OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour

From: Rod-Lists 
------------------------------------------------------
John McCain is pushing this and they voting on this today in a hour. 
Closed markup and no discussion
call congress 877-sob-usob tell them to vote yes on the udall ammendment
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

=============================================================== From: Ryan Macy ------------------------------------------------------ We can't try them under UCMJ. I can arrest civilians on military installations and/or during military operations but I couldn't walk up to a civilian in the middle of Chattanooga and arrest them -- but I can detain them.

=============================================================== From: Ryan Macy ------------------------------------------------------ In areas under military jurisdiction or control, MP in some cases may take persons into custody whether or not they are in the military services: - Persons not subject to the UCMJ who are found committing a felony or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace on a military reservation may be apprehended and detained long enough to be turned over to civil authorities. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ also may be apprehended for violation of properly promulgated post regulations. These persons then may be escorted to the entrance of the post and may be forbidden reentry by the installation commander. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ may be cited for violations of the Assimilative Crimes Act not amounting to felonies or breaches of the peace (such as fishing without a valid permit) and referred to a US magistrate. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ may be subject to military authority in situations involving martial law or hostilities. Thus, commanders and MP have authority to apprehend civilians in many circumstances; they may also detain civilians for a reasonable period of time in order to effect their arrest by civilian law enforcement authorities. The local SJA is consulted regarding the applicable rules. AR 600-40

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ This what the White House sent in its veto threat to veto. ------------------------------------------------------- =E2=80=9CThe Administration strongly objects to section 1034 [the worldwide= war provision] which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectiv= ely recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding ap= plicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extens= ive consideration before possible inclusion...=E2=80=9D =20 On the NDAA=E2=80=99s troubling transfer restriction language, the administ= ration said: =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge t= o critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosec= ute detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and ou= r national security interests. It unnecessarily constrains our Nation's co= unterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security, particula= rly where our Federal courts are the best - or even the only - option for i= ncapacitating dangerous terrorists=E2=80=A6If the final bill presented to t= he president includes these provisions that challenge critical executive br= anch authority, the president's senior advisors would recommend a veto.=E2= =80=9D ----- Original Message ----- From: Ryan Macy To: CHUGALUG Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:20:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in t= he next hour In areas under military jurisdiction or control, MP in some cases may take persons into custody whether or not they are in the military services: - Persons not subject to the UCMJ who are found committing a felony or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of = the peace on a military reservation may be apprehended and detained long eno= ugh to be turned over to civil authorities. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ also may be apprehended for violation of properly promulgated post regulation= s. These persons then may be escorted to the entrance of the post and may b= e forbidden reentry by the installation commander. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ may be cited for violations of the Assimilative Crimes Act not amounting to felonies or breaches of the peace (such as fishing without a valid permi= t) and referred to a US magistrate. - Civilians not subject to the UCMJ may be subject to military authority in situations involving martial law or hostilities. Thus, commanders and MP have authority to apprehend civilians in many circumstances; they may also detain civilians for a reasonable period of time in order to effect their arrest by civilian law enforcement authorities. The local SJA is consulted regarding the applicable rules. AR 600-40

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting Ryan Macy : Doesn't that violate the Posse Comitatus (SP?) statute or something???

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ that was at least partial repealed under patriot. Though I've heard has reinstated ----- Original Message ----- From: John Aldrich To: chugalug@chugalug.org Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:57:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour Quoting Ryan Macy : Doesn't that violate the Posse Comitatus (SP?) statute or something???

=============================================================== From: Ed King ------------------------------------------------------ you said posse ----- Original Message ---- From: John Aldrich To: chugalug@chugalug.org Sent: Tue, November 29, 2011 2:57:21 PM Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour Quoting Ryan Macy : Doesn't that violate the Posse Comitatus (SP?) statute or something???

