posted on July 22, 2002 06:27:18 AM new
It just seemed obvious.
It is really not safe to talk about anymore Snowy. Nobody will give you any prize for understanding things or calling attention to them. Stuff on the net gets archived away forever. Take care of yourself.
Be fluid and mobile.
posted on July 22, 2002 08:41:08 AM new
gravid and snowyegret - I think [least wise I hope] that you two know I have a lot of respect for you both, and your opinions. But...I just don't understand them sometimes. I don't want to argue, but rather to understand where your distrust of certain things our government does comes from.
Like...isn't this close to what happened during the Rodney King incident? [smaller scale, of course] All presidents have had this power. Our country has been attacked once, and we may be again. Why should the congress not talk about/debate whether or not this might be a good way to further protect us IF we should need to again?
posted on July 22, 2002 09:01:08 AM new
If not for the "checks and balances" among the branches of government, the presidents that we did have or would have had, would indeed have distroyed the USA.
IMO, all presidents found ways to do what they wanted.
I think that what we are experiencing is the the swing away from trusting the government to not trusting the government. Even though there were people and groups before that didn't trust the government, the mistrust became significant with the 60s, the vietnam war and Watergate.
Everytime we turn around, we find out how the government screwed the people, in our history and currently. So some are wondering how the government is screwing the people now with the terrorist situation and what are they "lieing" about? There are different ways to "lie," to withhold information and to supply misinformation.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:18:47 AM new
Sheesh, how some people........
This only undermins a fundamental principal upon which this country is founded. The people, through the congress, control the military in order that the military be always under civilian regulation. The president is the commander in chief BECAUSE he is a civilian (supposedly) elected official chosen (not this time) by the people.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:30:17 AM new
Morning Clarksville - Thank you. I understand people having 'some' mistrust of our government, and I support questioning anything that anyone/group does that they don't agree with. It's just been my 'take' that many appear to feel they can't trust it at all.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baker1.htmlContrary to popular thought, the prohibitions against using regular troops or federalized National Guard units in law enforcement are not absolute. The exceptions and enabling structures are written into the language of the statues. The Constitution has always required the President to be the keeper of public order. If the President receives a request from a state governor for assistance to quell public disorder, the President may issue a proclamation to the effect that order has broken down, and that those responsible must disperse. This proclamation is similar to the pre-1947 Riot Act. If order is not restored, the President may direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to apply whatever assets may be necessary to do so. Because of its plenary nature, this presidential authority is not subject to judicial review.
So the debate continues. Discussion on the floor of the House of Reps and the misunderstanding of the meaning of Posse Comitatus argue that DoD as well as civil authorities need to review and clarify an understanding of it's applications.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:37:23 AM new
Linda_K Linda_K Linda_K Linda_K Linda_K Linda_K
Don't you know that there are always extremist in all groups, specifically speaking with the anti-government/conspiracy theory peeps? Watch out for those black helicopters!
Yes, IMO it is healthy to quess authority or the government, to some extend, but when one crosses the line, IMO it isn't healthy.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:44:29 AM new
LOL...and I agree.
Those darn black helicopters....I said on another thread that we have them landing around us [here] all the time. So many that's my problem.....I'm used to them.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:46:25 AM new
Linda_K, I think it's just in some of our personalities to question everything - kinda hardwired in, so to speak. (We grill our teachers, priests,car salesmen, everyone - indiscriminately.) People earn our trust. We don't give it because they're ministers, Presidents, parents, etc. It's just the way it is, at least for me. I've been that way as long as I can remember. It enraged, confused, and challenged my parents when I was younger.
Because of the people I know, I'm aware that there are people out there in the intelligence communities who are willing to "take care of problems" for friends. I've just seen too much political maneuvering, even at the local level, to be too trusting. I may not buy into any particular conspiracy theories, but I question official versions of events.
posted on July 22, 2002 09:53:03 AM new
Hi saabsister - Thanks for responding to my question. I understand questioning....and some untrust. And as we all know I see some issues differently. I appreciate that we are all different. Variety...
Like on this subject...we have been told there are terrorist cells in many countries, ours included. So through my glasses I look at it as I would rather have the military able to 'go into action' should any internal terrorists start anything, rather than only to be able to depend our our police to protect us.
posted on July 22, 2002 10:02:15 AM new
You know, Linda, it might be interesting to ask ex-military personnel what they would have done as an eighteen or twenty year old if they had been given an order to round up thirty "terrorists" on their commander's order. Hey, krs, volunteer an answer. I'll ask my husband to do so as well.
