tell me, am I paranoid?

Thomas Lord

Mon Dec 01 10:31:23 -0800 2008

manage

I've been intrigued by the combination of (a) the advancing of the theory of a "unitary executive" to such recent extremes; (b) the insurrection act; (c) state and city-level defiance of federal laws such as in the cases of medical marijuana and protection of undocumented immigrants.

San Francisco, for example, has pot dispensaries and has sanctuary laws for some undocumented immigrants.

I see nothing in the theories and practices of the current (federal) administration that would preclude a secret finding of a condition of insurrection and a stealth police action as a result.

Under the theories of the current administration, it appears to me, if the federal executive wanted to imprison and/or torture and/or harass or in any other way secretly abuse a political dissident living in San Francisco they could simply because the City of San Francisco defies federal law on a few points.

Stranger things have happened...

-t

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 11:11:23 -0800 2008

manage

Uh, we've got a major (if botched so far) war that got declared on us that I don't think has been rescinded, an economic crisis that is shaping up to be the worst since the American Revolution (far worse than the Panic of 1895 or the Great Depression), and the start of world wide basic needs riots.

In what way is this a "time of peace"?

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 11:30:54 -0800 2008

manage

We have no wars going as the Constitution defines war.  zero.

 

Last time I checked, we have our half-assed efforts against Al Qaeda around the Paki-Afghan border, pretty far from here, what good is national military police for that?  answer: nothing, it's useless.  The purpose of that police is to control us if we are not obedient to federal wishes.

We also have a huge mismanaged distraction in Iraq going that is accomplishing nothing but stirring up civil strife.  What good does a national military police do for that?  answer: nothing.

 

Depression?  Food riots in other countries?  Those aren't war.  Those aren't a problem needing solution by a national military police

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 11:37:16 -0800 2008

manage

We have no wars going as the Constitution defines war.  zero.

Well, since the Constitution insists on a separation of church and state, I'm sure it utterly ignores the decalarations of religious zealots halfway around the world.  However, note I didn't say we had a war we declared- I said we had a war declared against US.  Two different things.

Last time I checked, we have our half-assed efforts against Al Qaeda around the Paki-Afghan border, pretty far from here, what good is national military police for that?

Last I checked, those people were *also* in a declared war against India, and carried out a very successful attack against one of their cities this weekend.  Border and immigration control is where a good national military police would have been helpful.

answer: nothing, it's useless.  The purpose of that police is to control us if we are not obedient to federal wishes.

Well, like I said, we've been pretty incompetent at upholding our end of this war in general.  Yes, using such 19th century tactics that have always failed in that region in the past, a national military at home is worthless.  But have you noticed that we're losing using those tactics?

We also have a huge mismanaged distraction in Iraq going that is accomplishing nothing but stirring up civil strife.  What good does a national military police do for that?

Sucking up troops to come home where they belong, and using tactics that actually work for once?

Depression?  Food riots in other countries?  Those aren't war.  Those aren't a problem needing solution by a national military police.

Food riots in other countries could easily come here soon, especially if the threatened famine of 2009 hits the Dakotas.  Depressions have caused armed revolts in the United States in the past.  Just because we haven't had one in 70 years is no reason to forget the Bonus Army or any of the other open armed revolts.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 11:51:24 -0800 2008

manage

The solution to ten loonies with guns and grenades being able to mow down dozens of civilians and tourists has nothing to do with a military.   It's the same issue as the recent slaughters in mall and Universities in USA by whackjobs, and has the same solution.  The wimpy pacifist unarmed victim that we're all supposed to be is philosphy of death and non-survival.    I refer you to the 2nd amendment of our Constitution and everything it imples, from personal protection through local police to organized state militias.

 

There's nothing our troops are supposed to do once on our soil other than defend against invading army, anything else is huge violation of Founding Father's intent and purpose in having a free country. 

 

So you want to live in a military police state, well there's plenty to choose from, but don't make one here, no thanks.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 12:12:24 -0800 2008

manage

The solution to ten loonies with guns and grenades being able to mow down dozens of civilians and tourists has nothing to do with a military.   It's the same issue as the recent slaughters in mall and Universities in USA by whackjobs, and has the same solution.  The wimpy pacifist unarmed victim that we're all supposed to be is philosphy of death and non-survival.    I refer you to the 2nd amendment of our Constitution and everything it imples, from personal protection through local police to organized state militias.

Oh, I get it.  You're complaining that the new National Military Police is too Small and centralized.  You don't actually have a problem with a national military police- as long as it's 300 million strong.

There's nothing our troops are supposed to do once on our soil other than defend against invading army, anything else is huge violation of Founding Father's intent and purpose in having a free country. 

Uh, yeah, but then again, the Founding Fathers were idiots apparently.  They claimed they wanted a free country, and then they saddle us with corporatism?

So you want to live in a military police state, well there's plenty to choose from, but don't make one here, no thanks.

We're already in one.  Has been one since the first "colonist" decided to take native land by force.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 13:19:01 -0800 2008

manage

yes 250+ million strong, every able bodied adult is the unorganized militia, and it's worth noting that 9-11 happened because after multiple failures with existing government institutions and procedures, after  all that wussy victim mentality on the planes let the bad guys have slam dunk.

Our megacorporations don't move in free markets, they're privileged and empowered by oligarchy by all manner of means in violation of our Constitution, starting with the international banking cartels and our Congress letting them usurp congressional authority and duty.

 

Right or wrong we didn't use a national military police on citizens to grow our country, that was different set of issues.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 13:30:17 -0800 2008

manage

Right or wrong we didn't use a national military police on citizens to grow our country, that was different set of issues.

And the soldiers stationed at Ft. Yamhill were peacemakers, as they forced the bare remains of several decimated Oregon tribes onto the Grand Rhonde Reservation?

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 14:00:10 -0800 2008

manage

of what relevance is that? Kalaphuya tribes get decimated with white man's diseases, a horrible thing.  Kalapuya tribes make treaties with the U.S.A.  ceding land.  They are removed to reservations.  Ft. Yamhill set up and staffed with U.S. Army.    Where is national police acting to control citizens?

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 14:27:29 -0800 2008

manage

Just trying to get to your definitions, to figure out exactly what you're protesting.

Interesting the fine lines you've drawn.  First it was against the military acting as a domestic police force, now it's about separating those born here from "citizens".

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 14:34:49 -0800 2008

manage

but it's a fact, those native americans were (and still are) not citizens, those soldiers, if you want to call them a kind of police, were for dealings between citizens and non-citizens at a boundary between U.S. citizen's land and noncitizen's reserved land.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Mon Dec 01 14:58:36 -0800 2008

manage

to clarify, in 1924 all native americans were granted U.S. citizenship (with some exceptions), but by that time the Kalapuya tribes we're talking about here were extinct as distinct entities. 

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Anthony Sorace

Tue Dec 02 11:20:36 -0800 2008

manage

...it's worth noting that 9-11 happened because after multiple failures with existing government institutions and procedures, after all that wussy victim mentality on the planes let the bad guys have slam dunk.

this is key - and undermines your earlier point. the problem here is the victim mentality, or perhaps more accurately the "powerless mentality"; the idea that somebody else will come save us: the police, the army, air marshals, whatever. even without guns or any weaponry to speak of, it would've been easy for the passengers to swarm the hijackers and, at a minimum, prevent them from achieving their goals, and likely retake the plane. they didn't try because we've all be told "don't try to be a hero", just sit quiet and nobody will get hurt, someone else will come save us.
you see the same things in school shootings. kids are told to hide in corners or under desks. you get people talking about how much better it would be if we armed everyone, but the real problem is that nobody thinks it's their responsibility to defend themselves and those around them. or, perhaps less charitably, they're worried only about themselves, hoping that their peers will take enough time to get through for the cops to get there.
i'm totally serious here: kids, don't be targets. some jack@$$ walks into your school and opens fire, take him down. get your friends together, grab something thick if you can for defense and some things to throw, and rush the guy. yes, there's a chance you or some of your friends will get hurt, maybe even killed. but the jack@$$ is coming for you anyway.

if you want to look for a silver lining from 9/11, take that: nobody will ever be able to hijack a commercial American airliner. people know now that the rules have changed, and that "sit there, be good, be quiet" isn't your best bet.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Tue Dec 02 12:22:13 -0800 2008

manage

if some kids can get away, they should, better not to be there.    what you're talking about is when there's no other option.

 

the rules really didn't change at 9/11, just people were stupid enough prior to that they hoped and assumed they could reason and talk with a hijacker and trust to some good will and most, not all, hijackers followed expectations.   But the act of hijacking always was in itself deadly assault.

 

  really there should be a few trained security people on every big airplane, and airline employees given the simple basic nasty self-defense course.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Anthony Sorace

Wed Dec 03 10:20:39 -0800 2008

manage

very true, and an important clarification: my advice was only meant if you're actually trapped. flight is a perfectly valid response: if you can simply not be there, run.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

John Dalton

Mon Dec 01 22:30:20 -0800 2008

manage

How does a person tell a good guy from a bad guy if both are carrying guns that person is surrounded by gunfire? I've got this vision of someone letting off a shot. Someone shoots at them, someone returns fire and it all goes up like a room full of mousetraps. After a few days it stops when there is one man standing and 249,999,999 dead bodies round him.

Maybe a plot for a movie? I can just see the final shot. Gun discharges. Camera pulls back from the smoking gun. Lone gunman is revealed. Camera pulls back further and a body is revealed. As the camera continues to pull back more and more bodies are revealed until the city, a seemingly infinite number of bodies and the lone gunman recede into a glorious sunset. Cue the closing music. :-)

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Tue Dec 02 09:08:57 -0800 2008

manage

that doesn't seem to be happening in the places that allow concealed carry.  In my brother's town, crime has gone down drastically since good people allowed carry.

 

"an armed society is a polite society"  -- R. Heinlein

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Josh

Tue Dec 02 09:48:40 -0800 2008

manage

Have you been to a CC class and watch people fumble around with their guns before they get the cert.? Not exactly inspiring...

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Tue Dec 02 10:01:18 -0800 2008

manage

that would only happen in a class where the instructor is not good. Very important material must be covered before ever allowing anyone to uncase a gun.  That includes the Five Rules (impossible to have accident unless you violate TWO of those rules).

 

As former range officer at large city park district sponsored gun club, we held classes regularly for newbies, there  no fumbling!

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Anthony Sorace

Tue Dec 02 11:27:41 -0800 2008

manage

the "solution" has nothing to do with making sure everyone carries firearms to Physics class. that's just going to make sure everyone's at higher risk from accidental discharge.
the 2nd Amendment wasn't about ad hoc self defense; that may well be valuable (or may not be worth the risk; that's just not the debate at hand), but it wasn't the intent. the 2nd Amendment was to form the militia. if you read the state submissions that rolled into the Bill of Rights, the majority of states which submitted something similar to what became the 2nd Amendment included a phrase similar to "Standing armies being harmful to liberty...". the militia is expected to fill that role: defense from invasion or insurrection. the 2nd Amendment is in service of that.
also, as i say below, the problem is the "wimpy victim" part, not the "unarmed" part. if you have people actually determined to defend themselves, firearms are usually unnecessary, and certainly riskier than the alternatives.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

rubycodez

Tue Dec 02 12:08:33 -0800 2008

manage

the second amendment applied to all known weapons, not just firearms.  but I was talking about a mindset of being willing to defend.  if someone doesn't like guns, fine, plenty of other  ways.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Mon Dec 01 15:12:02 -0800 2008

manage

Declaring War is the purvue of Nations only, not individuals or non-State groups.  They can "declare" anything they want, but their behavior doesn't rise above the level of criminal activity.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 15:42:27 -0800 2008

manage

Well, that's the problem with certain sects of Islam- they believe themselves to BE nations, state groups.  Some of them even have official backing of governments in the United Nations.

So while I agree that the "Individual Jihad" of one certain rather famous terrorist group is criminal activity; the Deccan Mujahideen might not even exist- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Mujahideen- and yet would certainly NOT be considered to be individuals.  And non-State groups is an interesting one- would the Tibetan government-in-exile be a non-state group?

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Mon Dec 01 15:46:23 -0800 2008

manage

Considering they have no control of the land or resources of Tibet, and are living at the sufferance of their host nation - India - I would consider them to be a non-State group.

I'd also believe the Dalai Lama would declare war about the same time Pope Benedict would become a disciple of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Anthony Sorace

Tue Dec 02 11:59:33 -0800 2008

manage

leaving the specifics of Tibet aside, the whole "state group" thing is increasingly tricky. making a hard line like you seem to want to do (which is understandable) causes all sorts of problems. for example, if you make the line simply about control of land and resources, fighting off any insurrection becomes invasion rather than defense once the insurrection gets any territory. that's probably not desirable.

Tibet is interesting, but has too many other issues surrounding it to make a good case here. look at China instead. Both the PRC and the ROC agree (in their official positions, anyway) that there is only one "China"; the problem is over who's the legitimate head. for about half the time the PRC controlled the mainland, the international community considered them an insurrection, and the ROC the legitimate government of all China. in retrospect, that looks kinda historically silly, but say the PRC had failed to stabilize the country and the ROC was able to come back; would they have been invaders in that case?
my personal favorite in this domain is the story around the S.M.O.M., aka the Knights of Malta, aka the Knights Hospitaller. they were the the government of Malta for a while, but then got kicked out. they tried for a long time to get their land back, but eventually just gave up on that goal. still, they're considered soverign by most standards, take the role of a State in many aspects of international law, have embassies, diplomatic relations with about half the countries in the world, issues passports, and so on, despite not being sovereign over any land (except the embassies).
less dramatic cases arise in lots of cases where you have the mixing of religious and state roles with dispersed members (in particular, Judaism and Islam). Israel's offer of citizenship to all Jews globally raised similarly interesting questions, although the stakes were obviously very different.
of course, yes, the Dalai Lama isn't about to declare war. but i find the theoretical questions no less fascinating for the lack of practical application. like what if the Queen of England decided she didn't want to sign any more laws and didn't really need a Parliament around...

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Tue Dec 02 14:30:22 -0800 2008

manage

Well, cases like the SMOM (1A0 -- I have a card) are interesting, but of limited practical example.  While they do issue stamps (in Euros), currency (in Scudi) and have "relations" with other countries, they are more of a quasi-governmental entity.  They are frequenty considered a sovereign entity, other than a State.

For example, since they own no real sovereign territory, all of the "members" have dual-citizenship with some other country.  The current Grand Master, for example, is British.  And accepting ambassadorial status doesn't necessarily accept Statehood.  This angle was tried by Sealand with both Germany and England and didn't work.

International recognition is going to be one point, but the practical consideration of control of land and resources is another.  No one would take the SMOM declaring war seriously, unless they declared was on poverty or some such.

It certainly would be interesting to see what happened if the Vatican decided to revoke their charter after all these centuries.

I think that Tamil's on Sri Lanka would have been a better example for your argument.  Cypress is another, with the Greek and Turkish split.  Again, in both instances, we run into recognition and practicality.

Neither the Tamils, who look to be finally losing once and for all, nor the Turkish Cypriots, are in any position to threaten any other nation or declare "war" on anyone else other than their opposite half.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Anthony Sorace

Wed Dec 03 10:39:22 -0800 2008

manage

the SeaLand thing was a farce. the "german diplomat" advocates like to talk about was there for hostage negotiations, not formal diplomatic relations. Lucent didn't become a country or sovereign when China's president went to visit, either. it's interesting to think about what that looks like, though. it was the model of more malleable "citizenship" and "soverignty" Neal Stephenson described in Snow Crash, together with the realization that it wasn't that different from the old railroad companies in the US (check out SSNs starting with 700- through 728-), that first got me thinking about all this.

No one would take the SMOM declaring war seriously, unless they declared was on poverty or some such.

wait, does anyone take anyone declaring war on abstract things seriously? whether it's drugs, or poverty, or terror, i thought everyone had learned by now that that was just a marketing ploy?

the Tamils and Cyprus are also interesting cases, but i think for different reasons than the cases i was aiming at (although arguably close to Taiwan, or what that case was 40 years ago). the situation in Palestine is closer to what i'm after.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Thu Dec 04 10:03:42 -0800 2008

manage

SeaLand was interesting, because whats-his-name claimed it while the territorial limits of Britain were still well shy.  It was, for a time, in International Waters.  Of course, it was a wholly artificial structure so I'm not quite sure how the law looks at that, but it certainly was an interesting spanner in the works.

I am familiar with the Railroad Retirement Board thru my family genealogy research.  I don't believe it fits your model.  Social Security, when first established, was very narrow in who it covered.  It was by no means universal back when it started.  The strongest unions and lobbiests in the nation at the time were the railroads.  I think RR was set up because they liked the idea of SS, but wanted something more lucrative and were in the position to get it.  And while the industrial behemoths of the time often operated as feudal lords, I don't think they really rose to the level we're talking about.  Company store or not, they were still subordinate to the National government.

Palestine is interesting and complicated.  Almost all of the political borders in the Middle East are wholly artificial and externally imposed by the West.  I can't seem to find a time when "Palestine" was a country -- ever.  It has always, to my limited research, been a vassal or region of some other power.  The British had it after the fall of the Ottoman Empire; who held it since the early 1500s; back and forth with the Arab Caliphate and Byzantine Rome for the millenium prior to that; Roman Empire and Republic for the millenium before that; Assyria, Alexander (Greeks), Persia, Egypt (back when Palestine was Canaan), etc. all that way back to at least 2,000 BCE.  And now we're talking loose confederation of city-states, like Tyre, and not a nation.

And, of course, then there is Jordan, whose population something like 75% Palestinian and was the REAL mandate for Palestine as seen by the U.N./LoN/Britain & French.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Uncle Entity

Mon Dec 01 16:47:36 -0800 2008

manage

Just because we haven't had one in 70 years is no reason to forget the Bonus Army or any of the other open armed revolts.

Saying the Bonus Army was an armed revolt is about as honest as saying the peace marches on Washington in the sixties or the Million Man March were 'armed revolts'.

From the wikipedia;

On the 28th of July 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported with six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of Civil Service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honour, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton charged the cavalry against them — to which action the Civil Service employee spectators yelled: "Shame! Shame!" against the charging cavalry.

But, then again, it is up there with your usual high quality of 'intellectual honesty', I suppose.

Next you're going to say the American Legion is a radical domestic terrorist group...

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Mon Dec 01 15:09:00 -0800 2008

manage

The Panic of 1895 was preceeded by the Great Chicago Fire and the Great Boston Fire and exacerbated by Congress demonitizing silver, albiet briefly.  The two fires crippled our major centers of industry and trade and turned what was a relatively minor economic downturn into a rather sharp spike.

The Great Depression was accompanied and intensified by the Dust Bowl, which devastated the major agricultural heart of the nation for almost a decade.

The current "event" is more comparable to the 1970s than either of the two you mentioned.  However, throw in a prolonged drought or destroy, say, the Port of Los Angeles with an earthquake and things will get worse.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

President4242

Mon Dec 01 15:51:05 -0800 2008

manage

Would this do for your potential disaster?  Of course, arguably the Dust Bowl & the Fires would not be manmade.  But if you're talking major disruption of a significant productive capacity used for export....

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Charles E Hill

Mon Dec 01 16:02:26 -0800 2008

manage

Maybe, maybe not.  It is certainly worth paying attention to.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Dust Bowl was significant because it lasted from 6 - 10 years, depending on where you were and covered the Midwest from Texas up to Canada.  The fires caused multi-year disruptions, but also provided a construction boom later on to help offset.  It is just that the productive capacity of Boston and Chicago were impacted for several years.

The key here is multi-year negative events with a big impact on national productivity or industry.

20,000 Strong National Military Police for the USA

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Mon Dec 01 23:19:54 -0800 2008

manage

The fine print, from the Washington Post article, says

McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the [Posse Comitatus] act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement.