That's because they understand themselves to be sheepdogs, not wolves. The wolves are all in the administration.VMI77 wrote:I guess I can rephrase to say that I tend to think in whatever branch, those who possess or are closest to the warrior spirit, are the most likely to participate in a restoration.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Di”
- Thu May 16, 2013 10:39 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Di
- Replies: 21
- Views: 4312
Re: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civi
- Thu May 16, 2013 3:01 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Di
- Replies: 21
- Views: 4312
Re: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civi
You're absolutely right, but I actually trust the military to help restore the constitutional republic if it comes to that. The fact is that, at least at its general officer levels and often among officers below that grade, the military is made up mostly of scholar/warriors with a keen sense of history, a sense of the proper relationship between America's civilian government of The People and the military, and a keen appreciation for the Constitution which they swear to defend.VMI77 wrote:We're under the rule of the "know nothing" administration. The only things Obama, Holder, et al, know about what is going on in their government is what they see in the media or hear about from questioning in Congress. Well, to be fair, they may have known of a couple things, but they've "forgotten" them since they happened way back in 2012. My operative assumption is that to the extent the article reflects reality, any change is entirely the product of Obama and his goons, with the military getting the blame. What we have in power now is nothing more than a gang of criminal thugs who will do and say anything to get their way, and with less honor and integrity than the typical tinpot dictator of a banana republic.
Obamany Hall cares not for any of that. They only care about power.
- Thu May 16, 2013 2:31 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Di
- Replies: 21
- Views: 4312
Re: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civi
This ^ .....and I'd add the following:SF18C wrote:While a lot of police departments (city/county/state) may look like military tactical assets they are under a different chain of command and control.
I think this author need to have a better understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act, the Stafford Act and DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.
And let’s be honest…if there ever was a Chem/Bio/Radiological hazard in a major metropolitan area, who would have the resources, training and assets to quickly come in and provide assistance.
I'm not worried about the Army coming after me! Now if we are talking about DHS on the other hand????
Here is a quote from the article:
Since when does "the military" have the constitutional authority to rewrite the U.S. Code? Plainly put, it does not. If this language was changed, it was changed by civilian authorities..........perhaps not constitutionally, but civilian none the less. The military does not write, maintain, guard, or contribute to the U.S. Code; Congress does; so the military cannot "grant itself" new authority by modifications thereof. Heck, it can't even get rid of its responsibilities under the U.S. Code, let alone add to them.The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Like SF18C said, I am a LOT less worried about the military than I am about its civilian overlords.