=============================================================== From: Ryan Macy ------------------------------------------------------ The *Posse Comitatus Act* is an often misunderstood and misquoted United States federal law

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Why not? "That would be a military state" or a "police state" or a "military police state" or some such... Who cares? It's just semantics. If someone waved a magic wand and said "Police Officers are now a part of the US Military". What would change? I have a friend who served in Iraq, and then came home, and you know what his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. I'm not talking about tanks rolling down the street - I'm talking about uniformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect Americans. Quite frankly, I think there is an idiotic level of division anyway. How many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the Air Force is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. It seems to me that there would be a lot less waste and bureaucacy if we had *one* military. Same goes for "intelligence agencies" - CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and the rest of the alphabet. Simple is better. I'm not saying we can't have specialization within that *one* entity, but it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, intelligence, and police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. Firefighters, too, for that matter. I know it's never going to happen, everything is far too entrenched now, but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the men and women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting on our behalf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or something...? Doesn't the military fight wars? *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Cameron Kilgore ------------------------------------------------------ So how about that bill? Did it pass? Has the WH held up its commitment to veto?

=============================================================== From: Phil Sieg ------------------------------------------------------ Chad, If I am not too tired later I will take your post apart piece by piece. There are some DAMNED good reasons why our military can NOT operate on = our own soil. As a former Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and a veteran the = thought of our troops on our soil enforcing ANYTHING makes me want to = pick up and move far away. Would somebody else please school Chad this time so that I don't have = to... PLEASE. Phil Sieg President SeniorTech LLC / snapf=C5=8Dn=C2=AE www.snapfon.com Phone: 423.535.9968 Fax: 423.265.9820 Mobile: 423.331.0725 "The computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with. = It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." Steve Jobs, 1955-2011 police state" or some such... of the US Military". What would change? what his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. about uniformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect = Americans. How many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the = Air Force is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. we had *one* military. rest of the alphabet. Simple is better. but it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, = intelligence, and police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. = Firefighters, too, for that matter. now, but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the = men and women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting = on our behalf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or = terrorism, or something...? Doesn't the military fight wars?

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ I am just going to ignore him. The whole thought of any type of military interdiction in policing states is downright scary. -AW r t e nd m,

=============================================================== From: Sidney Hale ------------------------------------------------------ It's simple the whole financial system is on the verge of collapse. Congress is scared to death as their approval is 9%. Expect the worst. ck f t w t and sm,

=============================================================== From: Cameron Kilgore ------------------------------------------------------ I personally would like to see Chad's attempt at armchair government branch consolidation totally disassembled as the bad idea it is. Some people need to see a reality adjustment. I mean, who on earth would want to have a police force that has the power of one-sided, closed door court marshals, indefinite incarceration, and better firearms run the show? They're called military juntas for a reason! Look at what happened in Egypt after Mubarak was ousted up until this week. ck f t w t and sm,

=============================================================== From: Ryan Macy ------------------------------------------------------ Im going to rip this apart when I finish the final touches on the RFP = that is due for work tomorrow. And Im going to second everyone else.. Im a MP, I've been in for about 4 = years and Im preparing for a commission in the next few months. The. Military. Should. Not. Police. Citizens. police state" or some such... of the US Military". What would change? what his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. about uniformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect = Americans. How many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the = Air Force is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. we had *one* military. rest of the alphabet. Simple is better. but it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, = intelligence, and police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. = Firefighters, too, for that matter. now, but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the = men and women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting = on our behalf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or = terrorism, or something...? Doesn't the military fight wars?

