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

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:24:59 PM)
quote: Its no different than the military having plans for invading every fucking country in the world, including Canada, if it became necessary. As a bit of an aside, I had a friend who worked in military intelligence and later with one of our intelligence services (I can't recall which of the two, the acronyms are nearly identical) and he told me that there is a plan in place for the US to invade Canada with the cooperation of the Canadian military. This plan apparently dates from the 1950s and was to be used in the case of a communist take over in Canada.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:27:57 PM)
Then surely the constitution can just be ammended in this case? I don't dispute that for America the constitution is a very important and effective grounding for society but I am sure even the founders understood that in the future that they might not cover every eventuality. The reason this particular case is exceptional is that the people with the most expertise are in the army. Understandably you do not want the military being responsible for carrying out the duties of law enforcement but equally you want to ensure that the general public [and police officers involved] are as protected as possible. The scope for this sort of situation occuring is thankfully small so presumably that would make it easy to ammend the constitution to allow certain elements of the military to safeguard a location alongside bona fide police officers.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:35:38 PM)
You know, unless I am mistaken, Bush could have used the military any time he wanted, and have done so legally. All he would have to do was declare martial law....but for some reason he figured it wouldn't fly. As for the event in question, yes it is disturbing that it was discussed and that they found somebody to justify it, however keep things in perspective, it was Cheney who wanted to do this, and Cheney's lawyer who said it would be legal...Bush decided against them...surely a rare cause for him to be congratulated for making the right choice.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:41:49 PM)
But surely even if he had decided to go ahead with this course of action then the public if they disagreed with his reasoning could have gone to the ballot box and shown their dissaproval or if the reaction was strong enough he could have been impeached. I think the debate itself is healthy and on it's own not a reason for alarm, i'm sure all kinds of contingencies are advocated and dismissed on a regular basis and some will properly be just as outlandish.

blacksword404 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You're absolutely right Bull. I am about as biased and partisan as they come, and you know what, that ain't gonna change. So yeah, you are damn right that when I see new evidence of that come to light I'm going to be posting it and telling everyone who will listen about it. Because I don't want to see it happen again. This is precisely why it will happen again.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:48:31 PM)
Probaly so Starbuck, it is in the nature of contingency planning and crisis management that all ideas are examined, and those that are unworkable for whatever reason are discarded. The reason this is such a problem is that in the US there was (and in some quarters still is) a very strong aversion to even the idea of a standing army. The Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to raise and maintain troops is a little shaky at times, because the Constitution specifically allowed the individual states to raise and maintain troops but did not do so for the federal level. It did not prohibit the federal government from raising troops, and that is the rationale by which it does so.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:51:15 PM)
It took 3 pages but someone finally mentioned the FBI. I kinda-sorta thought this type of operation - going after suspected terrorists on US soil - was why we have the FBI. I'm pretty sure the FBI maintains teams that are every bit as capable of this sort of operation as anything the military has. If I understand the original talking point, there was -allegedly, gotta say allegedy- a group of terror suspects doing whatever it is that terror suspects do. Shouldn't this information have been turned over to the FBI? Why would a discussion of sending in troops ever get started? And that's the most disturbing part - how does the conversation even get started? Does Chaney explain the situation and then say "Gee, Mr President, I sure wish we could send in a SEAL team to take those M-F's out!" to which Bush replies "Let me explain just how completely illegal and unconstitutional that is..." and then launches into a 30-minutes discourse on Posse Commitas and the seperation of powers. Hey - I think I just wrote a bit for SNL!!! They once did something simiar with Reagan. Made him out to be a doddering fool when in front of the cameras but who became all focused and hard-core once the reports left. Seems to me that if we, as a group of knuckleheads in a discussion group, can see the problems inherent is this then Cheany, Bush, Yoo, and everyone else with access to the president should really know way better than to even think of this, let alone discuss it as an actual plan. ~Dave (D-IL)

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 4:55:54 PM)
That's far enough arpig and I understand the sanctity of the constitution and the fear of federal power, I might not agree with all aspects of it, but I do understand the reasoning. I was wondering earlier is it possible for an e.o.d. team from the army to be deputised so that officially they are part of law enforcement and so not actually infringing on the constitution or are there laws prohibiting that?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:01:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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. Document till your balls turn blue. If they were "clearly illegal" there would be prosecutions. The vindictiveness of the left wing ensures that.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:03:21 PM)
In fairness though Dave and i'm only guessing myself obviously, but the conversation could have been alog the lines of, '' we believe that the terror susects in the house are affiliated with a group that has both acess to and training in a wide range of sometimes extremely sopisticated ordinance, we have to move fast because our intelligence sources say that they are close to carrying out an attack. With the possibly very sensitive and delicate nature oof this situation it might be advisable to consider sending in specialist teams from the military unpalatable as that sounds as they re both highly trained and have had a wealth of recent experience dealing with these operatives in the middle east. '' No i'm fraid that tempting though that sounds it is a precedent I am unwilling to set at this time, we'll take the calculated risk of sending law enforcement only.'' That mightbe nonsense Dave and the conversation was more along your lines but still...

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 That's far enough arpig and I understand the sanctity of the constitution and the fear of federal power, I might not agree with all aspects of it, but I do understand the reasoning. I was wondering earlier is it possible for an e.o.d. team from the army to be deputised so that officially they are part of law enforcement and so not actually infringing on the constitution or are there laws prohibiting that? Oh, that would actually be quite simple. It wouldn't require deputizing them at all. For something requiring special technical expertise, it would just be a matter of the local authorities requesting assistance from the federal government. The military EOD team would just be assigned to support the civilian law enforcement agency in charge, but the civilian agency would be the command authority, doing the actual police work and making whatever arrests might be necessary. Although if we're confining the discussion to bomb squads, it would be a lot more efficient and effective for the local LEOs to enlist the assistance of the FBI. Their bomb squad is probably the equal of anything the military could put in the field, and unlike most military technicians, they're highly trained in evidence gathering, chain of custody, and other legal protocols.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:05:39 PM)
Clearly their conversation would not have been as atrociously spelt as my own hypothetical chinwag as well. Don't know what happened there...

gift4mistress -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:17:41 PM)
OMG BUSH THOUGHT ABOUT SENDING TROOPS IN TO BUFFALO!!!! WE ARE ALLLLL GOINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG TO DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!! FORGET ABOUT THE TRILLIONS IN DEBT WE ARE IN, OUR CRAPPY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, OUR DETERIATING COUNTRY, AND THE FACT THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. NAH LETS ALL WORRY ABOUT WHAT COULD/WOULDA/SHOULDA HAPPENED. THIS IS JUST A PLOY BY THE MEDIA TO SIDETRACT YOU FROM WHAT IS GOING ON JUST LIKE HOW THE MEDIA IGNORED THE SHITTY ECONOMY DURING MICHAEL JACKSON DEATH BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE MADE OBAMA LOOK BAD.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Then surely the constitution can just be ammended in this case? I don't dispute that for America the constitution is a very important and effective grounding for society but I am sure even the founders understood that in the future that they might not cover every eventuality. The reason this particular case is exceptional is that the people with the most expertise are in the army. Understandably you do not want the military being responsible for carrying out the duties of law enforcement but equally you want to ensure that the general public [and police officers involved] are as protected as possible. The scope for this sort of situation occuring is thankfully small so presumably that would make it easy to ammend the constitution to allow certain elements of the military to safeguard a location alongside bona fide police officers. But that's not what we train our military for, generally speaking. We have a much different environment, and much different relationship with terrorism than you folks. In Britain, you've been dealing with a dire threat of domestic terrorism for decades, and the weapon of choice for your terrorists has been bombs directed at the civilian population. With very, very rare exceptions, that's not a problem we've ever had to deal with, and it's only the last few years that we've even felt compelled to take domestic terrorism seriously at all. Your command and control structure for dealing with terrorists reflects your experiences with the IRA and their cohorts, and the procedures you have for dealing with them have evolved to meet that specific threat. Having a few small, highly trained teams of bomb specialists makes sense in Britain, because you've got a small country - smaller than many American states - and a demonstrated need for very skilled bomb disposal specialists. For you people, it makes a lot of sense to have such teams, because you can fly them anywhere in the country in less than an hour. Here, because of our different history with terrorism and the command control structure dictated by our Constitution, the FBI has been assigned to play many of the same roles your military anti-terrorism units play over there, and they do a much better job of it than our military would do. Not because our military is incompetent, but because domestic crime is just not what they're trained to do, whereas that's the only thing the FBI is trained to do. If we were talking about assigning your military to work with our local law enforcement agencies, that would be one thing. But with our military, it would represent no advantage at all. They would actually be a hindrance. The FBI is as good as we have in the US.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:35:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 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. Oh, it's not jingoism. It's fact. Your people are the best in the world, no question. In fact, I believe our FBI trains with your people at least once a year, and when the major cities who pride themselves on having elite bomb squads brag, the first thing they brag about is that their people train with the Brits for a week or two every year. Your people are the best of the best, and I think everyone who knows anything about the subject knows it.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:37:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Panda, your views mirror mine very well, and you express yourself well. I'll just kick back and let you represent me. Wow. Thank you! Coming from you, that's very high praise, Steven. Very high praise indeed. I am honored.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 5:38:40 PM)
Well that's a pretty wicked rebutal panda and a good enough reason to not involve the military. I did'nt realise how advanced the f.b.i. are in this field cheers for explaining it in depth.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 6:01:19 PM)
quote: The FBI is as good as we have in the US. And the difference between the military and a well equipped SWAT team is really one of uniforms not firepower. I really cannot see any advantage to having the military involved, except perhaps that it would allow them greater control over the entire procedure.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix**yahoo.com (7/25/2009 6:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well that's fair enough Panda more power to you, I think it's good to have strong beliefs and to recognize the down sides as well as the positives. I also understand that living in Britian it is harder to understand the utter sanctity of the constitution but I think it's a valid position whether I agree with it or not. I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about how the constitution works with regards to being ammended. Well, the process to amend the Constitution was (of course) designed to be cumbersome and lengthy. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that we had the option, but also that we didn't exercise it in haste. Considering that it's happened less than 20 times in 220 years, it's obviously not something that we rush into. Basically, 2/3 of both the Senate and the House of Representatives (or 2/3 of the states' legislatures) must agree upon and propose an amendment, and then the proposed amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. You can imagine how long that takes in a country as large and as... well... fucking weird as ours, so it's an event that's typically reserved for issues that are sincerely needed and genuinely in the best interests of the whole country (the 18th Amendment, making alcohol illegal, being an obvious exception), As for our reverence for the Constitution... well, that one can be a little difficult to explain. And you probably would get a lot of different answers, depending on who you asked. For me - the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence represent an apex of human social evolution; an entire country being founded on the principle that the liberty of the individual is not just the core around which the nation is assembled, but that it is in fact the very reason the country exists. The concept that the sole reason for the country's existence is to protect the human rights of an individual human being represents, to me, the pinnacle of human civilization. I regard them, and the men who wrote them, with nothing short of awe. To me, they are the closest thing in existence to a sacred document. I don't know how to explain it any better than that right now, but few things move me more and speak more eloquently to me of the purity and the nobility of the human soul than those two documents.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 6:13:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well that's a pretty wicked rebutal panda and a good enough reason to not involve the military. I did'nt realise how advanced the f.b.i. are in this field cheers for explaining it in depth. I'm glad to help. I mean, it's only fair that you guys pop back in every now and then to check up on how we're managing things!

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875