging through the U.S. like it was an enemy country - at least not on the orders of the President. Any order like that would probably result in the military dissolving into factions under various generals and their loyalties and start a civil war.

[Kojack]

If anyone has a house for rent in Canada, New Zealand or one of the Nordic countries, get ahold of me.

Well, you probably wouldn't want to move here to Australia. We have the Australian Special Operations Command. They have 2 tactical assault groups, an incident response regiment, the 1st commando regiment and a high readiness group from within each army reserve brigade, all ready for deployment within Australia for various purposes (law enforcement, emergency response, etc).

We've had it for years, and so far I don't know anybody here planning to flee the country to escape military oppression.

[beaugard]

... these volunteer armed forces are not going to obey orders to fire on American citizens -- you will have mass desertions before that happens.

I guess the dystopic scenario would involve not the general public but a political faction generally hated by the public. Maybe even some violent organization but where innocent supporters at the fringe can be affected. hm. fuzzy explanation - the point is that the general public implicated when you use the term "American citizens" will never be harmed, but marginalized groups might be in danger.

If anyone has a house for rent in Canada, New Zealand or one of the Nordic countries, get ahold of me.

Prices are still high in Stockholm, but wait a year or two and we'll surely have the effect of global recession fully upon us

[johnhpus]

I wouldn't mind Australia, and wouldn't necessarily mind living in a country that is prepared to use its army for law enforcement, if the country had some history of using its army responsibly.

But that's not a fit for our history or culture. For one thing, as far as I know, Australia doesn't have a history of destroying people who are inconvenient. From the Indian Wars to Vietnam to Waco and Ruby Ridge to Iraq, the US has always been predisposed to beating the living shit out of anyone who doesn't play along.

Have you seen the videos of what actually happens at big protests in US cities (since 9/11)? I'm not planning on attending any protests. But dear god, that's what has become of freedom of speech... and apparently someone has decided that the police might not be up to the job going forward.

I'm also scared to think what might happen if the army were deployed in certain parts of the country. Some Texans, for example, have always seems a little crazier and anti-Federal than the rest. A few crazy cowboys with rifles could quickly shift the army away from their "non-lethal" mission and equipment.

Maybe that sounds like a crackpot sort of conspiracy theory. But I firmly believe that, if the army is used to quell protests and is deployed inside the U.S., we'll soon be seeing a lot more of them than just one brigade.

I guess the dystopic scenario would involve not the general public but a political faction generally hated by the public. Maybe even some violent organization but where innocent supporters at the fringe can be affected. hm. fuzzy explanation - the point is that the general public implicated when you use the term "American citizens" will never be harmed, but marginalized groups might be in danger.

That's the real danger of course. The police are for controlling the citizens. The army is for controlling the enemy. When you use the army against the citizens, the citizens becomes the enemy. And it won't be most everyday, average citizens. It will be whoever cares enough to get out and get in the way of the powers that be.

[warmi]

Prices are still high in Stockholm, but wait a year or two and we'll surely have the effect of global recession fully upon us

Prices won't go down because of a recession but rather because they were too high in the first place.

That's how things work in the real world.

[Evak]

People have been able to purchase houses here for years at 10x their salary. And you can get ridiculously long mortgages upto 60 years. And for a short time with barely any deposit. This kind of thing has lead to stupidly high housing prices and some of the problems were seeing now.

There are houses around here that were around $270k in 2001 that peaked at about $600k - $700k in 2006 and lost about $50k in value over the past year. Way overprices, with the average in the area going up 23% a year 5 years in a row.

The way things are going, maybe in a couple of years when I have cleared off all by debts and paid off my car, I might actually be able to afford a house of my own.

[beaugard]

Prices won't go down because of a recession but rather because they were too high in the first place.

Well, while I agree that in general it's an adjustment in this case I think you're wrong. In fact absolutely everyone expects the prices to rise in the medium/long run. We expect a growth of something like 30% percent in 10 years, and the swedes refuse to let the inner city grow in an organic way, instead new suburbs keep popping up... but everyone wants to live in town. Actually there are other reasons as well related to changes in society which might be even more important, but the one above is my favourite .

Anyhow, because of the recession combined with excessive mortgages in past years, prices might go down some in 2009/2010. So it could prove a good time to buy!

That's how things work in the real world.

Why the patronizing tone? Do you think I'm a hippie or something?

[reptor]

I bought an ~65 square meter rowhouse aparment in 2001 and sold it in early 2006, and the selling price was about 44 % higher than when I bought it and the apartment was an old piece of shit, I just wanted to get out of there before all the mold will make me very sick cause me cancer or something.

I couldn't believe it, when I heard how much I would be getting money for it. I needed other people to convince me that it really is like that. It was amazing. I would not have paid so much for that apartment, it was old and started to fall apart. To me it was crazy, but that's how it was at that time. And the person who bought it from me seemed to be happy, which I thought was a bit weird because I thought that the price was ridiculously high for that apartment (probably the people who sold the apartment to me thought the same about me, I think they got even more profit than I got).

The prices are still high here in Finland, but there is some sign that they are not going up anymore, but are staying put or slightly going down.


...but the other side of the coin was, that the brand new apartment into which I moved after that, was also more expensive than those kinds of apartments earlier were. So the cash I had available didn't increase. It would increase if I sold my current apartment and moved into a cheaper apartment, but I am not going to do that voluntarily


I have been angry at myself because I didn't buy a house when I turned 18 years old. At that time (12 years ago) the prices were really low! If I had taken a mortgage then, and bought maybe 2 houses, I would have made a lot of money, easily 100,000 euros. But I was too young and didn't foresee the future... I guess we all would be rich if we could see to the future.


On the actual topic... yes, after Hurricane Katrina and after the President got more power, I immediately had the feeling that it is wrong. So, what you are discussing here was my exact feeling when I heard the news of what kind of new powers the U.S. President would have. I had a bad feeling about it. I think the U.S. has not gone into a good direction in this century, and my fear is that it is only getting worse. Hopefully you can elect a new President who does things differently. I have for a long time wondered what is it that the Americans advertize "freedom" "liberty" "freedom of speech" etc... and then I hear a lot of news from USA how civil rights are step by step being taken away or how normal civilians are being treated more and more like criminals by your government. I don't like it, and I am worried of your country. I don't think the much advertized "National Security" should be used to that extent to treat your people like the current government has done. It's more and more a police state and in general I don't like the idea of a police state. I have huge respect towards the police of my country but most of that respect stems from the fact that they are very professional, very calm, *not* trigger happy, *not* tazer happy, not corrupted, most important of all, I don't feel that the police is all the time suspecting that I am doing something wrong, they trust me, I trust them. I wouldn't have the same trust in the U.S. police forces after all information I have read about how it operates and what kind of rights your legislation gives them. And then your government just pushes things more to that "ugly" direction.

I had friends visit the USA and every one of them didn't like how they were treated at the border, when they arrived. They felt like it was either ridiculous or insulting how they were treated like they are all some sort of terrorist suspects. It has nothing to do with freedom anymore but all to do with the police and government wanting to monitor more and more who you are and what you do, and honestly, I don't like that kind of idea of "you are guilty until proven inessent" approach. That's how it seems to be even though your legislation states otherwise. And surprisingly, a lot of Americans accept that approach, I think because of the much advertized "National Security". But I wouldn't be surprised if the security systems fail again horribly, I mean how you catch someone who wants to be a terrorist? It's ridiculously difficult, it's not done by checking every airplane passenger's shoes or something else like that.

[warmi]

Hopefully you can elect a new President who does things differently. I have for a long time wondered what is it that the Americans advertize "freedom" "liberty" "freedom of speech" etc... and then I hear a lot of news from USA how civil rights are step by step being taken away or how normal civilians are being treated more and more like criminals by your government.

Funny you mention that … some of these new laws are only new to US … they have been in place in some European countries for decades ( I know for a fact that in Germany police can preventatively (at their discretion) intercept all communications.)

[reptor]

I will give you an example from Finland.

Our military can help the police. During my time in the Finnish Defence Forces, I was sometimes part of a group which was basically waiting for a call to help the police with whatever they want us to do. It was a whole Company in our Brigade just waiting there to get a help call from someone, it doesn't have to be the police, it can be fire department, or some city reports that a road has been broken down and needs to get fixed really quickly, so we guys could help them but only if they ask.

The important thing to notice about this is that the *police* (or the other department which asked for help) is in command over what the military guys will do. The *police* asks the military to help them, then the law says the military needs to give help. But when the military goes to help the police, the police is in command. It's very important, and I think this is how it should be. The military doesn't just override the police whenever it wants to do so.

In the USA, is the police in command of the military troops deployed based on the Act mentioned? The one which was changed after Hurricane Katrina? Who is in command of those troops? Can they override the police?

In Finland the military cannot override the police if there is no special declaration made, basically, "national emergency" or something like that. It basically requires that we are in a national crisis, such as a war, until the military can step over the police.

[jjp]

I know for a fact that in Germany police can preventatively (at their discretion) intercept all communications.

You are oversimplifying. First, communications that are part of a defined "core sphere of private conduct of life" aren't allowed to be intercepted under any circumstances. Second, there are very strict rules for when communications might be intercepted (within 5 years the law was put to use 119 times):

- There must be a valid reason to believe that a "extremly serious crime" has been commited. Murder, preparations for a war of aggression, gang robbery or such.
- There must be valid reasons to believe that the interception of communications actually yields results that are important to the investigation.
- There must be valid reasons to believe that without interception of communications investigations would be much more difficult, or not possible at all.

[warmi]

I know for a fact that in Germany police can preventatively (at their discretion) intercept all communications.

You are oversimplifying. First, communications that are part of a defined "core sphere of private conduct of life" aren't allowed to be intercepted under any circumstances. Second, there are very strict rules for when communications might be intercepted (within 5 years the law was put to use 119 times):

- There must be a valid reason to believe that a "extremly serious crime" has been commited. Murder, preparations for a war of aggression, gang robbery or such.
- There must be valid reasons to believe that the interception of communications actually yields results that are important to the investigation.
- There must be valid reasons to believe that without interception of communications investigations would be much more difficult, or not possible at all.

Yeah, but these things are evaluated retroactively which is basically no different what is happening currently in US.

[VictorMoran]

RE: the title of the thread, if the law was signed it's not illegal anymore. And this President is no longer in power in a couple of months, so if he hasn't exercised the power yet he's not going to (and I don't want to hear about how he's going to declare martial law before the election to keep himself in power -- I heard the same nonsense about Clinton in 2000).

Actually it is against the law and a president can be impeached and tried for treason for using the armed Forces against the people of the United States.
The law is called the The Posse Comitatus Act on 1878, the laws prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States.
There is also what is called the Insurrection Act of 1807 which was refined by 1887 act to include other branches of the armed forces. This is very serious stuff, and federal amendment is required to changed it.

In 2006 the Republican congress tried to repeal Posse Comitatus to give the president total unitary powers, but they did not have the total majority that is required to repeal the act,
so instead they created an illegal Cacamenia counter act called the National Defense Authorization Act, here is part of the text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_
This illegal amendment was nullified when the democrats took controll of congress, in part because after Hurricane Katrina people realized what could happens if a president is given such extraordinary powers
and we have a serious crisis like: a natural disaster, an epidemic, a terrorist attack, a comet, a global famine, or a war.

The president first vetoed the bill, and in the final incarnation he was forced by congress and public opinion to sign it.
The funny thing is that the Presidential used his extra presidential powers and at the same time he made a presidential signed statement that supersedes the repeal.
The signed statement says that he and he alone have the power of declaring martial law, and use the military against the people of the US, should he consider the nation is in any danger.
The degree and the definition of what constitute a crisis is to be determine by the president.

And yeah, I agree that "the military" isn't going to just start killing and rampaging through the U.S. like it was an enemy country - at least not on the orders of the President. Any order like that would probably result in the military dissolving into factions under various generals and their loyalties and start a civil war.

You may think the military will refused to obey an order from a deranged president, but you are counting that everything is the way it is, in time of peace and prosperity.
In time of chaos things are very different; we have seen how the excesses and abuses of powers are exercised by government in critical time, and this is why these laws are there, it is not for time of peace it is for time of crisis.
An example of that is how the department of home land security treated the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a military war zone, and they send a private military called Blackwater to restore order.
So while the US, military might no act on behave of a president, a private military would.

[xavier]

In time of chaos things are very different; we have seen how the excesses and abuses of powers are exercised by government in critical time

Such as? Apart from GW Bush's wanton disregard for the rule of law in the context of executive orders, and the obvious overreactions to Pearl Harbor regarding the inexcusable treatment of citizens of Japanese descent, that is...

[VictorMoran]

Such as? Apart from GW Bush's wanton disregard for the rule of law in the context of executive orders, and the obvious overreactions to Pearl Harbor regarding the inexcusable treatment of citizens of Japanese descent, that is...

Oh you mention two out of two, don't forget the excess of the 60's and 70's during segregation and the civil right movement.
You are also leaving out searching for Bin Ladden, who we know wanders in the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan, by launching an invasion in Iraq, Or the violations of the Ginebra convention.

But In a long turm future it comes to mind, a collapse of the finacial market (upps it is already happening), the San Andrea Falt, or droughts triggered by climate changes due to global warming,
has you seen how in the last decade, Hurricanes are becoming bigger and bigger? When was the last time you saw a 700 miles wide Hurricanes? Could it be because the oceans are getting more energy with a temperature gradient?
When was the last time you saw ¾ of a million people evacuations?

We are on the verge of an election in which one of the two candidates is a senile war monger with tendencies to take unpredictable to irrationals and erratic actions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE_DcDsp8hg

Four years is a long time and not one can predict what will happen, the only thing that we can be certain is that disasters will happens and leadership will be needed.
The damage created by this administration is too great and has to be undone, because there is no way to predict what this war monger will do is the time of leadership is needed and he is in command.
We know that the man does not believe in the separation of powers, we know he have very little regard for the third branch of goverment, plus we know that the man believe the ultimate power is the military and perpetual wars.

[xavier]

Such as? Apart from GW Bush's wanton disregard for the rule of law in the context of executive orders, and the obvious overreactions to Pearl Harbor regarding the inexcusable treatment of citizens of Japanese descent, that is...

Oh you mention two out of two, don't forget the excess of the 60's and 70's during segregation and the civil right movement.
You are also leaving out searching for Bin Ladden, who we know wanders in the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan, by launching an invasion in Iraq, Or the violations of the Ginebra convention.

Again, can you be more specific? The civil rights violations have been local- and state-level actions, not at the federal level (which stopped recognizing the legality of slavery as early as 1863 and codified the civil rights code in 1964). And what do actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan (regarding bin Laden or not) or violations of international law have to do with posse comitatus?

[VictorMoran]

So you think you have me in a corner because there in not an instance of this administration ordering an air strike against the American people? Is that the kind of evidence that you need?

It is not enough for you that the republicans, when they had majority control of congress, tried to overturned a 200 years old constitutional law, that specifically prohibit the president for taking such action.
And when the unlawful law was finally repealed the president still write his own law that gives himself the authority to launch arm forces against the American people.

It is not enough for you that in November 2001, signed and statement that authorize gave him the power to detain anyone suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant.
As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant.
But that was not enough for the republicans and again in September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
a bill designed to remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United Statesâ€

[xavier]

So you think you have me in a corner because there in not an instance of this administration ordering an air strike against the American people? Is that the kind of evidence that you need?

I am simply asking you to provide actual examples of the incidents to which you intimate. Apparently you know something we don't, please enlighten us. It doesn't have to be this administration; you've implied that this has been a problem throughout US history, so I am "just asking".

[VictorMoran]

I am talking primarily about this administration tendencies to break and re-write the laws the way they fix their goals.

If you want t explicit example of the government of the united state launching attack against the American people you will have to go far back to 1830-40 and meet Mister Andrew Jackson.
Yes that’s right the face that is the 20 dollar bill.

I give you a hint, he almost exterminated the Native American population, he was one of the first proponent of biological warfare against the Cherokees people,
he confined then to leave in Indian reservation (some people will call it concentration camps), where they were treated with good infected with Malaria and Yellow fever.

[xavier]

I am talking primarily about this administration tendencies to break and re-write the laws the way they fix their goals.

No argument. However, this administration has only a few more months in control, and on Jan 20 2009, a new one takes over.