Posted on 08/08/2009 6:38:12 AM PDT by kellynla
The National Guard along with police and Federal Marshals illegally confiscated guns in a clear violation of the citizens’ Constitutional rights.
Now, the grunts were just following orders, but the officers, starting with the General in overall comand should have refused to obey the Mayor’s order. As far as I know, all those officers are still in comand positions.
If they will violate the Constitution in one instance why do you think they wouldn’t violate it in another?
If those officers will obey an unconstitutional order from a local mayor why should we believe they would not obey an unconstitutional order from the President?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
“In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. “No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns,” says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.”
It is amazing to me. All those Katrina victims had been attending town hall meetings and opposing the administration’s plans, they were reported to flag@whitehouse.gov so their guns were confiscated?
I may have to resort to that, he is a very slow reader. He probably thinks I will forget. When he borrows a book I write inside the jacket “stolen from Howie”. He is a retired cop so having anything around that looks stolen makes him real nervous! LOL
We know about those threads, I’ve been on them and I’m sure you have also.
What I’m trying to say here is that the actual recruiting and training of the personnel is the last step before the operations can go online.
And they’re not gonna hire a truckload of people to work in places like this if there are no “internees”, and there’s nothing to do.
I hope I’m wrong, but I see the actual hiring process as an indicator that somebody somewhere expects something big to happen fairly soon.
You must have gone to government schools. Get someone to read the quote to you and if they have time the whole article linked to.
Is this one fake?
The first ones to be interred would be those who refused to follow orders. That would pare down the troops to those who would follow orders.
Nope parochial. And when I finished grad school, I did not wear a tin-foil beenie at graduation. But I was taught be to pleasant, civil and to not gratuitously insult people whom I do not know.
“And finally, I can recognize condescension when it rears it ugly head.”
I’ll assume that comment was directed at my response to your posting. Do not confuse condescension with astonishment. Understand that I’m not concerned about your perceptions of condescension. I am interested in the specifics of your posting. Had I known you had been here since 2000, I would have been far more critical (your “bona fides” at the bottom your post indicate that you’ve been registered since 2009-01-02. I’ll take your word for it).
If you’re well educated on the Constitution and the rights of a US citizen, then perhaps you’ll forgive me for raising an eyebrow at your statement. I note that you’ve done nothing to justify, explain, or apologize your posting (any are acceptable). Again, a “slip on the keyboard” can and does happen to all of us. A rationalization for the violation of individual civil rights by the government is far more serious. Given that you are well educated on the Constitution, how do you rationalize your statement? I am truly interested in this apparent dichotomy.
May I also ask why you seem to be justifying FDR’s actions in this specific case? Why you feel FP #10 specifically justifies the actions against Japanese-American citizens (leaving German-Americans curiously exempt) would be interesting since you mentioned them. I realize you may indeed believe that it was ok to cart innocent citizens off to the plains of Colorado for the duration (and that’s ok if it truly is what you believe), but it’s equally apparent that it isn’t in accordance with anyone’s rights under the Constitution, which is a justifiable concern in the rather odd times in which we live.
That was one I had in mind. Colin Powell is another. How many other Clinton appointees are in senior military positions?
How about explaining why you think people who obeyed an unconstitutional order from a local mayor would refuse to obey an unconstitutional order from the President.
How about explaining why you think people who obeyed an unconstitutional order from a local mayor would refuse to obey an unconstitutional order from the President.
Anyone that has seen the bullet holes in the front door of the “compound”, the bomb hole in the concrete pantry roof where remains of all the women and kids were found, read the trial transcripts of the testimony of the Davidians and their lawyer about the machinegunning from the helicopter through the roof, seen the photo of the military sifting through the burned out ruins for fifty caliber slugs?, can not believe that this was a non-military assault!
It is difficult to see the bullet holes in the front door of David Koresh’s “compound” now since the gooberment lost the entire door from its impoundment site. But reliable testimony stated that they all passed through the door from the outside.
Mainly because it is just to incredible to believe.
The idea is so foreign to us I don’t think it can register seriously.
No apologies. But a book recommendation: Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History,” which discusses the tendency of people (in this case, Victorians) to judge the actions and motives of those who came earlier (such as the Romans) by their contemporary (Victorian rather than Roman) standards. It elaborates on the practice of dividing historical figures and actions as the good ones, those who were on the side of truth (as we perceive it now) and the “evil” ones, those who acted before these truths as we now know them emerged. In our current situation, it would be to judge Lincoln’s motives and actions during the civil war by the standards of 21st century ACLU members.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.