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: U.S. to use troops for domestic security

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The state Governors can call out the NG but not the active military.

If something big and terrible did happened, all of you would want the US or State Gum-mint to do something to save your butts. FEMA to the rescue!

It would be scary to drive through a street lined with military or police but there are those on this board that want a socialist state and thats what you will get with a socialist state. Not just during an emergency but all the time.

Roper




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Dunno?, but to me that shouldn't be a shock or surprise..Is it not the right thing to do?

Using all resources available to protect the people is a good thing.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Dunno?, but to me that shouldn't be a shock or surprise..Is it not the right thing to do?

Using all resources available to protect the people is a good thing.

Dallas


I find no problem with using federal troops in the event of a major catastrophe (after all, the National Guard has helped many parts of the country out of disasters - most notably, various West coast earthquake damage, and hurricane alley storm damages). What I do have a problem with, however, is putting the power of domestic dispatch of these troops solely into the hands of the president. This gives way too much power to one person, and completely negates the system of checks and balances that this country has put in place. With the current system, the governor of a state can call out the local National Guard and place them within the state as needed. As yet, no single person has the authority to place Federal troops anywhere within the country. This is a safeguard to prevent a police state from happening. If the president gains this ability, there's nothing to stop him from declaring permanent marshal law across the nation.

America is supposed to be "By the people, for the people" not "By the president, for the president."



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Almost seems like Rome. Seriously though, has not the American People already lost most freedoms to the present Administration though? The Patriot Act the details of whic I know very little, still seems to negate personal privacy and rules regarding State and Country yes?

Dallas



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Dallas,

As yet, we haven't lost most freedoms, just a few very important ones - such as privacy.

You are correct about the Patriot Act, and with Patriot Act II about to pass, 10 of the 14 directives of the act will be made permanent, and the remaining four will be up for renewal in 10 years time. What this all means is that we, as Americans, are slowly and systematically having our rights stripped from us. The only thing at the moment preventing a total federal government takeover is the restrictions placed on the President regarding domestic troop usage. If we lose that, he will have all the authority in the world to force the citizenry into compliance with his every whim. It wouldn't be noticible at first, though, and it would be played off as being "for the good of the people" just as the Patriot Act was, but eventually, probably when it was too late to do anything, we'd all realize that we've become Winston Smith, living in fear of Big Brother watching us constantly in our day to day lives.

Not all Totalitarian regimes take over by force. Remember, it's far more efficient (not to mention cheaper) to manipulate the people by words than to take them by force... and right now, the sheeple are believing every word of it.



new topics

 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join