Keep The Military Out of the Police

[Delta_V]

Originally posted by fpde279:
Patrick, The NG is used for riot control. If they are not trained then we have major problems.

I never said they weren't used in riot control, I was contradicting you when you said they are used ONLY for riot control. This is not true, as that is only one of the things the National Guard can be activted for. And from what I've seen (2 years in ROTC and knowing many Guard members), unless their MOS is Military Police, most Guard members receive no additional training in riot control.

Originally posted by fpde279:
I was not baseing my oppion on the movie....

It sure seems like it. You said that "as soon as the Military was brought in, people were scared, tourtured and unabel to live there regular lives." You obviously believe that this would happen in real life or else you wouldn't have mentioned a Hollywood creation.

Originally posted by fpde279:
and what you claim is wrong. There is not a state of martial law enacted...God forbidd that, and i didn't say people were being tourtured.

I didn't say there was. I said that the movie was based on a martial law scenario. And you said people would be tortured if the military was activated (see the above statement in quotes). I just pointed out that this does not happen.

Originally posted by fpde279:
But people have had to change there lives...i can't relax on a plane...

This is a result of 9/11, it has nothing to do with the military presence at airports.

Originally posted by fpde279:
Jluy Fourth 2 peoples lives were ended...and Airline Security shot the criminal...not the NG.

No, there were many more people whose lives ended on July 4, you just heard about two of them on the national news. BTW, I thought the Guard had been out of airports since June, is that just around here or were there no Guard members even present at LAX that day?

Originally posted by fpde279:
So having them there really hasent prevented anything. The action of putting military forces on US soil, will mean one thing...

It hasn't prevented anything? And you know this how? I'd like to know how you are 100% sure that having the Guard in airports for months didn't deter anyone. You don't know that, there's no way to.

By the way...the military HAS been active on US soil. The Super Bowl. Mardi Gras. The Kentucky Derby. The Olympics. They were doing what they are supposed to...actively supporting civilian law enforcement by doing guard work, parking control, etc. This allowed civilian LEOs to have more of a presence. How is this bad?

[Delta_V]

Originally posted by kirch:
You can't say that one thing will lead to another which will lead to another -- each step must be debated separately.

You and your philosophy professor can think what you want, but it's easier to take small steps than big ones. Look at Vietnam. This was clearly a war of increments when it came to troop and eqipment commitments. LBJ's advisors kept telling him that the war could be won if they would only commit 10,000 more troops, etc. etc. Do you think congress wouldhave approved sending hundreds of thousands of troops at the beginning of the conflict? No way. This is one example of how the 'slippery slope' cost us thousands of lives. I'm sure other people can give more examples.

Since you mention the NRA...I'd believe them over some liberal pot-smoking philosophy professor any time of day. Hitler seized all the guns in Germany. This started with registration. Do you not think that he had confiscation in mind when he pushed for registration? Even a philosophy professor should be able to see that one...

[Bill R]

Originally posted by kirch:

Of course, I can't blame people for using this faulty line of reasoning -- the NRA has been using it for years to great effect.

That's because it is true. Can you honestly say that firearms rights have not been incrementally eroded. It was not that long ago that any citizen could walk into a store and buy any firearm they wanted and walk out with it. They could also order firearms by mail order. Then came the NFA requiring a very high tax on certain firearms. $200 was a lot of money in 1934. Then it became illegal for non FFL citizens to buy mail order or buy a handgun in a state other than their state of residence. Small imported firearms were banned from importation. They wanted to keep the "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. "Saturday Night Specials" included cheap firearms like the Walther PPK. They told us they just want to ban cheap small handguns. They told us they would never go after our rifles or shotguns. Now they have banned many types of rifles and shotguns. They have banned standard capacity magazines. We have waiting periods. And NONE of these measures have reduced crime. So since these laws have failed they go after more restrictions. I once heard a definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting different results. These people are not insane though. They realize they could never abolish our second ammendment rights in one fell swoop they must chip away at them incrementally. We have looked at each step individually and we have slid a long way down the slope. When do we make a stand?

[GRACE]

FWIW,

I am finishing up a novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross and it deals with the very topic of how 2nd Amendment Rights have been decimated over time.

It begins with the very same info that Bill R references in his post.

A goood read and a big eye opener!

[drunkhunter]

I have a severe problem with the military being used in any form of civilian police function. The attitudes and training of the military is just totally contrary to the civilian function. I'm not saying that the military is wrong or bad. I'm just saying that the functions are different.

