Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-10-01 15:50:14
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7020|US
Blah, blah, christian neo-facists taking over the military, blah, blah.

I am sick and tired of this.  We actually had a grad come to the academy and tell cadets we should not be allowed to touch a Bible, because that would give off a bad impression...being in the military and all.  Can you say "crazed intolerance?"
2008-10-01 17:17:09
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6855|UK

jsnipy wrote:

What you should be worried about, if at all, is that some looming event is about to occur
Good point.  Considering the interweb and all, but I have seen a lot of people spouting the, if Obama wins, king George will do something in his final weeks (afterall new president doesnt actually take office untill january).  If McCain wins, there will be riots.

And neither is THAT outlandish.
2008-10-01 17:18:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

ATG wrote:

In Waco Texas, when they used tanks to crush babies and satchel charges to kill women and machine guns to mow down everybody trying to flee the building they had torched.

Do you need a goddamned piece of paper saying shits been repealed when the tanks are pumping your house full of flamable tear gas?

I guess so.
Yep. Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault.

And the last time I went through chem/bio training, CS (tear) gas wasn't flammable.

You can't be even slightly objective about that incident, so we won't pick that particular scab, despite your hyperbole.

Bottomline: Posse Comitatus is still in effect and has never NOT been in effect since enacted.

djphetal wrote:

Really? Because I thought it was fairly common knowledge.
A misconception does not equate to knowledge.

djphetal wrote:

I'll let you know that 4 of the 4 people I know who have joined the military have been religious neo-cons.
Quite a sample size you have there. Come back when you get something statistically significant.

djphetal wrote:

"Crazy" was an adjective Mek used to give voice to his statement, so if that's what offended you, then I apologize on behalf of the theoretical 3rd person which Mek referenced.
That's not what offended me, but you're all heart.

djphetal wrote:

Regardless, that isn't even what Mek was implicating in the first place.
I think Mek can speak just fine for himself, thank you.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

OK. And where was posse comitatus repealed? Still haven't answered the question.
It hasn't been. It has been changed though - but quite a while ago.
Nuff said.

Bertster7 wrote:

Although recently Bush repealed these changes (though he did add a signing statement, which makes it sounds like it isn't repealed at all).
Repealed is repealed. The wording of the law is back to its original form from 1807.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-02 03:53:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

OK. And where was posse comitatus repealed? Still haven't answered the question.
It hasn't been. It has been changed though - but quite a while ago.
Nuff said.
Not really. Changing it so the key points are no longer applicable (i.e. so the military can be used as law enforcement in extreme situations, at presidential disretion) is the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Although recently Bush repealed these changes (though he did add a signing statement, which makes it sounds like it isn't repealed at all).
Repealed is repealed. The wording of the law is back to its original form from 1807.
Except for the signing statement tacked on the end which says the president can still use the military as law enforcement if he feels like it.
2008-10-02 06:17:11
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6847|Texas - Bigger than France

djphetal wrote:

Pug wrote:

You know four people in the military.  So are you telling me they would willing shoot you if ordered?  I highly doubt it.
Didn't say that. I said I knew four religious Neo-cons in the army. You applied FEOS's flawed perception of Mek's post to my post.
Oh riiiight.  You're just implying our soldiers would willfully oppress the population, but not directly saying it.  I see the difference.
2008-10-02 08:13:58
topal63
. . .
+533|7024

Pug wrote:

djphetal wrote:

Pug wrote:

You know four people in the military.  So are you telling me they would willing shoot you if ordered?  I highly doubt it.
Didn't say that. I said I knew four religious Neo-cons in the army. You applied FEOS's flawed perception of Mek's post to my post.
Oh riiiight.  You're just implying our soldiers would willfully oppress the population, but not directly saying it.  I see the difference.
Lets see the Military (National guard together with some local police) - went door to door and seized weapons from the citizenship, after Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans. Last time I checked it was legal to own guns; but apparently the executive branch thought otherwise. It's hard to say why the order came down (was it really to help the situation), sometimes I think it was test to see just how much shit the populous will swallow.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/253356/we … w_orleans/

I am thinking yes they will oppress and suppress the rights of other Americans. At gunpoint even with orders - shoot to kill. Do they feel uneasy about such orders? Absolutely yes! Who wouldn't. The problem is the executive power that can order such - there always seems to be a rationalized justification to do something so obnoxious. (I am not trying conflate two issues: seizing weapons - with servicemen patrolling to prevent looting and or chaos - during a crisis. They are separate issues).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 09:09:48)

2008-10-02 08:51:19
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

In Waco Texas, when they used tanks to crush babies and satchel charges to kill women and machine guns to mow down everybody trying to flee the building they had torched.

