Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biden backs letting soldiers arrest civilians
The Washington Times ^ | July 22, 2002 | Joyce Howard Price

Posted on 07/22/2002 6:37:23 AM PDT by robowombat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Don Myers
While Biden's proposal may be unecessary, if I am to error in the war on terrorism, I would prefer our military to have as few constraints as possible in order to effectively deter attacks from Arab-backed terrorists. Of course it is a balancing test with our personal liberties-- as anyone who has traveled through an airport since 9-11 can attest. I am however hypersensitive to this argument by socialist Democrats, and the Black Caucus in particular, that any restraint is a slippery slope which will lead to a police state.

If we listened to the Rep from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney (D), any security measure concieved for the welfare and safety of the American public will be inherently biased and racist against racial minorities. And this abuse represents a greater harm than what the measures are meant to cure. Simply put, I don't buy this race baiting agenda-- this attitude serves to facilitate Arab-backed terrorism against our Freedoms and Country.

41 posted on 07/22/2002 7:36:33 AM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1bigdictator
A nation that uses its military in civilian law enforcement is a banana republic. Once, this genie gets out of the bottle, it won't go back in.
42 posted on 07/22/2002 7:38:57 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
So military rule isn't unprecedented in the united states since it was used against civilians in the former confederate states after the civil war?
43 posted on 07/22/2002 7:42:49 AM PDT by bok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
The proposal or ammendment was not to substitute the military for our police force, but rather, under a very narrowly defined set of circumstances, allow the military to confront foriegn national terrorists on our own soil. Could it concievable be abused? Of course it could-- just like any other power which the Feds wield... I am just trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils...I don't think my comments warrant such alarm from Freepers.
44 posted on 07/22/2002 7:43:53 AM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
A nation that uses its military in civilian law enforcement is a banana republic. Once, this genie gets out of the bottle, it won't go back in.

Hogwash. The genie was out for the first 100 years or so our Republic. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? Posse Comitatus was enacted after the Civil War. Some laws and Constitutional ammendments (i.e., born here = citizen) have outlive their usefulness

45 posted on 07/22/2002 7:44:51 AM PDT by arm958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: arm958
Our domestic law enforcement is NOT "controlling our borders" and we are being overrun by an invasion of illegals. This invasion is an act of war in my opinion and yes the military needs to step up and do their duty. I do not think that any changes in the law are necessary for this to happen. All that is needed is for the orders to be given from the "Chief Ex".
46 posted on 07/22/2002 7:45:14 AM PDT by Dust in the Wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: arm958
Why do you think these law enforcement activities conducted by the Union Army were bad?

Because they are activities that the military has no place taking part in, ever. The role of the military is to kill people and break things. Their sole purpose is supposed to be to repel foreign attacks. The founders warned us against a standing army. If modern warfare compels us to have one anyway, we must have a strict prohibition against law enforcement by military. I would even go so far as to amend the Constitution to prohibit their use.

Chasing down moonshiners, enforcing hate crimes, and strike busting have nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with martial law.

If the Yankee Army had stuck around for a few more decades, then perhaps blacks in large areas of the south wouldn't have had to wait until the 1960's to be able to vote.

You may not have noticed, but in most countries the army interferes with free elections. This typically results in civil war. Take Zimbabwe for example. Involving the military in domestic elections is a huge risk. If the wrong people are ever in power, tyranny results.

As for the KKK, what do you have against arresting those who terrorized and murdered innocent people?

I have nothing against them being arrested. I have a HUGE problem with the military arresting them. That is a job for civilian police.

47 posted on 07/22/2002 7:45:16 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: arm958
Why do you think these law enforcement activities conducted by the Union Army were bad? If the Yankee Army had stuck around for a few more decades, then perhaps blacks in large areas of the south wouldn't have had to wait until the 1960's to be able to vote. As for the KKK, what do you have against arresting those who terrorized and murdered innocent people?


Nice to know you care about southerners living in a police state, the klan was started as a vigilante group against "Yankees" terrorizing southerners.

48 posted on 07/22/2002 7:49:23 AM PDT by bok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1bigdictator
He said it would be necessary for the military to foil any plot using a weapon of mass destruction. Under current law, for instance, if an Arab terrorist were attempting to detonate a suitcase bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, and the military were the first to arrive, they would not be authorized to either detain or shoot at the terrorist because the military lacks the proper police powers under such circumstances.

In a war, the military does not "arrest" the enemy. The enemy is "captured". Also, in a war, the military is allowed to shoot the enemy without without giving him a fair trial or reading him his Miranda rights.

49 posted on 07/22/2002 7:52:40 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
You may not have noticed, but in most countries the army interferes with free elections. This typically results in civil war. Take Zimbabwe for example. Involving the military in domestic elections is a huge risk. If the wrong people are ever in power, tyranny results.

