It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Patriot Act II. Update

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Quote: "Are you asking about the possibility or are you saying this has already started happening? I just gotta have my facts straight."

Vagabond - Possible with Historical Precedence - I URGE you to look into the FBI's Co-Intel Pro Operation. They Targeted Political Opponents to the then established Governmental Regime & Religious Movements that they viewed as Threats (both Non-Violent). Also we are not just talking about Spying/Wiretapping or Arresting here - the FBI resorted to Bullets & Bombs!

Isn't it possible for the GOVERNMENT ITSELF to be Terrorists?!!!!




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Vagabond - Possible with Historical Precedence - I URGE you to look into the FBI's Co-Intel Pro Operation. They Targeted Political Opponents to the then established Governmental Regime & Religious Movements that they viewed as Threats (both Non-Violent). Also we are not just talking about Spying/Wiretapping or Arresting here - the FBI resorted to Bullets & Bombs!

Isn't it possible for the GOVERNMENT ITSELF to be Terrorists?!!!!


Definitely possible, but I'm only moderately aware of the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program. I didn't know they'd established counter-revolutionary religious movements or had actively used bombings. Could you give me some specifics to research- a location or a name perhaps?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Then why is one of Northcom's goals to provide expertise. Northcom clearly exists to supplement the ability of civil authorities to do things they are not normally trained or equipped for. At best this represents the undertraining and under-equipping of our civil authorities, which is nearly criminal in its own right. At the worst it represents preparation for the military and law enforcement to cooperate in activities in our country which more closely resemble military operation than law enforcement, also known as martial law.
There is absolutely no reason to establish this Northern command without instituting very specific and comprehensive rules which ensure that it can never be abused.


Why does it always have to be "they must be doing it for something evil, i know it"....

Do you think that first responders do not need any help and more so nowadays with possible real catastrophes such as another possible 9/11 or a natural disaster such as one we have never had before?

Things are different now from what they used to be years ago, not only because of 9/11, but we are having more natural disasters, more frequent and worse than we have had in quite a while, and it is getting worse...

You want more rules making sure the powers of Northcom are not abused, but i see in their mission and statement that Northcom itself says it is not a police force, it is not a new military, it just makes sure first responders have the ability to use the resources that the military can provide in case of need.

Even if it ever came to the case that anyone would ever abuse our military forces against our own people, I think our military men and women are smart and loyal to the people of the US, that they won't turn agaisnt the American people....

I was in the military, and i know people that are still in the military. Military personel can think for themselves and if there are any orders given which they find to be immoral they will not follow those orders... Yes, there are some scumbags even in the military, but most of our forces are some of the best men and women our country has to offer...



Originally posted by The Vagabond

Except that the coast guard has a nice limited mission, which is exactly how it should be. By its very nature the coastguard can not threaten civil liberties in the way the army can. The army must be given additional restraints to keep it as benign as coastguard assisstance in law enforcement.


And so does Northcom..they have a limited mission also....




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Apparently this is in response to that quote where I said "Only conservatives ever do anything bad for civil liberties"? (for those of you who aren't paying attention, I never said any such thing.)


No...that was in response to you bringing up Waco....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Neo-conservatism is making some serious mistakes in the name of corporate globalism, but they by no means have the market cornered. As I have said before, we hardly even have a two party system. We have a one party system divided in to parts. We've got a nationalist part and a socialist party. Put them together and what have we got? THATS RIGHT!


Yes, mistakes have been made, but if you would have noticed we were suckered into the situation we are now, and not exactly because of the current administration or the last.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Those limitations are grossly insufficient. They do not explicitly prevent assetts such as the SSB from working against US citizens for example.


As explained by the law and what they say themselves about Northcom, they are not to be used against our citizens...unless you are involved with a terrorist organization.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Actually I was using movies to illustrate possible abuses of Northcom. I understand that you have no respect for me and would rather try to undermine me than have a real discussion, so I'm not surprised that you stooped to such a ridiculous mischaracterization of this illustration. You can be assured that I hold you in the same regard, although I would never degrade myself by twisting your words to avoid a legitimate arguement.


Using movies or a game to illustrate what could possibly happen is not exactly something logical in my book, and respect goes both way, i respect your opinion, but it is just your opinion, just like mine is. Twisting words? where exactly did i twist your words?....