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ In. Any. Country. -AW

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I didn't say military judicial system for citizens. I said Police. Police don't court marshal, or judge, citizens. A militarized police force wouldn't have any greater power than the current ones do. Now if police could be court marshaled, that would take a big chunk of the corruption out of the police force. And some of our police forces *need* better firepower than they have. But, again, I'm not talking about a Meth Lab being taken out via a predator drone or cruise missile. I'm just saying it could all be one thing. At the very least on a Federal level, US Marshals, ICE, DEA, ATF, etc As I said, none of this will ever happen, so it's really a moot point, but, since we're talking about it.... Imagine if we took the system we have now, and over the next year, we had all of our current law enforcement officers from all 50 states go through a national boot camp, and when they came out (those who made the cut) they would be granted some US Police Force military status. What negative difference would that make? We might loose some cops that couldn't make it. (And we'd have some grandfathered thing about cops over a certain age.) But if we held cops to the same level as we do soldiers, how is that bad? If a cop thought he could be court marshaled for taking a bribe, that $50 the hood is offering wouldn't seem so attractive. Yes, I know Ruby Ridge, Waco... Bad things happen, I get it. But how many dirty cops have let murders go, just because they were on the take? How many of those murderers killed again? How many criminals have gone free because of crappy police work, police work that would *never* happen in the military? I know the military isn't perfect. No group of human beings will ever be. I just don't see why it matters if we call them cops or soldiers, other than the perception people have. We could call them tooth fairies or the KGB or your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. What difference does it make? A unified group, with unified base-level training, and expectations. How could that possibly be bad? *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Phil Sieg ------------------------------------------------------ Chad, I mean this in the kindest possible Christmassy way: You are a damned idiot. My granddad had a wonderful piece of advice he would dispense to me time = and time again, and here it is for you: Son, when you look around and find yourself surrounded by dirt on all = sides, it is time to put the damned shovel down and stop digging that = hole. Chad your statements, the arguments about your statements are akin to = diggin' that hole. I doubt that I agree with you on anything = politically, but this issue goes beyond the pale. Ryan Macy (as an = active duty MP) has as relevant a viewpoint here as any I can imagine. = Just listen to him. I will add one example only: A militarized police force that answers to = the Commander and Chief sounds like the end of term limits as we know = them. All it would take to get another indefinite term is an executive = order establishing that we are in a crisis and that it is not an = appropriate time for an election, or a change of leadership. Dick Cheney = would have suggested this is there was any damned way he thought he = could get away with it. Chad, put down the shovel. Phil Sieg President SeniorTech LLC / snapf=C5=8Dn=C2=AE www.snapfon.com Phone: 423.535.9968 Fax: 423.265.9820 Mobile: 423.331.0725 "The computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with. = It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." Steve Jobs, 1955-2011 Police don't court marshal, or judge, citizens. A militarized police = force wouldn't have any greater power than the current ones do. Now if = police could be court marshaled, that would take a big chunk of the = corruption out of the police force. But, again, I'm not talking about a Meth Lab being taken out via a = predator drone or cruise missile. I'm just saying it could all be one = thing. At the very least on a Federal level, US Marshals, ICE, DEA, = ATF, etc but, since we're talking about it.... Imagine if we took the system we = have now, and over the next year, we had all of our current law = enforcement officers from all 50 states go through a national boot camp, = and when they came out (those who made the cut) they would be granted = some US Police Force military status. What negative difference would = that make? We might loose some cops that couldn't make it. (And we'd = have some grandfathered thing about cops over a certain age.) But if we = held cops to the same level as we do soldiers, how is that bad? If a = cop thought he could be court marshaled for taking a bribe, that $50 the = hood is offering wouldn't seem so attractive. many dirty cops have let murders go, just because they were on the take? = How many of those murderers killed again? How many criminals have gone = free because of crappy police work, police work that would *never* = happen in the military? be. I just don't see why it matters if we call them cops or soldiers, = other than the perception people have. We could call them tooth fairies = or the KGB or your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. What difference = does it make? How could that possibly be bad?

