Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/15/2002 4:54:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 4:59:30 PM EDT
Oh, of course. We can't have the military on the border (like inter-national stuff where the military belongs [;)]) because of liberal media schills, but they think the military should be used for domestic crime-fighting. [rolleyes] *LOL*
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 5:11:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shooter69: but they think the military should be used for domestic crime-fighting.
View Quote
Is it still "domestic crime fighting" if it turns out the snipers are AlQueda or Taliban?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 5:12:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:20:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By shooter69: but they think the military should be used for domestic crime-fighting.
View Quote
Is it still "domestic crime fighting" if it turns out the snipers are AlQueda or Taliban?
View Quote
Damn good question. Opinions?
View Quote
Jurisdiction is based on where it was done, not who done it. Doesn't matter if it was/is al Qaeda, military involvement in law enforcement is a violation of federal law.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:33:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Jurisdiction is based on where it was done, not who done it. Doesn't matter if it was/is al Qaeda, military involvement in law enforcement is a violation of federal law.
View Quote
Ok...lets rephrase the question. Should the National Guard become involved in the hunt for the D.C.-area sniper? Surely the guard could legally become involved.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:36:05 PM EDT
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor AAA batteries and support troops were stationed along the coastal areas.. Given the events of 09-11 and the threats from a variety of Islamic terror groups.. and a description of the shooter as being a possible middle eastern terrorist.... Id guess Homeland Security has a right to ask for Fed Troops in a limited role..under the auspices of Homeland Security rather than the joint chiefs...or a div level commander ..kinda like attaching troops tdy to Homeland Security..
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:36:54 PM EDT
The military is there to kill people and break things. The military itself is not and should never be a law enforcement tool.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:44:15 PM EDT
Its hard to say that because this could be a rag head that we should invite the army to play in the borders. It may be homeland terrorists (aka gun owners) that they feel they can do this to next. Its not that tenuous of a connection and I think it deserves greater debate than simply allowing the bumbling Moose to call in the army and open the floodgate for future army intervention.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 8:10:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 8:12:43 PM EDT by IMHO]
It's happening, or is in the process of happening now, right? Rumsfeld Ok'ed (limited) military involvement, didn't he? [or is this a debate of the merits of the decision?]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 8:14:56 PM EDT
Last I heard military involvement would be limited to recconaisannce aircraft and sat photos. I don't see any problem with that.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 8:22:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 10:50:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 10:51:33 PM EDT by AR15fan]
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By shooter69: but they think the military should be used for domestic crime-fighting.
View Quote
Is it still "domestic crime fighting" if it turns out the snipers are AlQueda or Taliban?
View Quote
Damn good question. Opinions?
View Quote
Jurisdiction is based on where it was done, not who done it. Doesn't matter if it was/is al Qaeda, military involvement in law enforcement is a violation of federal law.
View Quote
If the snipers are Alqueda or Taliban I'm not sure it's a "crime" anymore. It's an act of war, and becomes the military's problem. If the Chinese invaded would you call it trespassing and expect NYPD to handle it?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:29:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 11:31:35 PM EDT by 82ndAbn]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:48:33 PM EDT
Yes 65% 43957 votes No 35% 24173 votes Total: 68,130 votes
At 01:40am MST
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:53:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 4:10:26 AM EDT
Thank God. There is no way in hell that the military should be allowed to get involved with this. Lets look at it from a conspiracy theory/tinfoil-hat standpoint. If you had a government that wanted to take total power, it would be very easy to plant some "snipers", make sure not to catch them, and be forced to call in the military. Letting the military get involved with this crap is the first step to a dictatorship. I'm not saying that is what's going on here, but it sets the precedent for it to happen at a later date.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 12:21:58 PM EDT
WE ARE AT WAR! What in the hell is wrong with you people? I fully support the use of any and all military power to capture the snipers. It would also serve this great democracy to aprehend all of you anachro-libertarians who are comitting sedition by continually talking about outdated 18th century views written on a piece of hemp paper.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 12:40:43 PM EDT
Well regardless of your politics, not even touching Imbroglios. The Homeland Security act is designed just for this type of thing. Hence, there has been a Command setup in DoD for the Continental United States. The Rand paper available on this website (www.rand.org) details the wargames held in a theoretical War on Terror and how in the fighting of the war it may become necessary to suspend Posse Comitatus. So in my mind it is not a question of "If" we will see United States Forces operating within CONUS, but "When". The paper outlines and gives a blueprint to exactly every measure we have seen the US Gov. do up to this point. As far as politics, well.... Tough questions. With reasonable and wise men in office then I wouldn't have too much trouble in Times of War of having US troops on American soil. However, the US hasn't always had Reasonable or Wise leaders nor will they always have them. At this time with this administration I, speaking for myself only, would not have too much trouble with them Conducting operations within the CONUS. I see the reasons and I see the dangers. This situation in which the US finds itself would merit this approach. Only from that position would I support this.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 12:47:08 PM EDT
I agree. Only the anti-semites don't want the military in law enforcement roles because they have an unreasonable fear of the small amount of acceptible collateral damage done, as demonstrated by the IDF in hunting down terrorists.
Top Top