I'm pretty nervous about this terrorism war. I'm afraid that in the name of security the people are going to give to mnay civil liberties.

[dkiefner]

>>>Ummm I went through basic training with atleast 10 NG guys. I never seen them get pulled off for no special riot control training. I seen them marching,shooting,running the whole time. If I was to go into NG I wouldnt have to be retrained.<<<

So Coward, you are stating facts based upon what you seen and ain't seen?

Mebbe you wasn't looking?

[fpde279]

Patrick,
First of all the NG only "law Enforcement related" perpose is Riot control. They do other things, i know that. Look at the fires in the west.

But if what you say about LAX is ture on the 4th...then that just makes me that much more afraid.

Also how was Richard reed abel to get on a plane with explosives in his shoes. How were reportes from countless news agencys abel to get through security, at airports with all kinds of contraband.

This is just an example about how the NG, and the military can't be effective because they do not have the training that LE has.

Also the KD, super bowl and the World Series, were all "security lead" by the FBI's HRT, and SOARU.

Thanks, by the way, im not arguing with you, and i understand where your coming from, i just want you to see where ive been coming from.

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: fpde279 ]

[dkiefner]

Fpde, the NG are not the ones screening the passengers and bags. How can you say that is an example of NG ineffectiveness?

[MacLeod]

If you want an example of the military carrying out Policing just look at Ulster. I leave you to decide whether it's a good idea or not.

Mac

[fpde279]

Well, i would then have to ask what the NG is doing at airports. And that thus proves that the military does not work with law enforcement, otherwise theyu would be helping check bags.

If we look at Ulster, god forbid that happens here, but that is a little diffrent situation because there is a conflicting termoil between protestants and catholics, and Ireland and Britan. Hopw ever this is a conflict between the US military and the US people.

[kirch]

I'm not trying to draw anyone into an argument on the second amendment or gun rights. Those are topics that have been debated ad nauseum by people much smarter than me.

My point is that, no matter what you're arguing, you can't say that one action's result will automatically lead to another action -- there are just too many variables. Sure, you can look back and say this led to that which led to to this, etc., but you can do that for anything. For example:
My last car broke down so I looked for a new car.
Because I was looking for a new car, I called a dealer friend of mine.
Because I called my dealer friend, he asked me what I was looking for.
Because I told him what I was looking for, he found a green SUV that fit my needs.
Because the green SUV fit my needs, I bought it.

So, according the the "slippery slope" argument, the next time I need a new car, I'm getting a green SUV.

Ludicrous, right? But that's the same predictive logic used when you say that, because "the military is not trained in policeing [sic] there [sic] own people" that "having the military in American Cities will inhibit local state and federal from prosecuting and investigating crimes and criminals."

[Bill R]

kirch:

My point is that, no matter what you're arguing, you can't say that one action's result will automatically lead to another action

kirch, you're overlooking a very key point. I agree you can't say the action in and of itself leads to another action. However when there is a predetermined agenda, by allowing the first action you are losing ground. The Normandy invasion in and of itself did not determine that Germany would lose the war. However with the predetermined agenda the invasion caused the Germans to lose important ground in the war. Wihout gaining that ground the Allies could not have defeated Germany. It is the same thing with our rights. If we surrender ground(rights) it makes it easier for more rights to be lost. If you look at history you will see that it is human nature and the nature of governments to become controling and trample individual rights. So there is a predetermined agenda.

[fpde279]

Kirch,
Not to incite a riot here but i think you are contadicting yourself. This is not a if this then that argument. As i stated and you restated, it is a simple observation.

Since the Military is not trained in policeing its own citizens, putting them to police on US soil, will mean troubel and conflict between the Police and the Military.

[HCP-TX]

Incrementalism or slippery slope, call it what you like, you end up with the same outcome--a police state with no constitutional guarantees. The whole of the US legal system works on the idea of precedence. Once established, law-makers and activist jurist take precedence an expand it to conform to their ideological agenda. Give an inch, they'll take a mile. When this happens, Joe Six Pack always ends up on the short end of the stick. Posse Comitatis should not be tampered with. I has served us well since 1878 and will continue to do so during this time of the Phony War on Terrorism.

[dkiefner]

>>>Well, i would then have to ask what the NG is doing at airports. And that thus proves that the military does not work with law enforcement, otherwise theyu would be helping check bags.<<<

LE doesn't check bags either - this job is currently performed by contract security firms, who will be replaced by federal screeners this year.

I'm not certain how you arrive at your conclusions, but the NG presence really proves nothing of the sort.