Originally posted by The Vagabond
And in both of those movies the military's role was logistical. Perhaps more importantly, in both of those illustrations the problem arose by complete surprise, necessitating the use of the only large standing force at the government's disposal. The very fact that we are planning and preparing to empower civil authorities for such circumstances means that we could just as easily train and equip civilian agencies in a mission specific way to prevent abuses and to ensure that the DoD doesn't mismanage funding and leave us unprepared. (for those of you who haven't been paying attention, the DoD was caught under-investing in armor while contractors in Iraq got away with highway robbery.)


It could also mean that they don't know when or where something could happen, and this is a reason for having an agency that can supply more help to the first responders if needed without having to use more tax dollars.

BTW, in both movies military helicopters were used to help in finding people, or in the case of volcano, to use the helos as water carriers....


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Northcom is there to help the first responders do what they aren't trained and equipped to do. Northcom represents a needless redundancy and additional bureaucracy. It would be easier to just better train and equip the first responders directly. The only reason not to do so would be if this training and equipment was ultimately going to be used for something first responders aren't supposed to be able to do.


Not so, much less when as i have said already you don't know where or when something might happen. It is actually easier to have an agency such as Northcom which does not supersede the command of civil first responders.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yeah, that was a great one. The Secretary of Defense sat on classified information and watched a disaster unfold. That part probably isn't such a relevant illustration to be honest, but if it were it would illustrate that you can't trust the DoD as far as you can throw it.


Yet the president was a great man in that movie....but of course that there will be secrets...all countries have secrets in case you didn't know....




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yeah you're right. I'm a total friggin numbskull. The movie gave me these ideas. I wasn't using it as an example, I wasn't just saying "hey, that was some awful stuff, and the bad things seen in that movie are similiar to the bad things that you could see if we let our military get too powerful and too independent." Why don't you just call my mother names next time; it couldn't be much less intelligent than what you're trying to do now.


Now, first of all... why in the world would I insult your mother?....and you are calling yourself names, not exactly a bright idea, but hey, if it gets you high...

Second....they are fricken movies, there are thousands of movies, some portraying the military and the government as good, some as if they were bad...the point is...they are movies, not to be mistaken with real life....



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond


The bad news will be that those who don't get themselves in trouble for the terrorist act of dissent are going to find themselves living not as citizens but as assets. In fact under the law we aren't even described as citizens anymore. Perhaps you've noticed that phrase "United States Person". Seems harmless, but think about it for a second, if you're not a citizen what exactly are you?

Well, as a united states person, you are just one apostrophe away from becoming a possession of the state: a "united states' person". Yeah I know, I'm an alarmist. I'm completely wrong. All of this is for our own good- the government is here to help us. Whatever.

I suppose I could be wrong, and I'd like to be, but I'm paranoid for a pretty good reason as far as I'm concerned. The reasons are many, but I'll stick with a nice big visible one for now: Denver International Airport.







This is good stuff Vagabond!


Thanks.

BTW - I think corporate entities are considered 'persons' under law. ...Need to check up on that.


.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Concentration Camps on U.S. soil
By state.
...............

And look what has been said and done about these supposed camps. I think i do remember this coming up a year ago or so, with the same results.


This list has been posted here before, and debunked over and over again. Many of our members have been to these locations and have found nothing much more sinister than women's prisons in some cases.


Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And of course...it doesn't matter if in the satellite picture of Denver airport there were some buildings left out which would have made another geometric form..... yeah, i know...whoever did this had to make a point so they left out buildings and drew on top of roads and airstrips which are part of the airport.....



Oh, btw... i would like to know where it is written that we are "United States persons"...... and not citizens....

Links please.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I have to say...(sorry, don't flame, don't flame) the airport is a somewhat questionable pic... (if it was a perfect swastika, it would be more impressive.)
there is much better info than that... it really looks like it has been taken from a foreign tabloid... and with all the hindu images pasted around it, source could have been better...
otherwise great points being made.
SS, you rock...

soficrow: jab jab dodge jab jab...keep it up...


Denver airport is wierd for many other oft discussed reasons...
NWO, MASONS, SHADOW GOVERNMENT, PLACEMENT...

There was also a LOT of local scandal about payoffs to officials and politicians in regard to location, build design, and of course concession contracts.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
CazMedia says,


You have voted Muaddib for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Kid points his finger at me,


the patriot act allows for you to be held without representation and without being charged with anything. So where is the accountability in that?
Before the PatAct, police could legally detain you, without charging you or letting you make a call for 24hrs.
Do you know how many calls i take a week from citizens in Philly area to "come out and do a news story, i was wronged by the police."?
I tell them all the same thing, you dont have a story, the police can do this, get a lawyer and file a formal complaint.
Sure the PatAct adds and strengthens authorities powers...but as long as it continues to have a sunset clause, we can use it for now, and let it expire like the assault weapons ban did. Especially in light of only projections that abuse COULD occur and few if any examples of this being more than an annoyance for citizens that might have had to answer a few questions. i dont see widespread misuse, i see selective and very limited use so far.

