Army combat brigade deployed on American soil

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Evan

Alex Jones is a nut job. However, you must be plain retarded if you can't see troops being deployed against Americans outside of bases 'close' to fascism. The phrase hop, skip, and a jump away is relevant here.

Uh, why? We have been deploying troops within our borders for a good 232 years; yes, since the day of our founding. This is well documented and is used for several reasons; to aid in natural disasters (first and foremost), and to aid in the public well being (riots, like in L.A. in the 90's, or the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's).

We've never deployed ARMY troops because it used to be illegal before the Military Commissions Act (which I think was passed last year). We've always resorted to calling the National Guard to handle domestic disputes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Maybe the government knows that the nation's economic situation is far worse than what it and the media have been saying? Perhaps the government already projects that the United States will become a third world country rife with civil strife?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
FEMA is the most powerful agency in the US. If you read thier "crysis time" powers, it is truly scary. I fear them more than a general going maverick.....

Yes! They have ultimate powers to play a video game!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I thought Alex Jones was supposed to be the crazy one.

How does this change anything those idiots say?

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES. You're in denial if you don't believe we're heading towards fascism.

So, where exactly are they supposed to be deployed if they aren't serving overseas?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Maybe the government knows that the nation's economic situation is far worse than what it and the media have been saying? Perhaps the government already projects that the United States will become a third world country rife with civil strife?

I'm sorry, but clearly you've never been to the "third world." If the US were to have such a precipitous decline in our economic might, the entire world would come down the crapper with us. There would be no money to pay for an army, much less deploy that army within our borders.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Evan
Uh, why? We have been deploying troops within our borders for a good 232 years; yes, since the day of our founding. This is well documented and is used for several reasons; to aid in natural disasters (first and foremost), and to aid in the public well being (riots, like in L.A. in the 90's, or the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's).

Heh, my dad was an MP and was in Washington DC during the race riots.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: vhx

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I thought Alex Jones was supposed to be the crazy one.

How does this change anything those idiots say?

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES. You're in denial if you don't believe we're heading towards fascism.

You're not intelligent if you honestly believe this is fascism or close to it. True hurts, and Alex Jones is a nut beyond compare.

Alex Jones is a nut job. However, you must be plain retarded if you can't see troops being deployed against Americans outside of bases 'close' to fascism. The phrase hop, skip, and a jump away is relevant here. Plus the fact they are increasing around the time the economy is going down the crapper probably means they expect a shit storm for whatever is about to happen in the not too distant future.

EDIT: Normally this might be even be illegal (according to the Posse Comitatus Act someone posted about sometime ago) if it weren't for them terrorizers everyone is so afraid of. Anything to feel safer, amirite?! And really, 20,000 doesn't really seem like much right now though. However, you can probably expect those numbers to increase over time.

Nobody had a problem when the National Guard was called in during the Civil Rights movement, or every year when they come to the aid of hurricane victims. I'm pretty sure they were used in the LA riots and nobody had a problem with that either. All of a sudden, though, there is a the specter of an "evil" government out to get us all and this becomes instantly more sinister.

Finally, people really love throwing the phrase fascism around on these boards. This country, however, is so far from "fascism" that it's not even a topic worth considering.

First, we have laws in place that remove leaders after, at most 8 years in office.

Second, our most recent (and apparently, most fascist) leader barely has the support of 1/3 of this country, doesn't have a majority in Congress AND is on his way out.

Third, nationalism, which was a mainstay of fascist governments is pretty low-key in this country and radical nationalism is left for radical groups, like those who believe they must destroy the US government to save the United States.

Fourth, the economic policies that led to, say Mussolini's dominance of Italy aren't really being followed here. Yes, we have issues with have and have-nots, and yes we've had a number of recent cases of corporations out of control, but these problems have not set up the rallying standard that would bring the vast majority of the country under one man's spell. There is no unifying force that pits "us" against "them" besides AQ and AQ's spell over this country seems to be waning. Plus, the "unity" against AQ is not really the unity that existed in fascist states -- I don't believe that most Americans see ourselves sharing common ancestry and as brothers and sisters and such nonsense.

Fifth, the term fascism is absolutely meaningless. It applies to such a diverse group of governments that barely share anything in common except their claimed adherence to "fascist" principles. Most of what is above is from the quintessential "fascist" government, Italy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One side has Socialists, and the other Fascists. Nothing new.

Since the facts have already been laid out, I'll just do a short recap.

Troops have always been "deployed" in the sense that the military has a domestic presence. Having them dedicated to a specific task in times of emergency is just that, a new task. Their existence is nothing new.

