General Patty Retired Due to Federal vs. State Law Problems

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Several states have passed laws which go against Federal Law. This will equate to the Federal Gov. wanting to crack down on states; at the very least serious investigations will start on "persons of interest" in these areas. The General, being a Republican, might have personally disagreed with aspects of this. What are your thoughts into this matter? (and don't mention the 'D' word. We aren't talking about that, we're talking about legal dispute and remedy...)




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


I don't think the CIA can work on american soil, Officially I mean. Thats what the FBI is for. Now if I am correct these new laws shouldn't affect him at all. Besides the fact that the CIA are mostly information gathers and not officers of the law. I don't think they even have the power to arrest anyone for breaking the law. So these law should be of no concern to him. Now AG Holder is another issue altogether. The FBI, DEA, ATF are mostly internal orgs. that operate domestically, while the CIA operates internationally.
edit on 11-11-2012 by geldib because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Granted, which is the obvious statement which ignores the language of the original post...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by geldib
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


I don't think the CIA can work on american soil, Officially I mean. Thats what the FBI is for. Now if I am correct these new laws shouldn't affect him at all. Besides the fact that the CIA are mostly information gathers and not officers of the law. I don't think they even have the power to arrest anyone for breaking the law. So these law should be of no concern to him. Now AG Holder is another issue altogether. The FBI, DEA, ATF are mostly internal orgs. that operate domestically, while the CIA operates internationally.
edit on 11-11-2012 by geldib because: (no reason given)


I think you will find that POTUS wrote one of his presidential notes and now they can operate internally.

P



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Either way none of the laws passed have any bearing on the CIA, I highly doubt they would waste there time investigating petty matters compared to what they are used to. Do you think they will assign a team to follow some pot growers, or gun smugglers or even some crazy redneck "terrorist" retards, instead of groups like the PLO or PFLP-EO or any other number of groups with the will, finance and government support to really do some damage. What will the CIA do, assasinate the domestic criminals? Because even if they do get involved they have no power to do anything but call the FBI and let them get credit for the bust.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Forgive my ignorance if that is what I am speaking from, but why would the CIA have anything to do with legal disputes between the states and US federal government? Isn't that a job for the courts, not an intelligence service?

From where I am standing, as a journalist covering international affairs, the whole problem with General Petraeus could if anything, be chalked up to departmental rivalry, which in and of itself would be a very interesting conspiracy.

I have a problem however with equating this to some sort of coming crisis within the United States because there is very little if any data suggesting that the CIA would be embroiled in something like this right now. It is true that they have acted illegally outside of their mandated job in the past. The MK ULTRA program was a perfect example of this even if one simply takes it as only what the US government claims it was. That was different though, and not part of some fantasy regarding the beginnings of a second American Civil War.

I think you're looking for something here that just does not exist OP, no matter how much you want it to.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


"Forgive my ignorance if that is what I am speaking from, but why would the CIA have anything to do with legal disputes between the states and US federal government? Isn't that a job for the courts, not an intelligence service?"

-you're blatantly ignoring the language of the post. Intelligence, rightfully so, would need to be gathered on potentially destabilizing influences on our country... I don't think you need me to spell all of this out. *snip*

"From where I am standing, as a journalist covering international affairs, the whole problem with General Petraeus could if anything, be chalked up to departmental rivalry, which in and of itself would be a very interesting conspiracy."

-okay... that, again, doesn't really deal with the original post. I will deal with your idea of rivalry below. You being a journalist sure does explain a lot...

"I have a problem however with equating this to some sort of coming crisis within the United States because there is very little if any data suggesting that the CIA would be embroiled in something like this right now. It is true that they have acted illegally outside of their mandated job in the past. The MK ULTRA program was a perfect example of this even if one simply takes it as only what the US government claims it was. That was different though, and not part of some fantasy regarding the beginnings of a second American Civil War."

-if the projected need of resources is more than what one department has available, and budgets are limited, then departments must co-operate, possibly using novel methods. Leave MK ULTRA out of the picture, even the psychiatrists doing the work had generally no-clue as to the actual agendas involved; it is not the subject. Lastly, I never said anything about a civil war... again you ignore the language of the original post.

"I think you're looking for something here that just does not exist OP, no matter how much you want it to."

-I never said that... I was asking the users here what they thought. Now, I know what you think.

>Basically it boils down to expenditure of limited resources on two states when we are in deep # elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by geldib
 


Sounds to me like

some folks have bought the

'politically correct'

illusions and delusions

hatched in The Company's offices and psych ops rooms . . .

that they are all a patriotic nice little bunch of old lady spinsters doing their neighborly patriotic duty to protect us from all the foreign bad guys.

Whereas . . . they've actually . . . been doing major skull duggery on American soil against Americans for decades.

Particularly in the UFO field and others.

As Kissinger said . . .




"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."



twoday.net...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


Alright mate, first off what does me being a journalist have to do with my unease with accepting your theory? I don't even work for an America outlet. Although I do actually research and report on the so-called "destabilizing influences" in your nation.

After doing a bit more research and looking through my notes again though I can say that I categorically reject your theory. If you wish to parse wording from the OP then let us start with the fact that you declare the general's party affiliation as his reasoning for holding the ideas you hypothesize he holds. As one whom is not in the thick of your nation's post-election political paranoia I can tell you that it's a completely unreasonable expectation. You are feeding, in what I am guessing passes for a subtle way in your nation's political discourse, the old us-versus-them mentality.

You say he is a Republican, so therefore he's one of the "good guys" while of course now that the Democrat "bad guys" are in charge he will have to do something he is unwilling to do. To a Brit who studies Americans, that's is just bollocks. Both parties have conducted horrible abuses of power with their intelligence services in the past, and I can point to direct, government admitted examples if you would like.

Get off of your bloody political bandwagon if you want to impose ideas and ambitions upon a member of your government, because the rest of the world isn't buying your childish little "red versus blue" infighting anymore.

You said in your reply that this is somehow a matter of the resources of various agencies. If you believe that to be true mate, I'd say you are hilariously misunderstanding how your own government works and woefully underestimating their abilities. There are intelligence branches of your military that would be quite effective should the FBI fall short, add to that the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security and the big guns of spying at the National Security Agency would actually be of far more use than those of the traditionalist CIA.

The United States has incredible domestic intelligence gathering capabilities. It's the kind of thing that even the Russians can only dream of.

I believe, again looking at the situation with the benefit of being external to it, that you are also vastly exaggerating the amount of dissent that will occur in your nation's immediate future. Yes, you are a horribly divided nation and my god trust me your media never ceases to remind us overseas of how absolutely terrible it is, but let's be serious for a moment. Get over yourselves, you're nowhere near being in real trouble.

The right-wing of the American media has had nearly a week of breathless predictions of woe. Your nation has not brought the wrath of God upon it, America is not dead, freedom will not cease to exist, and the states will not mount a legalistic battle for "rights" against the federals. To do the latter would be economic and political suicide. Nobody is going to do so, especially when it has just been so profoundly slammed into every governors face the need for federal support in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

The prognostications of the horrors to come are just too bloody idiotic to even warrant a second thought. Differences between the states and the federals will be worked out as they were prescribed to be in your constitution, through the legal system. There will be no need for the CIA to get involved at all. Any expectation of otherwise shows a blatant disregard or lack of knowledge about your system, history and culture.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


original post:

"Several states have passed laws which go against Federal Law. This will equate to the Federal Gov. wanting to crack down on states; at the very least serious investigations will start on "persons of interest" in these areas. The General, being a Republican, might have personally disagreed with aspects of this. What are your thoughts into this matter? (and don't mention the 'D' word. We aren't talking about that, we're talking about legal dispute and remedy...)"

****Rebuttal****

§1 Your industry does a poor job. This, is an understatement.

§2 People join political parties for reasons. You can deduce his views based on his Curriculum Vitae. Or, from what he has said (if you'd rather not look at what he has done).You on the other hand claim that I'm talking about some "Us vs. Them" situation, when the original post says nothing of the sort.

§3 I never said he is one of the "good guys" nor did I claim that the Democrats are "bad guys".

§4 I stated nothing about my political affiliation. Your investigative skills are outstanding.
§4.3 you brought up Red v. Blue, not me.

§5 I never said that that wasn't the case. What I did say, put simply, is that when there is a shortage of resources, departments need to share the work load.
§5.6 We are basically talking about the various arms of the intelligence communities working together. Different arms have different specialties. The OP stated "The General, being a Republican, might have personally disagreed with aspects of this." This only reflects on him as an individual, not the Agencies views.

§6 So the Russians can do it in their sleep? I hope not.

§7 Again, you're having a totally different conversation. Where did I mention dissent? Where did I say anything about civil war? Where did I state that we are a horribly divided nation?

§8 I said nothing about my beliefs or views, so I don't understand what you're prattling on about.Yet, the states have basically passed laws which directly oppose Federal Law.
§8.4 Economic and political suicide how exactly? Care to explain that?

§9 Yes, I agree that the doomsayers are pretty moronic. Which is why you'll find I'm not talking about anything of the sort.

***Conclusion***

We are having two different conversations.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


Well mate, in my profession we call what you are attempting to do "mental gymnastics." That's when someone gets called out on their nuttery then tries hard to contort their words intents to keep from ever being even the slightest bit wrong. In your case, it's not the best of jobs.

First you defend using the party affiliation line, with passion, yet say that you don't believe in the party dichotomy. That's a bit of an issue logically.

Second, you fail entirely to address being laid out entirely on how your own federal government works by a Brit. You really think I was just going to forget that part of my own argument?

Third, you parse your words rather painfully with many "I didn't say" statements yet one of the biggest things that any journalist worth their degrees look at is implied intent and the meaning of narratives as well as the blatantly stated. We are used to going up against politicians who have entire teams to make their words slippery, your back peddling is nowhere near the level they play at.

Fourth, you once more show your blatant lack of understanding of how your own nation works by asking what is meant by the fact that it would be economic suicide for states to rebel legalistically against the federals. The biggest gun in the arsenal of the national government is their ability to write checks to the states. Your federal government goes into debt partially so that your states do not have to. All it would take to bring a state, any state but especially the ones in the American Southeast, to their knees would be for the federal government to simply turn off the stream of federal dollars being pumped into them. That national level money coming home to your state and 49 others is why the union of states works. Without it, each one is simply a two-bit republic trying to scratch out an existence from their own lacking dirt. On top of this, when there is a statewide emergency, the federals hold the bag for the states. New York and New Jersey have already appealed to the national government to pick up the tab for the hurricane cleanup because it would completely bankrupt them. Every other state will do so in a moment of panic. In fact looking back at your own national history the entire reason your constitution was written was because the individual states could not pay their own debts. It is why the Articles of Confederation were wholesale scrapped and your founding fathers had to start over.

Fifth, you state that the states have "practically" already passed these rebellious bits of legislation to put their thumbs in the eye of the federals. I'm going to call you out on that too and ask for examples, because I simply do not see where any of the petty politics the states have enacted affect their relationship with the federals to any meaningful degree.

I'm quite curious how you intend to try to jump through these hoops with your twisted logic to get out of this, it really is brilliantly amusing to watch.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I can find elevation by shadow.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
*bump*



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
*bump*

I am the lizard king.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Let me put it this way, our leading expert on insurrection leaves the intelligence community just as we have states passing legislation that disobeys federal law, and Texas is about to get 100,000 signatures to secede.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
*bump*

He is still going to testify on the Benghazi affair... so that is probably not the reason.





top topics
 
0

log in

join