=============================================================== From: Phil Sieg ------------------------------------------------------ and more... The fall of the Weimar Republic, Pappa Doc Duvallier, The Khmer Rouge & = Pol Pot, Imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi and the illegitimate = government that ruled in her stead.. and literally a thousand more = examples of WHY the nations military should have ZERO operational = ability or authority on home soil. Phil Sieg President SeniorTech LLC / snapf=C5=8Dn=C2=AE www.snapfon.com Phone: 423.535.9968 Fax: 423.265.9820 Mobile: 423.331.0725 "The computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with. = It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." Steve Jobs, 1955-2011 Police don't court marshal, or judge, citizens. A militarized police = force wouldn't have any greater power than the current ones do. Now if = police could be court marshaled, that would take a big chunk of the = corruption out of the police force. But, again, I'm not talking about a Meth Lab being taken out via a = predator drone or cruise missile. I'm just saying it could all be one = thing. At the very least on a Federal level, US Marshals, ICE, DEA, = ATF, etc but, since we're talking about it.... Imagine if we took the system we = have now, and over the next year, we had all of our current law = enforcement officers from all 50 states go through a national boot camp, = and when they came out (those who made the cut) they would be granted = some US Police Force military status. What negative difference would = that make? We might loose some cops that couldn't make it. (And we'd = have some grandfathered thing about cops over a certain age.) But if we = held cops to the same level as we do soldiers, how is that bad? If a = cop thought he could be court marshaled for taking a bribe, that $50 the = hood is offering wouldn't seem so attractive. many dirty cops have let murders go, just because they were on the take? = How many of those murderers killed again? How many criminals have gone = free because of crappy police work, police work that would *never* = happen in the military? be. I just don't see why it matters if we call them cops or soldiers, = other than the perception people have. We could call them tooth fairies = or the KGB or your friendly neighborhood Spiderman. What difference = does it make? How could that possibly be bad?

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Different missions. Being a peace officer and taking territory and occupying it are really different skill sets. Both cops and civilians decry the militarization of the police force. Though there are those who think it is the shiznig. This was written by the Former Seattle police chief who served during the "Battle for Seattle" Lessons from a Police Chief: Militarization is a Mistake. http://www.nationofchange.org/lessons-police-chief-militarization-mistake-1321627137 ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith To: CHUGALUG Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:03:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour Why not? "That would be a military state" or a "police state" or a "military police state" or some such... Who cares? It's just semantics. If someone waved a magic wand and said "Police Officers are now a part of the US Military". What would change? I have a friend who served in Iraq, and then came home, and you know what his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. I'm not talking about tanks rolling down the street - I'm talking about uniformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect Americans. Quite frankly, I think there is an idiotic level of division anyway. How many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the Air Force is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. It seems to me that there would be a lot less waste and bureaucacy if we had *one* military. Same goes for "intelligence agencies" - CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and the rest of the alphabet. Simple is better. I'm not saying we can't have specialization within that *one* entity, but it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, intelligence, and police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. Firefighters, too, for that matter. I know it's never going to happen, everything is far too entrenched now, but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the men and women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting on our behalf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or something...? Doesn't the military fight wars? *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ so far it looks like it is still being considered. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01867:@@@L&summ2=m& ----- Original Message ----- From: Cameron Kilgore To: CHUGALUG Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:04:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour So how about that bill? Did it pass? Has the WH held up its commitment to veto?

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ It is an lost ethic Phil. Remember there have been folk born in the last thirty years. And this count= ry has changed since then. My younger cousins don't remember the cold war. Hell most of my peers have no clue about Water Gate. The only reason I do is because I was a precocious 6 year old who wanted th= e know what everyone was talking about and started watching the news. ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Sieg To: CHUGALUG Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:14:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in t= he next hour Chad, If I am not too tired later I will take your post apart piece by piece. There are some DAMNED good reasons why our military can NOT operate on our = own soil. As a former Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and a veteran the thought = of our troops on our soil enforcing ANYTHING makes me want to pick up and m= ove far away. Would somebody else please school Chad this time so that I don't have to...= PLEASE. Phil Sieg President SeniorTech LLC / snapf=C5=8Dn=C2=AE www.snapfon.com Phone: 423.535.9968 Fax: 423.265.9820 Mobile: 423.331.0725 "The computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with. It'= s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." Steve Jobs, 1955-2011 e state" or some such... the US Military". What would change? his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. niformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect Americans. many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the Air Fo= rce is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. had *one* military. of the alphabet. Simple is better. it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, intelligence, a= nd police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. Firefighters, too,= for that matter. but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the men and= women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting on our beh= alf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or= something...? Doesn't the military fight wars?

