Skip to comments.SO YOU THINK THE ECONOMY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?WHAT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY?
Posted on 07/28/2011 11:47:15 AM PDT by seekthetruth
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment requires that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
On agreeing to the Mica amendment (A018) Agreed to by recorded vote: 260 - 160 (Roll no. 354).
(Excerpt) Read more at thomas.loc.gov ...
National Security and our Economy are tied together. Think about what we had after 9/11! We not only have our Military under "rules of engagement" which put them in danger in facing the terrorists, we also have terrorists infiltrating and planning attacks here in America!
Time to get on your phone and computer and call and write the members of Congress from your state who obviously believe our Military on active duty do NOT have the right to defend themselves! if they believe their lives are in danger!
Go to the roll call link at he link above and look up your Representatives in the US House. Ask those who voted NO, why they voted against allowing our Military to defend themselves? In other words if you are in the Military you don't have 2nd amendment rights???
Please bring this National Security issue to all you know! Thanks!
National Security/border control
The amendment passed the House, but among the 160 House members who voted NO are the following House members from Florida.
The Florida Democrats In US House Who Voted NO: (The 6 we MUST vote out in 2012!)
Corrine Brown - (D) -District 3
Castor, Kathy - (D) - District 11
Deutch, Ted - (D) - District 19
Hastings, Alcee L. - (D) - District 23
Wasserman-Schultz,Debbie - (D) - District 20
Wilson, Frederica - (D) - District 17
The Florida Republican US House Members Who Voted NO - (WE MUST ASK THEM WHY!)
Ander Crenshaw - (R) - District 4
Dan Webster - (R )- District 8
Of course, we expect the leader of the Marxist Democrat Party, Dizzie Debbie, to vote NO, and not surprising that the other 5 Marxist DEMS in Florida would follow Debbie!
Seeing a NO vote from Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Webster has made me VERY UPSET! They will be hearing from me today, tomorrow, the next day and the next day until I find out WHY they voted against our troops!
That’s all we need. Individual troops starting an international incident. Or worse yet, troops in a domestic designated hostile-fire area deciding to open fire on Americans “for self defense” (Janet Reno, anyone?)
No, what we need is the government to start acting responsibly when putting troops into hostile-fire areas, not just leaving them as targets.
Right now the most important issue IS the economy. What threat do we suffer under that can wipe us out as a nation if not economic?
How do you stop the like of major Hassan, the military psychologist, by beefing up military expenditures? Or for that matter people entering the country with legitimate visa’s, such as all of the 911 terrorists?
We are currently borrowing 42 cents for every dollar spent by the federal government. Half of that borrowing is from foreigners! We owe Trillions to China alone!
So why are we spending huge sums of money in middle-east wars protecting oil supplies to China with borrowed money from China? I can’t think of anything more stupid!
Then we are spending hundreds of Billions on Homeland security. Add all the hours wasted by airline passengers getting frisked and groped by TSA. It is all so asinine.
We can’t have an economy by borrowing 42 cents on every dollar spent. There are much more economical methods of fighting WOT & illegal immigration.
Voter fraud is the number one issue. All other issues can be resolved.
If you don’t pay your troops, you don’t have national security.
People seem to forget that the final straw for the Soviet Union was inability to issue paychecks.
I thank my friend for yielding.Mr. SMITH of Washington:
My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case.
But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should have the authority to make that decision.
So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly foresee.
So although I share the gentleman's intent, for that reason I would respectfully encourage the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason. As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of engagement should be.
I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into, and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the authority with the commanders, where it belongs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I cannot get the link to work.
Barry soetoro aka Barak Hussein Obama II has succeeded beyond expectations at fundamentally changing the United States—Our Economy is trashcanned since he took Office— our National Security likewise. and the american people are kept divided and distracted by all the dam brush fires this Hitler youth keep having his community organizers set. The Army trained us to look to -to study the founding documents to best train to oppose the enemy foreign or domestic-and holding our elected officials accountable to those documents is key to maintaining our Constitutional Republic.
Also on FR here:
So you think our American troops would start an international incident by defending themselves in a “designated hostile fire area” like in the Middle East?
Should they walk around without armament too?
Oh, I failed to see the part where it said that this was restricted to designated hostile fire areas like the Middle East.
Please point out that part in the amendment.
And, please let me know why you think it's okay to allow our troops to make pre-emptive strikes (i.e., "proactively defend") without their commanders having any say.
Congressman Smith - Washington - Democrat
Congressman Andrews - New Jersey - Democrat
Need I say more??