Do you need a goddamned piece of paper saying shits been repealed when the tanks are pumping your house full of flamable tear gas?

I guess so.
Yep. Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault.

And the last time I went through chem/bio training, CS (tear) gas wasn't flammable.

You can't be even slightly objective about that incident, so we won't pick that particular scab, despite your hyperbole.

Bottomline: Posse Comitatus is still in effect and has never NOT been in effect since enacted.
Sir, while I normally hold your views in high regard, you obviously are utterly clueless about what happened in WACO.

CS tear gas not flamable? Why don't you look into it before tossing stink bombs and ignorant statements about.

Tear gas and sniper fire.


" Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault. "

http://www.dojgov.net/Waco01.htm


Believe what you want and save your chest thumping patriotism, I know what I believe
2008-10-02 09:29:58
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6847|Texas - Bigger than France

topal63 wrote:

Lets see the Military (National guard together with some local police) - went door to door and seized weapons from the citizenship, after Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans. Last time I checked it was legal to own guns; but apparently the executive branch thought otherwise. It's hard to say why the order came down (was it really to help the situation), sometimes I think it was test to see just how much shit the populous will swallow.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/253356/we … w_orleans/

I am thinking yes they will oppress and suppress the rights of other Americans. At gunpoint even with orders - shoot to kill. Do they feel uneasy about such orders? Absolutely yes! Who wouldn't. The problem is the executive power that can order such - there always seems to be a rationalized justification to do something so obnoxious. (I am not trying conflate two issues: seizing weapons - with servicemen patrolling to prevent looting and or chaos - during a crisis. They are separate issues).
I'm 70-30 on this one for the government.  But your example doesn't illustrate the abuse of the national guard because:
When a mandatory evacuation is issued and you do not comply...what rights do you have?

That's a tricky question...technically you don't have any right to bear arms because you are in violation of the law, but if you stay do you have the right to defend your property when you aren't supposed to be there?

The house clearing you posted happened after Nagin issued (again) a mandatory evacuation during the weeks after Katrina passed.  Legally, these people can be forcibly removed.  But it looks like in this case they decided to let them stay...IF they gave up their guns.
2008-10-02 09:31:34
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

In Waco Texas, when they used tanks to crush babies and satchel charges to kill women and machine guns to mow down everybody trying to flee the building they had torched.

Do you need a goddamned piece of paper saying shits been repealed when the tanks are pumping your house full of flamable tear gas?

I guess so.
Yep. Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault.

And the last time I went through chem/bio training, CS (tear) gas wasn't flammable.

You can't be even slightly objective about that incident, so we won't pick that particular scab, despite your hyperbole.

Bottomline: Posse Comitatus is still in effect and has never NOT been in effect since enacted.
Sir, while I normally hold your views in high regard, you obviously are utterly clueless about what happened in WACO.

CS tear gas not flamable? Why don't you look into it before tossing stink bombs and ignorant statements about.

Tear gas and sniper fire.


" Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault. "

http://www.dojgov.net/Waco01.htm


Believe what you want and save your chest thumping patriotism, I know what I believe
Yup, this sounds pretty conclusive to me:
According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.
At the very least (depending on how you classify military personnel for this), that's 15 military personnel involved + equipment + national guard.

In the documents made public today, references to the canisters do not clearly state that they were combustible but refer to them as ''military'' rounds, a type using a pyrotechnic device to pump out tear gas. The vast majority of tear gas at Waco was in nonflammable canisters.
So the tear gas is not flammable, but the cannisters that some of it was fired in are.
2008-10-02 09:35:35
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6977|UK
holy fuck they sent M1A1 Abrams to deal with some christian nutjobs?!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-10-02 09:38:30
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command

m3thod wrote:

holy fuck they sent M1A1 Abrams to deal with some christian nutjobs?!
yup.
They also placed a satchel charge on top of a buried school bus full of children and blew them apart. People trying to flee the burning building were shot as they fled and ran over by they tanks.

Facts is facts.
Don't make me link to pictures.
2008-10-02 16:44:21
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


It hasn't been. It has been changed though - but quite a while ago.
Nuff said.
Not really. Changing it so the key points are no longer applicable (i.e. so the military can be used as law enforcement in extreme situations, at presidential disretion) is the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Although recently Bush repealed these changes (though he did add a signing statement, which makes it sounds like it isn't repealed at all).
Repealed is repealed. The wording of the law is back to its original form from 1807.
Except for the signing statement tacked on the end which says the president can still use the military as law enforcement if he feels like it.
Don't know if you've heard, but he's out of a job in a few months. At that point, his signing statements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-02 16:50:50
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

ATG wrote:

They also placed a satchel charge on top of a buried school bus full of children and blew them apart.
oh ffs.  my god man.  you have lost it.
2008-10-02 16:52:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

In Waco Texas, when they used tanks to crush babies and satchel charges to kill women and machine guns to mow down everybody trying to flee the building they had torched.

