"Crowd Control and Civil Unrest"

[e-Male]

Despite the Posse Comitatus Act (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act), Homeland Security now has a regular Army brigade assigned which is to be trained so they

...may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

Just in time for the upcoming election?!?!?!

Here's the full report posted on ArmyTimes:

www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army

/e

[hollis]

Does Posse Comitatus make martial law completely illegal? It seems to me that the Insurrection Act of 1807, as amended in 2007, would allow this.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

There are mulitple examples of when Posse Comitatus was ignored and as the government was not inclined to prosecute itself.................................

Douglas MacArthur led a cavalary charge into WWI vets protesting shabby treatment from the military.

Kent State - students killed by the national guard.

The list could go on for some time.

During the Clinton Administration a questionaire was circulated among servicemen with 2 primary questions.

1. Would you accept orders from a United Nations command
2. If ordered, would you fire on American Citizens.

The answers were
No
and
FU no

Reading back a little on HQ, I commented that the Commies where making their 'move'

If the gov fields troops against the citzens - all bets are off and the 2nd Amendment now comes into play. Neither Bush or McCain would make any declaration of martial law with this purpose in mind. Obama would.

[hollis]

Kent State was legal because it was National Guard troops under state control. It certainly wasn't right though.

[imbasile]

Just because "someone" says it's "legal" because they say so and are willing to kill you to make the point DOESN'T make it "legal" before God. Just makes the stupid follow out of fear and the rest are dead. It's just a piece of paper with words on it. The actions (fruits) are what really matter. You are only as free as "they" say you are, and those freedoms come and go on a whim. Be prepared to die as sheep, unless you can muster the wolf. (then you can die as one of them, losing your soul to the evil as they have)

[hollis]

Imbasile, reread what I said. "Legal before God"? I think you mean the same thing I do: it may have been legal according to Posse Comitatus, but not right or moral.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Well folks

Thomas Jefferson said that it is the right and duty of the population to take up arms against an abusive government.

Yet, the government that is wouldn't agree with that one would it?

Hitler had laws also. The issue is the correctness of the law not its mere existence.

[imbasile]

H - sorry I'm not an attorney. I have a great distaste of the word "legal" in the human term.
There is no such animal.
There are laws set up by man, to supposedly protect man.
This might be construed as "legal" but then these laws always change with the wind and that so we are always wrong and in contempt of said laws.
At this time in history and well back also, the laws are to punish everyone that does not have money and to silence those that would speak out against.

Cal - I am now in great dilemma.
How can a person that has dedicated his life to peace, caring and growth in knowledge, change to a murderer of his fellow human being?
I understand that survival in the flesh makes a person do things that he would not regularly do, but, having made it this far in this life NOT killing anyone to at the end of it TO kill....mighty confusing.
Law is of the heart and the first line of defense against and the enforcement thereof.
Any other law that is not self inflicted is a generalization agreed upon by some for others.
The teaching of our children to be harmful to each other and to presuppose righteousness over and above others is the first of many problems we have. (This being patriotism, nationalism, racism, sexism, religion, elitism and all other isms that create an attitude of separation of persons, sexes, classes etc..)
But since we have these things in abundance we then have the dilemma of standing up to those that would bully us around on our own land. When to start? Where to start? How to start? How much is enough? How far to go? When to stop?
One person can start the war, but then that person must be aware that he will die.
One person can start the war only if others will follow or there is just one death and the atrocity continues.
Who has all the guns, bombs, vehicles, armor, planes, equipment? How long will the average Joe last in a firefight?
Questions that we will soon find out the answers too.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

There is a big difference between murder and killing. Justifiable homicide has its roots in the 10 commandments.

If you kill in the defense of your life or the life of another, it isn't murder.

On a larger scale, the defense of country against a clear and idenfiable is justifiable. Emphasis on clear and identifiable. Doing so in the face of tyranny is an American Right and a service to God.

God, Family, Country

Without God there is no family.
Without Family there is no country.

Were not at the point you have to start thinking along these lines.

[e-Male]

To reinforce what Cal said, many Christians improperly reinterpret the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. To get a better understanding, one needs to refer to what the Jewish scholars have to say about "their" books.

Here's an excerpt about kill versus murder in the Commandments from www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html

...One example is mistranslating the sixth of the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill," and arguing that therefore no killing of animals is permissible. This incorrect quote has been used to support other causes besides animal rights and vegetarianism, including pacifism, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."

Another compelling argument against the "Thou shalt not kill" translation is that there are many places in the Hebrew scriptures that command or condone warfare, the sacrifice of animals, and several methods of capital punishment. While there is much in the Jewish tradition that attempts to limit war and capital punishment, and the biblical prophets indicated that God prefers justice and mercy to animal sacrifices, it can’t be denied that some forms of killing are acceptable according to Judaism.

If "Thou shalt not kill" were the proper translation, no person who took the Ten Commandments seriously could kill in self defense, even if it meant loss of the threatened person’s life, or could kill in warfare, even if his or her country were attacked. There could be no capital punishment no matter how horrible a person’s crimes were. Clearly there are cases where the Torah permits the taking of a human life. And, if it is sometimes permissible to kill another person, most people would agree that there are circumstances when it is also permissible to kill an animal. Judaism does not consider that the sixth commandment refers to animals.

Another good ref is at www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html entitled "Thou Shalt Not Murder* ".

/e

[hollis]

Speaking as a man who has shot another real life flesh and blood human being in war, it is not as easy as you are describing. Taking a person's life in combat changes you, regardless of how justified it felt at the time (either through self defense or patriotism). Once you take a life, that life is joined to yours, and you will live out your days as if you were two people, one being the person that you were, and the other being the life-that-should-have-been of the person you killed.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Hollis

I agree with your assessment. One never knows if one 'could' do it until it actually comes down to the moment. I, on the other hand, dont' feel the two lives are joined forever. Instead, I prefer to think that God put that man in front of my gun and gave me sufficient reason to drop the hammer.

You might want to look at corinthians and the armour of God comment.

I agree with you that it changes you forever. Where I live, I have 3 colonies of red ants. When I developed the lot, I built fencing and disturbed them enough I got a bite. They have a nasty bite in this neck of the woods. However, as long as they're content to stay out of the house, I'm content to let them go about their lives. I pretty much feel the same way about people.
Yet, once the line is crossed - it has to be dealt with and one has to harden themselves to the tasks.

I have 3 wars before me. 2 in the universe and 1 here. When Father gave me the ability to defend this planet (Father's Ring), I discussed the matter of trapping the Devil here. with the Old One. I commented that if I did this, millions would die (here) - Old One came back with - if I didn't - billions would die (everywhere). It became a no brainer.

I have never asked anyone to perform a task that I, myself, have not done. When it comes to these wars - I'll be the first to fall and then to repersonalize as Cal - providing proof that death is but a fiction.

[hollis]

In all the time that I was in the Army and in the times that I spent firing down a rifle range, I never thought that I could do it. The time between deciding to do a thing, and actually doing it (especially in this scenario) is an agonizing eternity. You have all the time in the world it seems to unmake your decision, but at the same time, you have all the time in the world to be in disbelief that the decision you made was the only one available. It boiled down to a Patton-esque saying for me: either I was going home to my wife, or this motherf***er was going home to his, couldn't have it both ways.

I hope this helped, imbasile.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

My rule is simple, stick a gun in my face and I get lethal real quick.

Military training also provides something else. By the time you get out of boot, everything you need to know and do is almost automatic. The only undiscovered issue is whether you're going to soil yourself

[hollis]

The keyword there was "almost." Almost automatic. It was drilled into my head that there were a number of points where you could stop going from non-lethal to lethal. The sequence was 1) raise rifle 2) rotate selector switch from safe to semi 3) acquire a target 4) move trigger finger into the trigger well 5) squeeze trigger 6) squeeze trigger again. At any point, you could choose to stop. So people *think* that it is automatic, but there are a number of discreet steps involved, at least from my point of view.

So the only undiscovered point for me was whether I was going to stop the process before i should have. And looking back, I wish I *could* have stopped it, but I *shouldn't* have.