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Ok, I've read the article. I've heard from Veterans, who obviously have much greater insight than I. (Although mostly your responses were just "you're an idiot - that's a dumb idea" - not very insightful or helpful.) I hadn't considered the idea that the President would basically become the head of the 4th Branch of the Federal Government - the Enforcement Branch. That was an insightful comment. I dare say no matter what your political leaning, at least half the time that would be a very frightening concept as well. (Although, really, 100% of the time it is scary.) Perhaps the idea of making the police a literal part of the military would be a Bad Thing=E2=84=A2=C2=A9=C2=AE. But I do wish there were higher stand= ards. And much less red tape and duplication of infrustructure. What I haven't seen is any objection to nor reasons against having just the one Military and not 4 or 5 or 6 or 3 (depending on how you count them) branches, and the alphabet soup of Intelligence Agencies and Federal Enforcers needs to be restructured from the ground up. Do we really need an ATF *and* a DEA? (Or either one?) So, not that I ever posed any actual threat to changing anything about the way the country works - I will concede that the militarizing of our police force is a bad idea ultimately. Wait for it.... I was... wuh wuh wuuuhrrr wroooonnn wrong. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya r t e t , nd m,

=============================================================== From: Erik Hanson ------------------------------------------------------ country works. So the better you understand what is right for our country, and what is decidedly wrong for it, the better our country will be, for everyone.

=============================================================== From: Erik Hanson ------------------------------------------------------

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Why does the FBI have a financial crime section when we have the secret ser= vice(treasury dept)? Could the ATF (a very old agency) & DEA be folded into the FBI? Maybe. Your not the first to suggest that. There have been suggestions of combining the armed forces. But you have competing cultures and traditions. Hell the Marines and Navy are technically under the same command and they d= on't get along. But it is a whole different thing to talk about combining civilian & milita= ry services. Having said that the Army Core of Engineers is technically under the Pentag= on but has been acting very much like an independent civilian agency that h= as its finger in every American waterway. The Coast Guard is technically our 5th military branch but is at the moment= under the Dept of Transportation though in a time of war that can change. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith To: CHUGALUG Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:12:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in t= he next hour Ok, I've read the article. I've heard from Veterans, who obviously have much greater insight than I. (Although mostly your responses were just "you're an idiot - that's a dumb idea" - not very insightful or helpful.) I hadn't considered the idea that the President would basically become the head of the 4th Branch of the Federal Government - the Enforcement Branch. That was an insightful comment. I dare say no matter what your political leaning, at least half the time that would be a very frightening concept as well. (Although, really, 100% of the time it is scary.) Perhaps the idea of making the police a literal part of the military would be a Bad Thing=E2=84=A2=C2=A9=C2=AE. But I do wish there were higher stand= ards. And much less red tape and duplication of infrustructure. What I haven't seen is any objection to nor reasons against having just the one Military and not 4 or 5 or 6 or 3 (depending on how you count them) branches, and the alphabet soup of Intelligence Agencies and Federal Enforcers needs to be restructured from the ground up. Do we really need an ATF *and* a DEA? (Or either one?) So, not that I ever posed any actual threat to changing anything about the way the country works - I will concede that the militarizing of our police force is a bad idea ultimately. Wait for it.... I was... wuh wuh wuuuhrrr wroooonnn wrong. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya r t e t , nd m,

=============================================================== From: Ryan Macy ------------------------------------------------------ There is a little redundancy in the branches of the military and = potentially you could merge the air force and army back together. The marines are our shock troopers, the army is an occupational force, = the navy provides sea control, and the air force provides air control. The first thing we did when we went to Haiti during the earthquake was = seize the airports and seaports. The next step was overflowing the = country with ground troops and armaments. It's FOUO so I can't really talk about it on the list but we have = specific "battle group" structures that go from unit level to division = that allows a division to practically operate as its own force. = Completely reliant on itself. I. (Although mostly your responses were just "you're an idiot - that's = a dumb idea" - not very insightful or helpful.) the head of the 4th Branch of the Federal Government - the Enforcement = Branch. That was an insightful comment. I dare say no matter what your = political leaning, at least half the time that would be a very = frightening concept as well. (Although, really, 100% of the time it is = scary.) would be a Bad Thing=E2=84=A2=C2=A9=C2=AE. But I do wish there were = higher standards. And much less red tape and duplication of = infrustructure. just the one Military and not 4 or 5 or 6 or 3 (depending on how you = count them) branches, and the alphabet soup of Intelligence Agencies and = Federal Enforcers needs to be restructured from the ground up. Do we = really need an ATF *and* a DEA? (Or either one?) the way the country works - I will concede that the militarizing of our = police force is a bad idea ultimately. Wait for it.... wrote: country has changed since then. wanted the know what everyone was talking about and started watching the = news. in the next hour piece. our own soil. As a former Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and a veteran the = thought of our troops on our soil enforcing ANYTHING makes me want to = pick up and move far away. to... PLEASE. with. It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." police state" or some such... part of the US Military". What would change? what his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. about uniformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect = Americans. How many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the = Air Force is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. if we had *one* military. rest of the alphabet. Simple is better. entity, but it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, = intelligence, and police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. = Firefighters, too, for that matter. now, but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the = men and women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting = on our behalf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or = terrorism, or something...? Doesn't the military fight wars?

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thank you, that was a very enlightening read and from a very interesting point of view.... Working on the article he himself links next... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7Wq1IACgkQABP1RO+tr2TRzQCcD8/EKujhMWDEu14w5bgTnHRp e+0An1q+l7HCFk6lHHrmbPt+NfDZCtP9 =haWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What in the hell do Watergate, ethics or the Cold War have to do with what a bad idea it is to police the citizenry with military force? Surely there are enough current (and within the last 10 years) examples of "military police states" without confusing the issue with any of those three things.... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7WrFUACgkQABP1RO+tr2R+egCgrLK8H45Vwkd0fSMvXh0SyauZ JccAn1D6/JJbcrRjRyxbf9gsQDxd37o7 =WyOO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ MY point is that the country has changed in the last 30 years and even some people my age don't remember momentous things in American history that they lived thru. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Brockman To: CHUGALUG Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:21:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What in the hell do Watergate, ethics or the Cold War have to do with what a bad idea it is to police the citizenry with military force? Surely there are enough current (and within the last 10 years) examples of "military police states" without confusing the issue with any of those three things.... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7WrFUACgkQABP1RO+tr2R+egCgrLK8H45Vwkd0fSMvXh0SyauZ JccAn1D6/JJbcrRjRyxbf9gsQDxd37o7 =WyOO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ This was kind of interesting, an interactive map of botched raids. http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ That it is on the Cato institute being link by a Nation site is very interesting. But then again the Nation & American Spectator teamed recently on an action. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Brockman To: CHUGALUG Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:16:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: Military detention bill beieng rammed thru in the next hour -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thank you, that was a very enlightening read and from a very interesting point of view.... Working on the article he himself links next... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7Wq1IACgkQABP1RO+tr2TRzQCcD8/EKujhMWDEu14w5bgTnHRp e+0An1q+l7HCFk6lHHrmbPt+NfDZCtP9 =haWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:46:43 -0500 (EST) Rod-Lists wrote: One thing I find particularly striking is that with the loss of the Soviet Union as our thing to point to and say "that's evil!", policing in this country has started to acquire a lot of the traits that we used to culturally view as completely unacceptable. Checkpoints in which we have to show our papers. Clearance for internal travel. Public propaganda. The amount of paperwork and government clearance necessary to hire someone or, heck, even just to volunteer (how many times have I been fingerprinted and background checked this year?). It's like we've totally wiped out a whole set of taboos, and notions of what's acceptable government. The generation after mine didn't have old people with numbers tattooed on their arms speaking to them. They didn't have parent-contemporary Eastern European refugees talking about risking life and limb to defect. The Soviet Union was history, a joke of horrible economic collapse, not a second competing power that could end our way of life, and possibly our lives, with a few minutes of warning. If you'd showed me video of a modern airport back in the '80s, I'd have thought it was a depressing dystopian movie: Vid screens everywhere playing empty propaganda (ie: CNN, FoxNews, depending on your airport); meaningless police-state meddling and intimidation, scanners intrusive enough that the Total Recall scene seems hopelessly outdated (and yet unable to catch actual threats). And yet: there we are. Dan