This is not a violation of the law or Constitution as Don Vito has pointed out. He's certainly qualified to make that kind of judgment. If the mission was for law enforcement then that would be another issue.

Since we have troops in place now, this hardly represents a turn towards Fascism. If that were the case, it's built in to the government since it's inception. As has been stated, troops have always been present in the US.

The tin foil hat is strong in this thread.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Nobody had a problem when the National Guard was called in during the Civil Rights movement, or every year when they come to the aid of hurricane victims. I'm pretty sure they were used in the LA riots and nobody had a problem with that either. All of a sudden, though, there is a the specter of an "evil" government out to get us all and this becomes instantly more sinister.

Not sure if you read my post, but my father was an Army MP based out of Ft. Belvour near DC. He was *DEPLOYED* during the Washington race riots, mainly for government security, but he was also on the "Front lines" during some of the worst parts.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I thought Alex Jones was supposed to be the crazy one.

How does this change anything those idiots say?

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES. You're in denial if you don't believe we're heading towards fascism.

So, where exactly are they supposed to be deployed if they aren't serving overseas?

You're under the assumption that our troops need to be deployed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dphantom
There is nothing sinister or unusual about this. I believe one of the originating documents can be found HERE.

The report documents past history and provides statutory and constitutional authority for deployment of Federal troops under clearly defined circumstances.

Posse commitatus refers specifically to law enforcement. The Stafford Act, Insurrection Act among others provides for the use of Federal troops.

Was there nothing sinister about British soldiers collecting taxes? We have become the nation we seceded from.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dphantom
There is nothing sinister or unusual about this. I believe one of the originating documents can be found HERE.

The report documents past history and provides statutory and constitutional authority for deployment of Federal troops under clearly defined circumstances.

Posse commitatus refers specifically to law enforcement. The Stafford Act, Insurrection Act among others provides for the use of Federal troops.

Was there nothing sinister about British soldiers collecting taxes? We have become the nation we seceded from.

I missed the part where these troops are collecting taxes.

We left the British, not reality. There is no illegality nor demonstrable threat from this. You don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things. Troops are THE most effective way to deal with huge disasters, of which Katrina was the tip of a possible iceberg. It's foolishness to be unprepared because of outlandish conspiracy theories.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

We've never deployed ARMY troops because it used to be illegal before the Military Commissions Act (which I think was passed last year). We've always resorted to calling the National Guard to handle domestic disputes.

Come on, do some research for eff sakes. The National Guard is a branch of the military, specifically the Army and USAF. Tell me exactly how we can use the National Guard when it is stretched thin as it is considering we are in two wars (hopefully just one <2 years from now)? Where have you been the last 5 years, the National Guard needs help.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dphantom
There is nothing sinister or unusual about this. I believe one of the originating documents can be found HERE.

The report documents past history and provides statutory and constitutional authority for deployment of Federal troops under clearly defined circumstances.

Posse commitatus refers specifically to law enforcement. The Stafford Act, Insurrection Act among others provides for the use of Federal troops.

Was there nothing sinister about British soldiers collecting taxes? We have become the nation we seceded from.

Good lord. :laugh:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES.

I think the rest of the world would laugh to see how freaked out Americans are by this. Generally in peacetime armed forces should be deployed domestically right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES.

I think the rest of the world would laugh to see how freaked out Americans are by this. Generally in peacetime armed forces should be deployed domestically right?

Perhaps part of the confusion is because people don't understand what "deploy" means? It's not like they are going to be standing in the streets of X city. They will be at a base or other location until called for, which is nothing new. I don't get the angst though. It's like in another forum where some have said that Obama's civil service is really a way to take over by force and install a Marxist government. Batshit crazy.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

There are ARMY troops deployed WITHIN the UNITED STATES.

I think the rest of the world would laugh to see how freaked out Americans are by this. Generally in peacetime armed forces should be deployed domestically right?

Perhaps part of the confusion is because people don't understand what "deploy" means? It's not like they are going to be standing in the streets of X city. They will be at a base or other location until called for, which is nothing new. I don't get the angst though. It's like in another forum where some have said that Obama's civil service is really a way to take over by force and install a Marxist government. Batshit crazy.

Ironically, you know that if a natural disaster did occur people would go apeshit if the armed forces didn't have a plan in place to help. Once that plan rolls around though, people start screaming fascism even though it's pretty clear they have no idea what fascism is.

 

[palehorse]

wow... many of you need to go back to school and take some government and history courses. :roll:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Nobody had a problem when the National Guard was called in during the Civil Rights movement, or every year when they come to the aid of hurricane victims. I'm pretty sure they were used in the LA riots and nobody had a problem with that either. All of a sudden, though, there is a the specter of an "evil" government out to get us all and this becomes instantly more sinister.

Not sure if you read my post, but my father was an Army MP based out of Ft. Belvour near DC. He was *DEPLOYED* during the Washington race riots, mainly for government security, but he was also on the "Front lines" during some of the worst parts.

I read it and it's exactly my point. We've had thousands of troops actively deployed in this country before and people weren't raising a stink about it. Now the government wants to reorganize them to be better able to respond to disasters and we hear cries of "fascism."

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Nobody had a problem when the National Guard was called in during the Civil Rights movement, or every year when they come to the aid of hurricane victims. I'm pretty sure they were used in the LA riots and nobody had a problem with that either. All of a sudden, though, there is a the specter of an "evil" government out to get us all and this becomes instantly more sinister.

Not sure if you read my post, but my father was an Army MP based out of Ft. Belvour near DC. He was *DEPLOYED* during the Washington race riots, mainly for government security, but he was also on the "Front lines" during some of the worst parts.

I read it and it's exactly my point. We've had thousands of troops actively deployed in this country before and people weren't raising a stink about it. Now the government wants to reorganize them to be better able to respond to disasters and we hear cries of "fascism."

For some reason I misunderstood your post, sorry about that.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Too bad they aren't going to SF.

Heh, well they sure as shit won't be going to Arizona. In fact, I don't think anyone is.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I missed the part where these troops are collecting taxes.

They aren't directly collecting because they don't have to.

Stop paying and see what happens. Feds have the loyalty of your local authorities and so they will do the job for them, but if they refused you'd have federal officers sent into the town to punish the mayor and officers who refused.

Your argument only holds weight so long as we comply with our distant and unrepresentative orders.

*edit

My point being that it is equal. The only thing you have is a technicality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I missed the part where these troops are collecting taxes.

They aren't directly collecting because they don't have to.

Stop paying and see what happens. Feds have the loyalty of your local authorities and so they will do the job for them, but if they refused you'd have federal officers sent into the town to punish the mayor and officers who refused.

Your argument only holds weight so long as we comply with our distant and unrepresentative orders.

That kind of shoots your argument in the foot. If you don't pay taxes, then you are in trouble. If the mayor tries to use local law enforcement then sure he's in trouble. What if the FBI wanted to arrest someone for cause and he did the same thing? Sure he'd be in trouble.

Now that being the case, the Federal govt can already do as you have said. For the troops to have this same power they would have to be present, and acting in a law enforcing capacity. Heck, if the government really wanted to do that, there are already many times 20k soldiers in the US, and they could be shaking down people right now.

So how is a relatively small force stationed in one location until called out going to do anything different than what can already (in theory) happen?

That's where the argument falls apart. If you are going to look at this as a conspiracy, then all the elements are in place and have been for a couple hundred years. Training for disaster changes none of that.

 

[Jaskalas]

To avoid going so far off topic, I'll say this for the OP. What we have here today is no different than the Patriot Act. It's just one step of a multi-step process. This is neither the beginning nor the end of their encroachment into our liberty. Federal action during an emergency yesterday (Katrina) becomes precedent for a new way of life tomorrow. The same way our President has had continuous war powers since September 11th even without a war.

Yesterday federal troops needed to be requested by the governor, today they will go in at their own discretion, tomorrow after said "disaster" maybe they will replace the local authority. Oh, it?ll just be temporary I?m sure. Just because this isn?t a straight line from A to Z, doesn?t mean you can?t see where it?s going.

Of course, the only reason it?s possible is because some of us here support such moves. This nation is heavily divided between those who believe our rights belong to the government, and those who believe our rights belong to the people. With the former half?s desire to redistribute wealth you?ll damn the constitution and create the very thing we tried to avoid through our independence.

Such powers would belong to the state and, more accurately, to the people if tax dollars weren?t siphoned away from them under the guise of wealth redistribution. Yet the money changing hands is only the means to an end. It?s what this money does for and against you that really matters.

For every good deed you accomplish with these funds, (College education) you?ll create an evil (Iraq War). This precedent will continue until you realize the monster you?ve created and change your mind on the consolidation of money in this nation. Didn?t your parents ever tell you not to place all your eggs in one basket? Checks and balances only function if there is more than one entity, if for example we were a Union of States instead of a single nation. Only if our powers come from the bottom up instead of from the top down.

Parallelism is our only path towards liberty. Those who demand consolidation are the problem, not the solution. This topic is just another example that the problem is getting worse instead of better.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
A Brigade is what 1,500-3,000 strong?

Not enough to stop a civil insurrection by a long shot...

hahaha thats 3,000 machine guns dude that is plenty to keep a large population under control