The accountabillity is that while the gov can still do all these things, they still have to keep a paper trail on you, report to judges and superiors about your case, pay the cost of detaining you, SOMEONE is going to miss you if they arrest you and you dissapear, when you go to the cops to file your missings persons report, they will tell you after looking into it that you were arrested. you still might not get to see your council or get out, but people will know your not dead. Your contention that people are going to just vanish is pretty wild.

Was Soficrow apologising here?


Serious thinkers - please, ignore the diversionary tactics and distraction. There is serious discussion here essential to the survival of US democracy.
I accept.


Sofi is dissmissive here


Now GO AWAY!

Sofi speaks like a communicative manipulator here,


For those who can get past maudib's communication manipulation strategies:
You seemed to stammer here saying almost the same thing 3x before you brought up a dowjones article, which you cherry pick to leave out the opposing portions of an article that presents BOTH sides concerns...
like this,


But James Carafano, a policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation in Washington, says he believes the military has honored posse comitatus. His concern is that hard distinctions have been created between who has jurisdiction in homeland defense versus homeland security. It's distinctions terrorists might exploit, he says. "We may potentially be creating vulnerabilities."
Why am i not suprised that only one side has even been considered or presented by Sofi's agenda?

LazarusTheLong says,


you have already failed to prove that "the patriot act WONT be abused"?
Yet this threads author states,


This thread is about the potential for abuse of such broad authority, and the likelihood of NORTHCOM implementation.
SO lazarus, the proof that there will be abuse is speculative as Sofi defined this thread as talking about the POTENTIAL for abuse.

Lazarus tries to raise a fallen comrad,


are are you just obsessed with attacking sofi?
Hey dude She knows what shes getting into...She created this thread, so its only natural that as one of the lead voices on it, she will be questioned....

Besides, when you go and get a WATs award, and start wearing that shinny new badge around, you better be ready to deal with people not only watching you, but wanting to question your text, facts, allegations, and facts, which as has been pointed out, sometimes Sofi stretches.

Sofi says,


NAFTA's terms stipulate that governments MUST negotiate directly with international corporations. ...Who do you think is representing your interests at the negotiating table?
Ok Sofi, governments must negotiate with corporations FOR WHAT? what are these negotiations for? What interests of mine are they negotiatin over?
I would hope that my elected officials are looking out for them vs the corporations. If they arent then we the people need to hold congress accountable. Somehow im thinking that much like congress, we will differ as to the importance of the issues being negotiated.

Sofi your position with the blame game violates the basic legal tenent here in the USA,
Innocent until proven guilty.
If you asked and phrased your points in this way, id be less sceptical of motive behinde the post and give more credibillity to hypothosising.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Friends! Friends!

Even many prominent conservatives (such as Newt Gingrich) believe that the Partiot Act was too much and that congress was wrong on it. Patriot Act II won't get through unless there's a lot of deception.

The Neo-Cons are so successful because they are so good at either pitting Democrats and Republicans against eachother or they bring them together by exploiting current real world events. We all have to remain ever vigilent.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Quote: "or had actively used bombings. Could you give me some specifics to research - a location or a name perhaps?"

Look into the "Move" Headquarters BOMBING! Philadelphia I believe.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia

Sofi says,



NAFTA's terms stipulate that governments MUST negotiate directly with international corporations. ...Who do you think is representing your interests at the negotiating table?

Ok Sofi, governments must negotiate with corporations FOR WHAT? what are these negotiations for? What interests of mine are they negotiatin over?





The horrible thing is, Caz: We don't know.

Not only does NAFTA stipulate that government must negotiate directly with corporations but also,

NAFTA terms establish that the process must be confidential.

Transparency is one of the foundations of democracy - this agreement throws it out the window. Today, our governments are bound by international law NOT to be transparent.

So we don't know what specific interests of yours, mine or anyones are being negotiated.

We DO know that immigration and security are on the table, along with expanded definitions of trade overall. We know that 'trade' already has been redefined to include "information." We know that this agreement binds our governments to 'harmonize' a broad range of laws - and that none of our laws may "interfere with" international corporations ability to profit.

We have few tools available to determine what individual rights are on the table and are being negotiated away. One is analysis: What has changed in our world? Might those changes relate to this agreement? How?