Do you need a goddamned piece of paper saying shits been repealed when the tanks are pumping your house full of flamable tear gas?

I guess so.
Yep. Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault.

And the last time I went through chem/bio training, CS (tear) gas wasn't flammable.

You can't be even slightly objective about that incident, so we won't pick that particular scab, despite your hyperbole.

Bottomline: Posse Comitatus is still in effect and has never NOT been in effect since enacted.
Sir, while I normally hold your views in high regard, you obviously are utterly clueless about what happened in WACO.

CS tear gas not flamable? Why don't you look into it before tossing stink bombs and ignorant statements about.

Tear gas and sniper fire.
The gas itself is not flammable. The initiators on the canister do create heat and sparks. That is different than saying the gas itself is flammable and claiming the feds pumped flammable gas into a building.

ATG wrote:

" Particularly since no military personnel took part in the Waco assault. "

http://www.dojgov.net/Waco01.htm


Believe what you want and save your chest thumping patriotism, I know what I believe
While the site is certainly unbiased and presents all sides of the situation , you failed to read the details. The armored vehicles were provided to the FBI HRT and ATF. They had their weapons removed. I will type it slowly for you: No active duty or federalized national guard participated in the assault. Flying observation aircraft and providing maintenance for the modified armored vehicles in the rear are not...repeat NOT...participating in the assault.

It's clear-cut. The posse comitatus act was not violated in any way.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-02 16:53:25)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-02 16:58:22
SamTheMan:D
Banned
+856|6279|England

thats well scary that is
2008-10-02 17:01:58
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
lunatic.
2008-10-02 17:03:07
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command
What ever.
2008-10-02 17:36:36
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6792|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
With all this what if-ing going on, all I can think about is the show Jericho.

If this was an attempt by the administration to seize power, don't you think they would have deployed troops to locations that have more vital importance? You would need more than 1 brigade to secure all key points of interest in the US.

Most of you know I  was in the military for 8yrs, yeah we joked about shooting hippies and shit like that, but that was all it was, a joke. Done you think that any Marine or Soldier in his right mind would open fire on US citizens? Do you think we would help destroy the freedoms we help protect? When you enlist you take a oath to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic, and if they ever tried to seize power like that they would become the enemy and I would gladly take up arms to fight them.

Don't read into this article too much, it is coming from a site that is full of whack jobs and conspiracy nuts.
2008-10-02 17:37:39
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
iraqis have a right to bear arms too. doesnt do them much good.
2008-10-02 17:40:53
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6792|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

God Save the Queen wrote:

iraqis have a right to bear arms too. doesnt do them much good.
Yup, 1 AK-47 and 1 mag per home.
2008-10-02 17:44:53
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
they almost never had just one
2008-10-02 17:45:56
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

God Save the Queen wrote:

they almost never had just one
ya well getting an AK in the ME is like getting a glass of water in the US.
2008-10-02 17:48:22
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
some guys in my section grabbed one of the AK's we would hold onto and traded a haji a bb gun for exchange.  at first he didnt trust us with giving him the AK but he finally said yeah and handed it over.  thought that was funny.  think i might of mention it before.  trading an AK 47 for a BB gun is funny shit.


another dude told us to take his AK so he could keep his shotgun.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-02 17:48:51)

2008-10-02 17:49:47
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6792|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

God Save the Queen wrote:

they almost never had just one
Kinda like Lays, you can never have just one.
2008-10-03 18:11:07
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It hasn't been. It has been changed though - but quite a while ago.
Nuff said.
Not really. Changing it so the key points are no longer applicable (i.e. so the military can be used as law enforcement in extreme situations, at presidential disretion) is the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.

FEOS wrote:


Repealed is repealed. The wording of the law is back to its original form from 1807.
Except for the signing statement tacked on the end which says the president can still use the military as law enforcement if he feels like it.
Don't know if you've heard, but he's out of a job in a few months. At that point, his signing statements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
In a few months is not now. Now there is a workaround that the President can use to bypass Posse Comitatus and in any case, as ATG as points out, they didn't need the legislation in place for Waco.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard