RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TurboJugend -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:41:13 AM)
thank you for explaining, much more clearer now

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HI ADD ME AT [email protected] (7/25/2009 10:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: sweetalicia hi i am a cam girl help me plzz i am too horny right now plzz Can anyone please help this poor girl? Now I know we have our differences here, but surely someone is charitable enough to help her out with her problem. shilling for your bride to be..must be unconstitutional

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The only problem is these types of legal discussions about things that were clearly illegal came up often in the Bush White House. clearly illegal???? have any examples?

tazzygirl -> RE: HI ADD ME AT [email protected] (7/25/2009 10:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: sweetalicia hi i am a cam girl help me plzz i am too horny right now plzz Cmon Rule, you didnt think we'd fall for this obvious phony name of yours, didja? [sm=lame.gif] Hey, don't be insulting my bride-to-be. Which one is the cam girl, and your bride to be... the Dominant 20 year old native american or the 24 year old male submissive? man, im all confused!

DomKen -> RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix**yahoo.com (7/25/2009 10:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 DomKen I understand that no-one is deemed too dangerous for law enforcement to handle with the exceptions you've noted but in this case it is not the people that are dangerous but the equipment they may posess. In Britain there was a long history of similar situations with the I.R.A. where criminals had access to ordinance that the police were not fully trained to handle. In these situations [and these alone] jurisdiction was handed from law enforcement to the military, usually Felix. The reason is simply because in these very specific and exceptional cases the police were not as effective as the military and lives were on the line. If the house was booby trapped then sending in the police could lead to disastrous consequences both to the officers involved and the general public. I understand the desire to adhere to the constitution, really I do. However I am sure that those who wrote it would want people to think for themselves not simply follow the laws they laid down and if necessary make ammendments. These are difficult times and we need to fit them. I think there is a legitimate reason here for debate and I think president Bush was actually wise to have it. In this instance he decided it was not the right thing to do, but I think the debate itself is something healthy. To start with we have civilian bomb squads at both the municpal, state and federal level that are quite often staffed by former military EOD so in general we don't need military EOD to be involved in bomb disposal inside the US. In some cases military personel have been used in support of law enforcement but it always has to be in support roles. As a matter of fact one of the big problems arising from our occupation of Iraq is the federalization of many state National Gurad units. A quirk of our system is many, all?, states allow their own NG units while under state control to be deployed for many purposes including law enforcement that would be illegal if done with troops under federal jurisdiction. Effectively that means that in cases of natural disaster the states do not have the resources available that they included as part of their response plan. As noted above an attempt to resolve this situation by allowing the use of federal troops was very unpopular with the people and got repealed. This is just one of those things Americans hold dear that others don't always understand. We even get very uncomfortable when our police start looking increasingly paramilitary. Basically there is no good reason that every police officer in the US shouldn't be carrying a SMG or assault rifle as SOP but we as a people will only tolerate police carrying hadnguns except in unusual circumstances.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:59:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The only problem is these types of legal discussions about things that were clearly illegal came up often in the Bush White House. clearly illegal???? have any examples? Violating the Posse Comitatus Act Wiretapping Americans without warrants Using the CIA to monitor people inside the US Cheney's assasination squad

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 12:21:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The only problem is these types of legal discussions about things that were clearly illegal came up often in the Bush White House. clearly illegal???? have any examples? Violating the Posse Comitatus Act Wiretapping Americans without warrants Using the CIA to monitor people inside the US Cheney's assasination squad Im still waiting for any actions discussed that are CLEARLY illegal for a POTUS during a time of war or national emergency.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 1:02:07 PM)
All of those actions are violations of clear law.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 1:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All of those actions are violations of clear law. is your switching of word order supposed to mean something? If an option is studied and a legal opinion is received that is illegal, that doesnt make it CLEARLY illegal. If it were, the opinion wouldnt be needed in the first place. There is virtually nothing in the realm if executive powers during war or a national emergency that is CLEARLY illegal. Habeus corpus is at least as strong as anything you mentioned, and you know where that stands.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All of those actions are violations of clear law. is your switching of word order supposed to mean something? If an option is studied and a legal opinion is received that is illegal, that doesnt make it CLEARLY illegal. If it were, the opinion wouldnt be needed in the first place. There is virtually nothing in the realm if executive powers during war or a national emergency that is CLEARLY illegal. Habeus corpus is at least as strong as anything you mentioned, and you know where that stands. Posse Comitatus Act is a law. not obeying it is breaking the law. Wiretaps have been found to be searches that require a warrant. The FBI even has access to a special secret court to get warrants for domestic wiretaps. The CIA was establsihed by the National Security Act of 1947 which expressly forbid the CIA from operating inside the US. Assasination was forbidden by EO 11905 which is binding on all executive branch employees until rescinded by the POTUS, which cannot be done secretly and must be published in several places which clearly never happened. 2 absolute unequivical violations of law, 1 discussed and 1 EO apparently intended to be violated.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:08:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All of those actions are violations of clear law. is your switching of word order supposed to mean something? If an option is studied and a legal opinion is received that is illegal, that doesnt make it CLEARLY illegal. If it were, the opinion wouldnt be needed in the first place. There is virtually nothing in the realm if executive powers during war or a national emergency that is CLEARLY illegal. Habeus corpus is at least as strong as anything you mentioned, and you know where that stands. Two things. First of all, the fact Cheney and the other Bushers sought opinions does not mean that opinions were needed. It just means they were doing whatever they could to find some loophole to break the laws that they considered nothing more than annoying inconveniences. Second, the fact that they found a pet seal with a law degree who was willing to tell them what they wanted to hear doesn't mean the law was unclear. If some guy on the street corner tells me the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean it's unclear whether it's really round. It just means the guy on the corner is too full of shit to understand that.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:12:51 PM)
Domken thats my point though civilian/law enforcement teams are not as well trained, equipped or experienced as their military counterparts. There is some osmosis between the military and police but this is usually [though not always] highly experienced members of an E.O.D. unit becoming advisors. I can understand why people would be uncomfortable with national guard units being used as law enforcement even during disaster relief, but this is a very highly specialised area which very few people have the skills necessary to be effective. Would it not be possible for a single e.o.d. team to be deputised for the duration of the arrest?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:25:11 PM)
No, Starbuck, what he's saying is that many of the civilian police bomb squad members are former military personnel who learned their trade in the military. Even those who didn't are trained and certified by the FBI in the same training facilities, and to the same standards, as military EOD specialists. They're often more experienced than the younger members of military EOD teams. And frankly, given the deplorable state of disrepair into which much of the military has fallen into over the last few years, they're probably a lot better equipped, as well. In most major American cities, there wouldn't be any purpose or advantage to bringing in military EOD teams to pinch hit for local police, and certainly not for the FBI - who were the arresting agency in the Buffalo case.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy clearly illegal???? have any examples? Scroll up. I gave the text of the laws. What was being discussed could be construed as violation of the Constitution and more clearly a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I could actually cite a lot more legal violations of the Bush administration but they have been well-documented, so I will confine myself to the latest discovery of their attempts to establish absolute executive authority. You know, the sort of power the guy they said we had to depose possessed.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:37:37 PM)
Okay in that case fair enough panda in Britain it's a little different. The metropolitan police have bomb specialists [in a unit called ~SO13] and often they are trained by former military members but still the E.O.D. teams in the army are leagues ahead in terms of experience and training. [that's not a knock to the police members they do a really good job but training for an ammunition technician takes around six years in total and costs millions of pounds they just don't have the time/budget/facilities.] I'm not well versed in American methods so if ther's little difference then you're right there's little point and my idea is largely redundant. Out of interest then why would the debate have come up, it did seem logical to me as I presumed it would be a question of expertise versus constitutional integrity, but if that's not the case what was the idea behind using the military? Does anyone know if it says anywhere what units were being talked about?

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 2:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There is virtually nothing in the realm if executive powers during war or a national emergency that is CLEARLY illegal. Habeus corpus is at least as strong as anything you mentioned, and you know where that stands. So what you are saying is that in time of war the President holds the absolute authority of a monarch and cannot be challenged.

rulemylife -> RE: HI ADD ME AT [email protected] (7/25/2009 2:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Which one is the cam girl, and your bride to be... the Dominant 20 year old native american or the 24 year old male submissive? man, im all confused! Now I'm confused. It was sweetalicia, who seems to have disappeared from my life as quickly as she came. And I had already put the down payment on our new love nest where we would raise many, many little rules and alicias. It's all so sad.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 3:01:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Domken thats my point though civilian/law enforcement teams are not as well trained, equipped or experienced as their military counterparts. And what do you base this judgment on?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 3:15:24 PM)
In Britain police that deal with bomb threats are for the most part trained by former ammunition technicians however the actual members of the law enforcement teams have no military background. To become a fully qualified ammunition technician in the British army [jingoism aside they are generally considered the best in the world by a considerable distance] takes around six years and the selection process is gruelling. The police simply do not have the money or the facilities to train officers to this standard. British e.o.d. teams in particualr 11 e.o.d. regiment has some of the most experienced members in the world, plus all its qualified members get direct experience dealing with explosives in both Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention a myriad of peace keeping and training missions in places like the the former yugoslav Sierra Leonne e.t.c. Obviously police officers don't get this kind of experience. Lastly equipment like the wheelbarrow costs million of pounds and even the army do not have enough the police therefore are not trained sufficiently to use it so in situations where it can be deployed it is military operators that control it. Like I said this isn't a knock to the police they do an excellent job it's just that in some situations it is safer to use the military. I presumed that there would be a similar state of affairs in America but apparently things are slightly different.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:18:13 PM)
quote: Surely those who drew up the constitution would have not wanted people to adhere to it simply because it was there. It has been a long time since the constitution was drafted and while much/most of it is still applicable to the every day lives of Americans there are now some situations that the creators of the constitution did not make provision for as they were not applicable in that time period. This appears to be a situation where the rulings of the constitution could end up doing far more harm than good. This was obviously an exceptional circumstance and for exceptional circumstances exceptions must be made. Wrong Starbuck. I am 100% certain that those who drew up the Constitution specifically intended for people to adhere to it simply because it was there. That is kind of the whole fucking point of a constitution in the first place. It sets out the rules by which the government must abise. If there are sections of the constitution that are no longer relevant or applicable, well there is a defined process for amending it. Any clause can be revoked or rewritten, as long as the approriate process is followed. Making exceptions for this exceptional circumstance only makes it easier to make exceptions for the next one, say maybe that the jews are behind the crash in the economy (I mean they do control the banks, right?), so lets just ignore the constitution and round them all up. The Constitution has been ignored in the past, and sometimes things turned out for the better for it, but it was wrong and illegal to do so, and personally I would prefer my government to play by the rules which it agreed to at the start, rather than to make them up as it goes along...ignoring what is inconvenient.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02