I think the fear is that kids won't question an order for fear of winding up in the brig. An adult might question something he or she was asked to do.
I see both sides of the issue of the terrorists on our soil. I see where there is a possibility of McCarthyism and etc in our future, yet I don't want the terrorists in America and I want Americans protected. In order to the latter, one has to be incovenienced.
Is there the difference between the WWII era in rationing and other things to win the war and the current attempts to errode our rights in order to get the terrorists?
posted on July 22, 2002 10:43:57 AM new
[sorry phone call]
saabsister...good suggestion. Our son is a sgt. in the Marines [age 33] and I know how the chain of command works. My parents both served during WW11 as well. Each level follows orders from their superior...up the line. Those young soldiers, as I believe you said, won't be 'acting' on their own inexperience. Just following orders.
Again...not trying to agrue, just sharing a different view.
clarksville....I'll read those links soon. Have to get a few packages ready to ship.
posted on July 22, 2002 11:23:14 AM new
Yes, clarksville, that's the scary part. The National guard shot the students at Kent State. Then the Jackson Police, I think, shot the students at Jackson State. It's too easy for young kids on both sides to be manipulated. Young kids without a good grounding in history and its repetitions could too easily be put into play rounding up terrorists (whose definition?) who would then be in the military's posession. And their civil rights? Quashed?
posted on July 22, 2002 11:58:03 AM new
Linda, distrust of the government is a healthy thing. People are human and humans make errors - they fail at some point. Therefore, it is illogical to put your complete trust and faith in people. "In God We Trust" and no others for a reason.
Government: a necessary evil. Many historians and important folks have defined that for centuries if not millennia. It is Evil because the basic human natures of greed and selfishness are sorely tempted around the power and wealth in government. Mr. Smith doesn't go to Washington because it doesn't attract him. Government tends to attract those who want to be in the limelight, power, glory, and especially, the money. In other words, the Crooks, Thieves, and Liars of every caliber and bent are attracted to political office in government. Very, very few are True Servants of the People - what we'd like to have everyone there be like. Therefore, it behooves us to distrust any politician or anything that any of them have to say without sifting it through a fine-toothed comb and substantial background checking of the facts. That's just in general.
Like Clarksville said, the government has long proved how nasty they can be. The Freedom of Information Act has brought to light such things as the military requiring soldiers to walk into the aftermath of an atomic blast, spraying bacteria on American populations to determine what the results were, and horrendous things that you'd best see the evidence for yourself because you wouldn't believe me if I simply told you about it. The American government has earned our distrust in so many ways that only the uninformed still have faith in them.
That brings us to the current crop in Washington. Both parties have been assaulting the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights for decades now. Linda, you obviously never have lived outside of the USA in say, a third-world country (I have) and have no true idea what it is like to live under a despotic system of government with little to no rights whatsoever. That our government currently complains that it is impeded by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights tells anyone of common sense and ordinary intelligence that the government is running afoul of the system set up in place to protect us. That's right - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a barrier, like a fence, that keeps both the Government and Religion from harming you. When they bang against that fence, it means that they are trying to harm you! What Bush and the GOP has done with the Office of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act was to tear down that fence of protections that we've enjoyed up until now.
posted on July 22, 2002 12:05:52 PM new
Don't you understand, Linda? Bush now has the power to point a finger at any American and take away the Constitution and the Bill of Rigths from that person on his say-so alone without judicial oversight! Now he wants the power to be able to direct millitary troops onto American soil to perform police actions. Doesn't even *that* scare the hell out of you?
posted on July 22, 2002 12:26:25 PM new
What I thought at the time and even now, particularly while Florida were playing with their dangling Chads, was what I heard Rush say on his radio program, about two weeks to a month before the 2000 election.
Rush said that a person on the Bush team, who was very close to Bush told him (Rush), that they were going to win. There was something that was a sure thing. Or something like that.
I have always wondered if the voting scandal was indeed staged and was what Rush was talking about.
posted on July 22, 2002 12:40:09 PM new
As for what the government has done to us, is doing to us and not necessarily Homeland Security either, they tell us what they want to. We don't know half of it. I think what we do know what the government has done to us in the past is just the tip of the iceburg.