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At the risk of repeating myself.... I dare anyone to read 1984 and replace Internet everywhere "TV" occurs and get a good night's sleep afterwards.... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7XxGUACgkQABP1RO+tr2TbbwCfe0R7/E4bJLF0PTXwxkcMZWLO eVoAnjWsrNu4tyrnnvHBhMaT9g1fim9V =E1CK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At the risk of repeating myself.... I dare anyone to read 1984 and replace Internet everywhere "TV" occurs and get a good night's sleep afterwards.... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7XxGYACgkQABP1RO+tr2R6mACglNB7gFL5TNUubbAwEOIe0bsn dF8An1B12sV/dR/EFSufmfJ+YZ0cPgNW =TX3b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just send this same email twice. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just send this same email twice. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Sidney Hale ------------------------------------------------------ That alphabet soup of avenues you speak of all fall under the Dept. Of Fatherland... I mean Homeland Security. That's worked out so well for us too. b e . as d ndards. And much l e e n ck t on

=============================================================== From: Billy ------------------------------------------------------ Don't you mean The Ministry of Love? Sent from my iPropoganda herland... I mean Homeland Security. That's worked out so well for us too. (Although mostly your responses were just "you're an idiot - that's a dumb i= dea" - not very insightful or helpful.) head of the 4th Branch of the Federal Government - the Enforcement Branch. = That was an insightful comment. I dare say no matter what your political l= eaning, at least half the time that would be a very frightening concept as w= ell. (Although, really, 100% of the time it is scary.) be a Bad Thing=E2=84=A2=C2=A9=C2=AE. But I do wish there were higher stand= ards. And much less red tape and duplication of infrustructure. e one Military and not 4 or 5 or 6 or 3 (depending on how you count them) b= ranches, and the alphabet soup of Intelligence Agencies and Federal Enforcer= s needs to be restructured from the ground up. Do we really need an ATF *an= d* a DEA? (Or either one?) way the country works - I will concede that the militarizing of our police f= orce is a bad idea ultimately. Wait for it.... try has changed since then. he know what everyone was talking about and started watching the news. he next hour own soil. As a former Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and a veteran the thought o= f our troops on our soil enforcing ANYTHING makes me want to pick up and mov= e far away. . PLEASE. 's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." ce state" or some such... f the US Military". What would change? t his first "Civilian" job was? That's right, a cop. niformed agents of the government who carry guns and protect Americans. w many branches of the military do we really need? It's not like the Air Fo= rce is the only ones with planes, or the Navy with boats. had *one* military. of the alphabet. Simple is better. t it should be *one* entity. And, yes, I mean the military, intelligence, a= nd police. One, top to bottom protect and serve thing. Firefighters, too, f= or that matter. but I never have understood why it's so scary to people to have the men and= women who we send overseas to fight on our behalf also fighting on our beha= lf right here. Didn't we declare war on drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or s= omething...? Doesn't the military fight wars?

=============================================================== From: Christopher Rimondi ------------------------------------------------------ We are now double plus safe. -- Chris Rimondi | http://twitter.com/crimondi