A Dangerous Precedent

[Wolverine 10,360]

"The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil."

 

"Bush began discussing the possibility of changing the law last month, in the aftermath of the government's sluggish response to civil unrest following Hurricane Katrina."

 

Now Bush is suggesting using the military in the event of a pandemic of Avian Flu.

 

How many times is the military used for civil matters before domination by a regime or dictator occurs? Castro, Saddam, Hillary, Whoever.........

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/bus...nflu/index.html

 

[k_dawg 0]

classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

 

btw: another pandemic avian flu would be one of the few instances where I would support the use of the military. The last one, killed 20-40 million people.

[Wolverine 10,360]

classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

 

btw: another pandemic avian flu would be one of the few instances where I would support the use of the military. The last one, killed 20-40 million people.

 

 

You're right. It seems practical. My concern is that the American public may become so accustom to using the military for domestic issues and national security that we will be blind to the insidious incremental reliance that evolves into dominant control by the military. That has happened too many times in the history of other countries to ignore the possibility. That is why we were careful to empower civil authorities to handle such matters in the past.

 

I would not be shocked to see the military used for border patrol next as a national security issue rather than hiring more border patrol agents and following the immigration laws on the books. Agaiin it seems practical and there is heat being brought to bear on the cost of enforcement versus the cost once illegals are transplanted and using services.

 

EDIT: Looks like some others are concerned too:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.reax/index.html

 

W.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Wolverine

[G O B 3,516]

Dangerous times. We need to guard our freedoms carefully. The army has the recources to handle disasters and catostrofies. HOWEVER the army (including the national guard/militia) HAS used deadly force against unarmed civilians. (The

"bonus riots" , Kent state) . At Kent state the guardsmen were not issued ammo, the students were shot with soft point hunting ammo that one drunken guardsman brought just for the occasion to "kill me a hippy" the victims were not parcipitating in the demonstration, all were students on their way to or from classes. In NO instance has anyone in the military been prosecuted.

Untill some form of civilian controll can be EFFECTIVELY introduced-with the necessary provision of prosecuting excesses, I would rather take my chances on protecting myself and my loved one MYSELF, than to trust a bunch of poorly supervised 18 and 20 year old children.

 

G O B

[k_dawg 0]

that is why I was *EXTREMELY ANGRY* at Nagin and Blanco. It was their incompetence that has sent so many people crying "where is the federal govn't!".

 

IMHO: the public acceptance of the use of federal troops for internal operations is the *FAR GREATER* tragedy from katrina. For more than the destruction, the cost, and the lives lost.

[vjor 2]