Then again, it may all be a distraction while they are screwing us elsewhere.
Sometimes, it is better to know that black men in the south were given sipholis to do experiments than somehting else. They allowed us to know about black men, but covered up something else?
Like in baseball, to sacrifice one for another and as with Rock Hudson. When the tabloid was going to reveal his homosexuality, the studio to protect him, gave the tabloid a name of a lesser valuable actor.
I also think that the rise of the ethnic minorities, their empowerment has also added to the mistrust of the government.
[ edited by clarksville on Jul 22, 2002 12:42 PM ]
posted on July 22, 2002 12:47:09 PM new
Clarksville - To answer your question [above] I'd say I'm sure there were citizens who felt [at that time, not in hindsight] that what our government was doing was very wrong, even right after Pearl Harbor. I'm sure there were those who disagreed and felt they were losing some rights as they were asked to work together for the good of the nation. Is that what you were asking? Because it is the way I'm seeing what we're being asked to do. Bend. Be flexible.
On the links you posted...[I know you did that in the hopes of keeping me busy for a long while ] Do you believe that is what's happening? I don't want to change the direction of this thread by discussing religion, but I do believe we will have no control over when the 'end' comes. Not in our hands and I wouldn't even try to guess when the 'end' might be. [Said with total respect, if those are your beliefs.]
posted on July 22, 2002 12:57:17 PM new
I'm sure most of you are aware of the Watt's riots in CA in 1992. We lived in LA Co at that time. I remember it well. Did I feel the military was violating those citizens rights? Not at all...they were destroying everything...and the police, by themselves, weren't able to restore order. Uncontrolled anger caused terrible actions, should we just have let those involved burn one city down after another?
The governor of CA informed clinton [as if he hadn't already heard], and clinton issued the "required" proclamation to disperse. And he ordered the Sec. of Defense to employ assets of the DoD to restore order. All this resulted in confusion between the national guard, the LAPD and the military.
I believe that's what they're trying to work out now so it won't happen again in the event of say terrorists damaging the nuclear reactors...etc.
Was it okay when clinton did it in 1992 [much smaller scale] but now it's not going to be alright IF president Bush needs to use the same authority? Or do those here feel it didn't matter...it violated the rights of those in 1996? Even under clinton.
posted on July 22, 2002 01:02:57 PM new
Borillar - You make points that I do agree with. Many things you say, I totally disagree with. That's life. I guess, for me, it's your constant condescending attitude that makes it hard for me to respond to you most of the time.
It appears to me that if one doesn't agree with your opinions then one is [put the condescending word in here]. There are many in our country that agree with my point of view, and I'm very much aware they don't post here.
posted on July 22, 2002 01:03:32 PM new
For me, the problem centers around not knowing whom the military may be holding. How many "terrorists " now detained are US citizens? If more people are rounded up, will their identities be known? Will they be legally represented? Those issues haven't been resolved.
[ edited by saabsister on Jul 22, 2002 01:04 PM ]
posted on July 22, 2002 01:08:49 PM new
In the early 1900s, I think 1914, veterans were protesting in Washington and the military were ordered to take care of the demonstrators.
What if 30% of us posters were detained due to our dissenting political beliefs?
posted on July 22, 2002 01:08:50 PM new
LindaK, all I can say is I'm a student of history. Certain actions form patterns.
Or you can look at it like a patient. An ailment not obvious in the pt, but possibly there. Definately present in another patient. Do you depress the first patient's immune system to treat the ailment? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on July 22, 2002 01:09:14 PM new
Clarksville - I can't keep up.
Rush said that a person on the Bush team, who was very close to Bush told him (Rush), that they were going to win. There was something that was a sure thing. Or something like that. I have always wondered if the voting scandal was indeed staged and was what Rush was talking about. While I've often been accused of listening to Rush, I don't. And at the time you speak of I was disappointed that the third party hadn't received more of the votes from those who were so very unhappy with either the republicans or the democrats.
It's my opinion that IF Bush said that, it was because he knew the 'law' was on his side. What the FL court had ruled was allowing the law to be changed. You can't change the rules of law after an election. That's why the Supreme Court returned the issue to FL...but when they saw they weren't following the law....the USSC stepped in. Again, another thread. We'll never agree on this. Sorry.