We do know for example that environmental protections in the USA and Canada are being challenged and stripped to "harmonize" with Mexico - and to leave corporations "free to profit." ...We learn about these impacts after the fact because we have no rights to access information about the terms of the agreement.

We know the Patriot Act is draconian - and dovetails with NORTHCOM and NAFTA.

But the point is, we're on our own. We have no access to detailed information: it's illegal - under international law - for our governments to tell us anything about what's happening.

IMO - that sucks. It's not true to the principles of democracy.

And now, these new principles of "confidentiality in government" are being applied across the board. Eg., FEMA stipulates explicitly that ordinary citizens have no rights to access or obtain information?! The security warning is fairly standard:





Security and Intrusion Detection according to FEMA...

"Unauthorized attempts to defeat or circumvent security features, to use the system for other than intended purposes, to deny service to authorized users, to access, obtain, alter, damage, or destroy information, or otherwise to interfere with the system or its operation is prohibited. Evidence of such acts may be disclosed to law enforcement authorities and result in criminal prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-294), (18 U.S.C. 1030), or other applicable criminal laws."





The lid is clamped down tight on everything we need to know about our "new democracy" - and what our future holds. And forget about NORTHCOM entirely. We don't have access to any pertinent documentation, and we won't know what's happening for sure until it bites us in the butt. By then it it will be too late.


True. We could just lie back and think of Jesus. It's not rape if we don't say no.


.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
there is much better info than that... it really looks like it has been taken from a foreign tabloid... and with all the hindu images pasted around it, source could have been better...
otherwise great points being made.


Actually I put the "hindu images there". Those are cuts from murals which are found in the airport. Actually they used to be in the airport- half of the were covered over eventually, including the nazi looking fellow I have in my avatar.
Also I admit that it's not a perfect swastika, but it is a very odd configuration of runways which seems to serve very little prupose beyond facilitating the swastika.



Denver airport is wierd for many other oft discussed reasons...
NWO, MASONS, SHADOW GOVERNMENT, PLACEMENT...

There was also a LOT of local scandal about payoffs to officials and politicians in regard to location, build design, and of course concession contracts.

Yeah I've heard a lot of that. "New World Airport Commission", Masonic Symbolism, enough excavation in a level ground project to have burried 32 city blocks under 1/4 mile of earth,


As for "US Persons" - it is a definition which is used very frequently in laws these days because it encompasses corporations and non-citizens. When used in appropriately it can reduce the rights of citizens or afford unwarranted rights to non-citizens, while giving corporations essentially human status. I'm sure there will be some debate over how sinister the intent is, and that debate is warranted because this is not a smoking gun. My point is that this legal term when used can creates questions about the distinct rights afforded to citizens and is exceptionally handy for penning internationalist laws without revealing the fact that they are passed in anticipation of internationalism. It falls in line nicely with what soficrow has talked about with NAFTA. www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia

Kid points his finger at me,


Caz, I was not pointing a finger at anyone. I simply said you were wrong about the patriot act. You still are. Your attempts to raise yourself above the rest of us with intellectuall banter that amounts to little more than my daughter using a thesauras to construct a well worded, yet, completly misleading diatrab. I am glad you have come a long way since you first arrived, but now your attempts to downplay everyone as intellectually subperior are quite annoying and just a little child like.

As for the patriot act, you really need to do some research to see what it allows and what it doesnt. Remember the RNC detention camp for soccor moms? Remember the few people who have been held for over a year without legal representation only to finally be released because some S.E. groups like the ACLU got word of it? The fact is Caz that the Patriot Act gives the Government to much authority over our daily lives. The government is supposed to work for us, and respect the citizen. The Patriot act affords our Government the opportunity to overlook the rights of the American citizen. The Patriot act also allows for a broad interpretation on many things. Caz, if I knew your real name, I could have the FBI beating down your door in three hours. All I have to do is call a field office and tell them I heard you talking about supporting Alqueda. The FBI can come out to your private residence, kick your door in and haul you off to a Federal Prison to sit and wait for Uncle Sam to build his case agianst you. You would have to sit there for an awful long ime too, before they even thought of letting you talk to a lawyer. Does this scare you in the slightest? Are you not reminded of 1984?

The Orwilliean fantasy is becoming truth. It solidifies a little more each day as someone else just accepts what is happenning as OK.



[edit on 3/4/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Why does it always have to be "they must be doing it for something evil, i know it"....

Creating the potential for evil is evil. Nothing "evil" actually happens just because you plant a landmine, but it's still evil to plant a landmine isn't it? Because now you've got evil just sitting there waiting for a chance to happen.



Do you think that first responders do not need any help and more so nowadays with possible real catastrophes such as another possible 9/11 or a natural disaster such as one we have never had before?


I'm tempted to not answer that since I already have. They do not need military help. We can fund, train, and equip the civilian agencies in a mission specific manner and make sure the funding goes where it is supposed to go. The military should have a minimal role in civil affairs of any kind what so ever.


Things are different now from what they used to be years ago, not only because of 9/11, but we are having more natural disasters, more frequent and worse than we have had in quite a while, and it is getting worse...

And as we know, you can not meet these new challenges unless you are under a military command which has access to military weapons. We can't possibly deal with disaster without opening up the possibility that troops could be more readily deployed against US citizens... sorry, i mean "persons".



You want more rules making sure the powers of Northcom are not abused, but i see in their mission and statement that Northcom itself says it is not a police force, it is not a new military, it just makes sure first responders have the ability to use the resources that the military can provide in case of need.

It is full of obvious loopholes. It says "we aren't...." but it doesn't say "we will not..." So what if my mission statement said "The Vagabond is not a murderer" but I was armed to the teeth and never explicity said "The Vagabond won't kill anybody". The loopholes are there, they are obvious, and they allow a back-door for martial law by making the flimsy claim that the troops are acting in a strictly supportive manner to civil authorities.



Even if it ever came to the case that anyone would ever abuse our military forces against our own people, I think our military men and women are smart and loyal to the people of the US, that they won't turn agaisnt the American people....

Like in 1932 when American troops in gassed 15,000 protestors then advanced on them with fixed bayonets, with tanks there in support of them? en.wikipedia.org...


I was in the military, and i know people that are still in the military. Military personel can think for themselves and if there are any orders given which they find to be immoral they will not follow those orders...

When were you in the military bro? I was a Marine just a year ago. I'll tell you a little something about the Marines I've known- they are mostly conservative and have a disdain for liberals, upon whom they focus their broader disdain for civilians in general. They can be counted on to do as their told in virtually any situation. They get excited about the prospect of a good fight. They would whoop our arses from here to Timbuktu if they were presented with the idea that we were a bunch of nasty anti-american scumbags who needed to be quelled. They had no qualms about putting down the LA riots (rightfully so) but that's exactly how they're going to see all of us if and when the order to put us down is given.




And so does Northcom..they have a limited mission also....

Not even remotely limited enough. Northcom must be stipulated for specific types of missions using certain types of assetts. Northcom should be forbidden from possessing, controlling, or providing to police things such as intelligence services (especially SSB) and heavy weapons. Northcom's ability to assisst law enforcement should be specifically reduced to riot control and perhaps certain other appropriate missions. The military SHOULD NOT under any circumstances participate in investigations of civilians accused of crimes, the apprehension of individual civilians, etc.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Apparently this is in response to that quote where I said "Only conservatives ever do anything bad for civil liberties"? (for those of you who aren't paying attention, I never said any such thing.)

No...that was in response to you bringing up Waco....

So what in the bloody hell does Clinton have to do with anything? Why even bring up who was president. The government acted in an extremely heavy handed way and burned a bunch of people alive, quite possibly on purpose. New rule: BOTH parties are forbidden to set human beings on fire!



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Neo-conservatism is making some serious mistakes in the name of corporate globalism, but they by no means have the market cornered. As I have said before, we hardly even have a two party system. We have a one party system divided in to parts. We've got a nationalist part and a socialist party. Put them together and what have we got? THATS RIGHT!

Yes, mistakes have been made, but if you would have noticed we were suckered into the situation we are now, and not exactly because of the current administration or the last.

I must be misunderstanding you, because now it seems like you are saying that yes the government has gone too far with law enforcement, but just because we can't pin the blame on Bush or Clinton we should let them create EVEN MORE potential for abuse?




Originally posted by The Vagabond
As explained by the law and what they say themselves about Northcom, they are not to be used against our citizens...unless you are involved with a terrorist organization.

It doesn't matter. You can't violate the civil rights of an accused criminal. I'll give them one thing though- they have their finger on the pulse of the people. Considering the things they've been doing WITHOUT DUE PROCESS to accused terrorists, they would definately need the military to arrest any intelligent person on suspicion of terrorism. I'd just as soon end up in a body bag as I would end up in zip-ties and a hood.




Using movies or a game to illustrate what could possibly happen is not exactly something logical in my book,

Why do I always get the slow ones? Listen closely. The movie examples are serving as examples of consequences. The logic by which the consequences come about is not the point. That is not what the illustration is meant to show. Suppose I was going to shoot you, and i showed you a picture of somebody who had been stabbed to demonstrate how you're going to end up. Same thing in the end isn't it? (No I'm not threatening you, I just had to draw a picture for you, and for some reason that was the picture I had in my head at the moment.)


and respect goes both way, i respect your opinion, but it is just your opinion, just like mine is. Twisting words? where exactly did i twist your words?....

With the ridiculous claim that I had based by arguement on a movie.



It could also mean that they don't know when or where something could happen, and this is a reason for having an agency that can supply more help to the first responders if needed without having to use more tax dollars.

Oh, I didn't realize that Northcom was staffed by unpaid volunteers and used donated equipment. Would you mind just showing me where it says that on their website so that we can be sure?
If Northcom hasn't got its own assetts then how the hell can we know that we'll have them when we need them? We should be pressing equipment, training, and responsibility to the lowest levels of the chain so that they are provided quickly, competently, and safely (in terms of our civil rights).




Not so, much less when as i have said already you don't know where or when something might happen. It is actually easier to have an agency such as Northcom which does not supersede the command of civil first responders.

Somehow this additional bureaucracy is going to help us get federal assets where they aer needed faster although you have implied that Northcom does not have its own assetts even, making it the middleman for TWO extra links in the chain? Training/Equipping either first responders or existing federal agencies such as FEMA would be far more efficient and far less open to abuse than a military command encompassing the United States. The motivation to maintain the postion you do is an illogical insistence on military involvement.




Now, first of all... why in the world would I insult your mother?....and you are calling yourself names, not exactly a bright idea, but hey, if it gets you high...

Second....they are fricken movies, there are thousands of movies, some portraying the military and the government as good, some as if they were bad...the point is...they are movies, not to be mistaken with real life....


You ask what I'm talking about, then you do exactly what I'm talking about. Your twisting of my words to imply that I have based my entire rationale on movies is quite apparently flawed and does little other than serve as an insult to me. I can only assume that you do in fact have the intellectual capacity to see that you are presenting my illustration in an erroneous way. This is no more constructive or intelligent than resorting to petty name calling- it has no bearing what so ever on the issue, but only seeks to discredit me through mischaracterization.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Creating the potential for evil is evil. Nothing "evil" actually happens just because you plant a landmine, but it's still evil to plant a landmine isn't it? Because now you've got evil just sitting there waiting for a chance to happen.


Ok, you are basing your whole argument on your own assumption that there are not enough laws restricting Northcom. Tell you what....write to your representatives and present your case to them if you want something actually done, because obviously you have your opinion and i have mine.... Neither one of us is going to agree with each other's views.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm tempted to not answer that since I already have. They do not need military help. We can fund, train, and equip the civilian agencies in a mission specific manner and make sure the funding goes where it is supposed to go. The military should have a minimal role in civil affairs of any kind what so ever.


And i am also tempted not to anwser because i have given you the same anwser several times.... They themselves say that they have limitations, they are not a police force, they do not supersede the power of the civic first responders, etc, etc.....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
And as we know, you can not meet these new challenges unless you are under a military command which has access to military weapons. We can't possibly deal with disaster without opening up the possibility that troops could be more readily deployed against US citizens... sorry, i mean "persons".


You are again making assumtions when it says clearly in what limitations that Northcom has that they do not conduct enforcement operations, they do not provide first responders, they do not train of maintain operational forces among other things they do not do...

Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...

And to think that you mention further down in your post about getting always the slow ones....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is full of obvious loopholes. It says "we aren't...." but it doesn't say "we will not..." So what if my mission statement said "The Vagabond is not a murderer" but I was armed to the teeth and never explicity said "The Vagabond won't kill anybody". The loopholes are there, they are obvious, and they allow a back-door for martial law by making the flimsy claim that the troops are acting in a strictly supportive manner to civil authorities.


You obviously did not read what it says, because they clearly say.


Given these parameters, U.S. Northern Command does not:


Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...

Then they continue to explain what they do not do.....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Like in 1932 when American troops in gassed 15,000 protestors then advanced on them with fixed bayonets, with tanks there in support of them? en.wikipedia.org...


You are using as an excuse something that happened over 70 years ago...and obviously you did not give the full account of what happened, although I do agree that even thou the police was outmatched and they were getting their butts kicked that they shouldn't have used armed military personnel.

But.....first of all......let me put it again what is one of the things that Northcom does not do...... Let me actually make it easier for you to read...


U.S. Northern Command does not: Conduct law enforcement operations


Excerpted from.....
www.northcom.mil...

Second.... Are we to expect the same thing happening in every country in the world who have done something like this in the past to do the same in the future to their people?....


Originally posted by The Vagabond
When were you in the military bro? I was a Marine just a year ago. I'll tell you a little something about the Marines I've known- they are mostly conservative and have a disdain for liberals, upon whom they focus their broader disdain for civilians in general. They can be counted on to do as their told in virtually any situation. They get excited about the prospect of a good fight. They would whoop our arses from here to Timbuktu if they were presented with the idea that we were a bunch of nasty anti-american scumbags who needed to be quelled. They had no qualms about putting down the LA riots (rightfully so) but that's exactly how they're going to see all of us if and when the order to put us down is given.


I was in the military in the 1990s, and i trained with Marines also as Aircrew AWs. I know that there are some Marines that think that civilians are lesser than dung, but i also know that others do not think like this, as well as the rest of our armed forces.... Yes they will be some that will follow orders to the letter, but most, if they are given an immoral order they are bound not to follow it as for the UCMJ....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not even remotely limited enough. Northcom must be stipulated for specific types of missions using certain types of assetts. Northcom should be forbidden from possessing, controlling, or providing to police things such as intelligence services (especially SSB) and heavy weapons. Northcom's ability to assisst law enforcement should be specifically reduced to riot control and perhaps certain other appropriate missions. The military SHOULD NOT under any circumstances participate in investigations of civilians accused of crimes, the apprehension of individual civilians, etc.


I wonder what U.S. Northern Command does not Conduct law enforcement operations means......



Originally posted by The Vagabond
So what in the bloody hell does Clinton have to do with anything? Why even bring up who was president. The government acted in an extremely heavy handed way and burned a bunch of people alive, quite possibly on purpose. New rule: BOTH parties are forbidden to set human beings on fire!


So why in bloddy hell did you bring up Waco if you didn't want to discuss why it was done or who did it?.....

and do tell me...did the FBI purposedly set on fire the compound?..... or was it the result from the gun fight from both sides which made the federal agencies to use tear gas, which seems to have caused the fire?.....



Originally posted by The Vagabond

I must be misunderstanding you, because now it seems like you are saying that yes the government has gone too far with law enforcement, but just because we can't pin the blame on Bush or Clinton we should let them create EVEN MORE potential for abuse?


Does every govenrment in the world does not make any mistakes?....

All of them do, some more than others.... and...once again....you are making this claim because you think that not enough is being done to limit Northcom....




Originally posted by The Vagabond
It doesn't matter. You can't violate the civil rights of an accused criminal. I'll give them one thing though- they have their finger on the pulse of the people. Considering the things they've been doing WITHOUT DUE PROCESS to accused terrorists, they would definately need the military to arrest any intelligent person on suspicion of terrorism. I'd just as soon end up in a body bag as I would end up in zip-ties and a hood.


Ok...first you call me slow, and now you are acting like you are not exactly the brightest one around....

What is there not to understand about.... U.S. Northern Command does not Conduct law enforcement operations......




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do I always get the slow ones? Listen closely.


Why do i always get the ones who think they are almighty and the ones who know everything more than anyone else?.....


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The movie examples are serving as examples of consequences. The logic by which the consequences come about is not the point. That is not what the illustration is meant to show.


You were giving as an example what could happen in real life by what you saw in a movie... First I said that imo, that's not exactly a logical thing to do because there are thousands of movies which have all sorts of scenarios, some portraying the government and the military as good, some portraying them as evil...

Second...then i proceeded to demonstrate what i was talking about, and using your choice of making an allegory through movies, by giving you three examples of movies where the use of military help was necessary to help civilian first responders....and at the end the military did not control the country.....




Originally posted by The Vagabond
With the ridiculous claim that I had based by arguement on a movie.


Ok......so now you are saying you did not use movies as allegories of what could happen in real life?...meaning that you did not at least partially base your argument on movies?...... Oookaaaay.....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, I didn't realize that Northcom was staffed by unpaid volunteers and used donated equipment. Would you mind just showing me where it says that on their website so that we can be sure?


Do you really need the help of someone else to tell you that paying 1,200 people in Northcom is going to be cheaper than training millions of civilian first responders?......



Originally posted by The Vagabond
If Northcom hasn't got its own assetts then how the hell can we know that we'll have them when we need them? We should be pressing equipment, training, and responsibility to the lowest levels of the chain so that they are provided quickly, competently, and safely (in terms of our civil rights).


Ok, once more let's see what Northcom is about....


The Department of Defense established U.S. Northern Command in 2002 to consolidate under a single unified command existing missions that were previously executed by other military organizations.


Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...

So Northcom consolidates under a single command missions that already exist..... If the missions already exist...they must have their own assests do they not?...




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Somehow this additional bureaucracy is going to help us get federal assets where they aer needed faster although you have implied that Northcom does not have its own assetts even, making it the middleman for TWO extra links in the chain? Training/Equipping either first responders or existing federal agencies such as FEMA would be far more efficient and far less open to abuse than a military command encompassing the United States. The motivation to maintain the postion you do is an illogical insistence on military involvement.


Where did i imply that Northcom did not have their own assets?....
All i said is that it is easier and cheaper to pay 1,200 people than millions of first responders, which was a response to what you said, and I quote;

It would be easier to just better train and equip the first responders directly.





Originally posted by The Vagabond
You ask what I'm talking about, then you do exactly what I'm talking about. Your twisting of my words to imply that I have based my entire rationale on movies is quite apparently flawed and does little other than serve as an insult to me. I can only assume that you do in fact have the intellectual capacity to see that you are presenting my illustration in an erroneous way. This is no more constructive or intelligent than resorting to petty name calling- it has no bearing what so ever on the issue, but only seeks to discredit me through mischaracterization.


Let's make this clear....... You were the one who decided to base your argument of what could happen in real life by what happened in a movie....did you not?.........

If you did, which I am certain you did.....how did i twist your words?....I gave my opinion of what I though of making allegories from movies as what could happen in real life....my opinion.... that's not twisting words.... Twisting words is what you are doing now...trying to make it sound that you are a victim now....

---edited for errors---


[edit on 4-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
CazMedia says,


You have voted Muaddib for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Thanks for your vote my friend. You are doing also a good job, which is to question everything in our quest to "Deny Ignorance."


[edit on 4-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ok, you are basing your whole argument on your own assumption that there are not enough laws restricting Northcom. Tell you what....write to your representatives and present your case to them if you want something actually done, because obviously you have your opinion and i have mine.... Neither one of us is going to agree with each other's views.


I do plenty of writing. I'm quickly collecting a wonderful set of form letters, many of which aren't even directly related to my letters. I'm not nearly dillusional enough to believe that I'm going to get anyone in power to validate the concerns of me or anytone else who holds their freedom jealously, but it is a FACT that terrorism laws have already been applied in ways which even the DAs repsonsible admitted was not the intended use of the laws. That is a very strong basis for my opinion that we should place strong checks and balances on any emergency provisions for the government and those agencies which execute government policy.
Maybe there will be abuses, maybe we'll get lucky; it's up in the air, but 10 times out of 10 a population that thinks like you will end up under a dictator ahead of a population that thinks like me.

You've made it clear in every exchange you and I have had that you are completely incapable of questioning authority. Dear leader and his corporate cronies would never hurt us, they're just being good capitalists and its for our own good. I'll tell you what chief, you may end up standing guard over me in a gulag some day, but I'll be the one who's really free.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
.
.
.
Now here's a newsflash.

The Bush administration is pushing to invade Syria. Without even budgeting for troop recruitment and training. Never mind decent medical coverage for veterans or death benefits. True, Bush routinely funnels DOD money straight to his corporate buddies but this is getting ridiculous.

Is the Bush administration that incompetent - or is our military becoming obsolete? Are there non-human alternatives waiting in the wings?

No doubt the truth is "Top Secret" and "Confidential." Either way, the troops are out in the cold or up on charges, taking the flack for the brass.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The bush administration is so secretive that borders in undemocracy.

In 2000 Bush said “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

www.newsgateway.ca...

How do you know what a dictatorship is well “secrecy and oppressive police power”

Bush already did the expansions of government secrecy and and its size, the oppressive power well we have a patriot act to deal with that minor problem.

So coming from the horse’s mouth back in 2000 I think Bush dictatorship is shaping quite well.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Marg...i guess you have never made a stupid joke in your life... i know i have...this shows that the president is also human and can make jokes.

if you really think he made that joke really meaning what he said, then i guess all the jokes you have done in your life were not for jest....

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
.............
You've made it clear in every exchange you and I have had that you are completely incapable of questioning authority. Dear leader and his corporate cronies would never hurt us, they're just being good capitalists and its for our own good. I'll tell you what chief, you may end up standing guard over me in a gulag some day, but I'll be the one who's really free.



What the heck do you know of what i am capable and what I am not capable of....and if you have to know, i have been to the brig for disobeying an order i found immoral. That tells you how much you know about me....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join