National Guard Soldiers To Usher In New Year at Times Square, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 02:58 PM by dunwichwitch

reply to post by tide88

What you are saying is that we'd better suspect everyone?

So that's your reasoning for military force against civilians of the same country?

Does this kind of fear ever bring good things?

EDIT:

Or does history never ever repeat itself and we can count on what's basically a brand name to be ethical and caring?

Were to German people who executed Nazi atrocities of some sort of different moral fiber than Americans, or like of some sort of different more unethical race of beings?

[edit on 1-1-2009 by dunwichwitch]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:06 PM by tide88

reply to post by dunwichwitch

When the military comes and forces you at gunpoint to do something, hey don't tell us we never warned you of your ignorace

And when this never happens, then what are you going to say. Not disagreeing with you that a lot of politicians are awful, greedy, and crooked. However I am sure they have been like this for over a hundred years now. They will always be that way. Hopefully we will be able to weed out the really bad ones. However whether they are in power or the people are in power there will always going to be crooks. I live in S. Fl. and there are many condo and home associations. The people elected to those boards are no better then the people in our governement. They are power mongers who abuse rules and steal finances. I guess as electors it is up to us to try weed out the bad. And we cant just give people weapons and say patrol the street yourself. There are a lot of crazies out there. Just read some of the posts on this board. Imagine some of those people running around with weapons without the proper training. Scary thought.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:07 PM by tide88

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
reply to post by tide88

What you are saying is that we'd better suspect everyone?

So that's your reasoning for military force against civilians of the same country?

Does this kind of fear ever bring good things?

EDIT:

Or does history never ever repeat itself and we can count on what's basically a brand name to be ethical and caring?

Were to German people who executed Nazi atrocities of some sort of different moral fiber than Americans, or like of some sort of different more unethical race of beings?

[edit on 1-1-2009 by dunwichwitch]

Okay give me an example where the military has used any FORCE against us. Again they were there in case anything malicious happened. It didnt. And yes we should provide the extra protection by any means necessary in case something happens. Also talked to someone who was there last night and goes every night. He said it was no different from years in the past.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by tide88]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:26 PM by tide88

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

First it's announced that 11,000 troops will be patroling the inaugural convention, and now it's the New Year's celebration at Times square

Not saying you are wrong but where did you get the 11,000 number from. By the looks of it it is only 4000.

More than 4,000 Citizen-Soldiers and -Airmen from at least eight states will provide security, medical and other support during the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration, a National Guard official said today.

What is their purpose?

About half of the 4,000 will be dedicated to security, including crowd control, civil disturbance missions, manning traffic control points and assisting with the screening process.....Gen. Gene Renuart, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, told reporters Dec. 17 that another contingent on alert would be able to respond to a chemical attack.

But why so many?

The D.C. National Guard’s efforts will be larger this time because of the expected crowds. “We will be involved in almost every facet of the operation,” said Officer Candidate Robert Albrecht, a spokesman for the D.C. Guard.

Source

This is so ominous. I predict military rule by 2010.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:26 PM by dunwichwitch

reply to post by tide88

Force is not necessarily violence. Force could be simple making us do things which are against our free will and honestly against the law. Which is exactly what military checkpoints are. Which is exactly what being deployed to keep a large scale public party "under control" is. Using FORCE. Using force could even be the simple act of military presence being in an area and intimidating citizens by their presence.

We need the military at a joyful occasion to intimidate us with their presence? That is forceful invasion of mental serenity. How can you feel serene when there are men in Army uniforms with guns and military equipment all around?

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:28 PM by robynnee

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

So long Posse Comitatus Act, it was nice knowing ya!

First it's announced that 11,000 troops will be patroling[sp] the inaugural convention, and now it's the New Year's celebration at Times square.

I don't think that you understand the "Posse Comitatus Act". It is to keep active federal troops off the streets-not the National Guard. The National Guard is (supposedly) state controlled. That is it's main function, as in disaster relief and riot control. Federal troops are not supposed to do this. It is true, however, that the President can call them to active duty and then they become Federalized and they can be sent to foreign soil such as Iraq. But, once they are released from Federal duty they are again under the jurisdiction of the State they came from.
Constantly-Watching

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:34 PM by soultorent

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
reply to post by tide88

We need the military at a joyful occasion to intimidate us with their presence? That is forceful invasion of mental serenity. How can you feel serene when there are men in Army uniforms with guns and military equipment all around?

Maybe they just wanted to join in on the celebration.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:42 PM by tide88

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
reply to post by tide88

Force is not necessarily violence. Force could be simple making us do things which are against our free will and honestly against the law. Which is exactly what military checkpoints are. Which is exactly what being deployed to keep a large scale public party "under control" is. Using FORCE. Using force could even be the simple act of military presence being in an area and intimidating citizens by their presence.

Please give me an example of the national guard making someone do something against their free will. And if you are talking about searching people at checkpoints dont even bother to respond. If you are complaining about extra support for police to make that area safer then...... Who did they intimadate. When I go to somewhere and see a large police presence I am not intimitated. Nor would I be if there was a military presence. As long as I am abiding by the law I have nothing to worry about. And I have been to plenty of places where there was a large police presence.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by tide88]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:49 PM by FearSoul

ok there going to have roughly 1 million people there so do you think they are going to let NYPD guard 1 MILLION PEOPLE?

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:54 PM by dunwichwitch

reply to post by tide88

I'm not saying any large armed presence is needed anywhere where peaceful happenings are going on, be it police OR military. They usually cause riots to happen in the first place. They intimidate and irritate otherwise peaceful crowds.

And you are just rephrasing the exact same things I've already answered, and then on top of that you are using the old phrase "If I'm not doing anything against the law, I've got nothing to worry about." and it's a giant cop out. Did you read anything I have previously said, or are you purposefully trying to use ignorance of others as your defense? You've avoided anything of importance I've said and just decided to reiterate things I've already answered, and I'm not going to play those games. Because you either refuse to understand, or you've got another motive.

So This is the last time I address you. No offense. If you wanna see police and military using unneccesary force, just do your own research. There's enough examples out there. I'm not going to go through the trouble of reitering things which you are obviously ignoring anyway. Sorry dude.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:01 PM by dunwichwitch

reply to post by FearSoul

There are millions of people everywhere dude.

So the military has to come in and guard a million people here or there..... and then it will always be expected that the military is called in to "guard" people on any occasion.... or rather "guard against". There are millions of people living in New York City, sprawled out over a vast area. Sure, the police can't even do a proper job then, but would you ask for the military to back them up in every day measures? It's just a shot away, as the Rolling Stones say.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:15 PM by tide88

reply to post by dunwichwitch

Really. show me where there are over a milliion drinking roudy people are gathering together in a two block radius. Ever go to a concert or a sporting event. There are police everywhere. And they need to be there too. To make everyone safer. Oh my god. Just saw two b2 bombers fly over the rose bowl. The military takeover is starting..

[edit on 1-1-2009 by tide88]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:18 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Johnmike

Do you even know what the Posse Commitatus Act is? It makes it illegal to use federally controlled soldiers for law enforcement under ordinary circumstances (ex. not if there is a declared emergency, as you can see if you read it and the Insurrection Act).

But in your own quote, it says that it was under the command of the Governor of New York. So Posse Commitatus has nothing to do with this.

Ya, people complain about things they do not even have a clue about. If they spent the time to research instead of writing their posts maybe they would understand.

Our fore fathers saw a Federal Military as a possible threat as in the case of a military takeover. Since we are not one big country, but 50 different United States of government, and each Governor in their own way is a president of their state. We do not want a federal military working within these states filling a dangerous roll of a police state. Because of this each Governor has military forces of their own that are not part of the Posse Commitatus Act because they only have legal rights in their own state, and are actually the counter force to a Federal one that might want to take over militarily.

So your post is pointless and now that the party is over we see once again there is no news here.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:21 PM by tide88

reply to post by dunwichwitch

I'm not saying any large armed presence is needed anywhere where peaceful happenings are going on, be it police OR military. They usually cause riots to happen in the first place. They intimidate and irritate otherwise peaceful crowds.

Well at least i know what type of person I am having a debate with. Authority is the problem. Okay, sure! Whatever you say. The police are the ones who are responsible for the riots that happen. You are one of those who blame everyone else for what happens, right? Let me guess, Bush was behind 9/11.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:23 PM by tide88

reply to post by Xtrozero

Agree, I am done here. I am getting way off topic. This whole thread is based on a falicy.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by tide88]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 05:08 PM by Johnmike

reply to post by dunwichwitch

I don't get what you're talking about. Posse Commitatus only applies to soldiers under federal control. Not National Guard forces under state control.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 06:38 PM by SideWynder

As I stated earlier, I can almost understand the use of the military to augment civilian police forces in certain circumstances.. IE, especialy the Military police. They basically have the sme job as the civilian police.. and(theorecticallly) it would provide good training..

But, seeing as how the military police basically wear the same uniform as a military infintryman, cook, mechanic, etc.. why not use them also? the average citizen will not be able to tell the differance anyway.. And most people think that all military personell get the same exact training no matter what thier particular military job is..

Also what most ordinary citizens are unfamiliar with is the distinction between the National Guard, the Reserves, and Fulltime active duty Units..Basically, they all wear the same uniforms, and have pretty much the same equipment, so distinguishing amongst the differant types of units is very difficult..

So now lest start using the National guard M.P. units to augment civil police forces, then lets go ahead and use other elements of the national guard to "Augment the M.P.s, and them maybe we might need to pull in some reserve units to "Augment" the National Guard units........ETC..

Even now some people are getting used to this.. used to seeing our National Guardsmen next to civilian Police doing the same jobs, IE we seem to be being conditioned to think that this is "normal"..

As I have stated earlier, I do not belive that the military personell belive that theyare part of a conspiracy to get the citizenry used to armed soldiers being the "norm" for what should be civilian Police..

But I am now starting to think that this may be the unfortunate truth.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by SideWynder]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 06:44 PM by Anonymous ATS

I can't raise cane since I am from Illinois. But New Yorkers should really make their position on this known. Calf. was the first state to suffer this indignity and now New York. They are testing us. We either act now or suffer later.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:57 PM by esdad71

Was anyone shot? Arrested? Are there still tanks in Time Square? Did Cheney feed off the blood of the innocents????Welcome 2009.....

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:10 AM by die_another_day

Well... they can do this as long as they don't shoot/kill anyone.

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^