As a serious student of history, yes, I occasionally have taken notice of such trends. However, we are not most countries and never have been. You lose credibility when you equate Mugabe's henchmen with Union soldiers.

50 posted on 07/22/2002 7:55:07 AM PDT by arm958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: arm958
Some contend the 14th ammendment was enacted illegally. GET IN LINE SOUTHERNERS YAH! MOVE IT SIGN the 14th ammendment WE COMMAND YOU YAH! Looks like we've come full circle again.
51 posted on 07/22/2002 7:57:00 AM PDT by bok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
It's a mistake!
52 posted on 07/22/2002 7:58:20 AM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
I'm all for it... but there has been no formal declaration of war... moreover, legally these foriegn nationals must first be categorized a combatants... they are foriegn nationals from soveriegn states who we are not at war with. So it is complicated.

I said "detained" not "arrest", there is a difference. Semantics aside I hope our military would shoot first and seek the proper authorization later, as a previous poster suggested.

53 posted on 07/22/2002 8:01:23 AM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: arm958
we are not most countries and never have been.

There's a reason for that. It didn't happen by mistake, or because the American people are somehow inherently different from the rest of humanity. The difference between our nation and others is our tradition of liberty. It is only our conscious effort to jealously guard freedom that is responsible for the difference between us and them.

Decisions have consequences. Other countries have decided to use military as law enforcement. They are known as banana republics. We have gone the other way, and are known as a free country. We aren't somehow magically special that we can behave like other police states and not become one. We're human just like everyone else. When we make the same decisions oppressive countries have made, we will get the same results they got. Cause and effect.

54 posted on 07/22/2002 8:07:50 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
We are in sync on this.

Posse Comitatus was intended to prevent use of our military against civilians. The abuse of government power by using military as a police force against POLITICAL enemies should always be enforced.

Use of military troops to guard borders, attack enemies within our country, investigate and arrest terrorists, etc., are not the intention of PC, and Leahy and his ilk are blowing smoke.

Question - who would be prez today if X42 was not barred from using fed troops against his domestic enemies?

55 posted on 07/22/2002 8:08:02 AM PDT by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Oooo. That pesky Constitution keeps getting in Biden's way.
56 posted on 07/22/2002 8:12:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
He seems to be in full agreemnent with our neoconservative republicans

Rather they're in full agreement with each other, but totally true

Any bets on a veto

Not from me, but maybe you could get one of the hormonally challenged airheads on the "day in the life of George Bush" thread to bet with you :-)

57 posted on 07/22/2002 8:30:31 AM PDT by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 1bigdictator; Dust in the Wind
Has this EO that bushed singed July 3rd been posted anywhere? 15,000 Illegal aliens in our Military?

So one DOES NOT have to be an American citizen to join the US military?

http://www.shusterman.com/siu.html#4
Shusterman's Immigration Update July 2002

4. Executive Order Expedites Military Naturalization

On July 3, President Bush signed an Executive Order 13269 which waives the normal residency and physical presence requirements for certain non-citizens serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is estimated that there are over 15,000 men and women who are affected by this order. While non-citizens are eligible to enlist in the military, only U.S. citizens can be promoted to commissioned or warrant officers, or serve in special warfare programs such as the Navy SEALs.

On July 4, the President proclaimed to a crowd that "thousands of our men and women in uniform were born in other countries and now spend each day in honorable service to their adopted land. Many of them are still waiting for the chance to become American citizens."

Under the order, anyone with active-duty service in the military since September 11, 2001 is eligible to apply for naturalization provided that they enlisted, or re-enlisted, in the U.S. or in certain other designated places.

Importantly, it is not necessary that the applicant still be in the military, or that he/she be a permanent resident of the United States. It is even possible to naturalize if the person is illegally present in the U.S.

Applicants under the Executive Order (issued pursuant to §329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) must comply with other naturalization requirements such as the English and history/government examinations, and must demonstrate that they are persons of good moral character.

When I served as an INS Citizenship Attorney in the late 1970s, we recommended hundreds of Vietnam veterans for naturalization under a similar Executive Order, and they were sworn-in as U.S. citizens. The fact that many of these veterans had enlisted illegally did not bar them from naturalization as long as the military supported their applications. I can not recall a single instance where the military did not do so.

Significantly, President Bush's order does not contain an expiration date. A non-citizen who joins the military today can immediately apply for naturalization. Also, it is not required that the applicant be involved in combat or in the war against terrorism.


58 posted on 07/22/2002 8:38:12 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I hope "occupied ga" refers to Georgia and not Gaza (as in the "strip")or we have an intruder on our hands.
59 posted on 07/22/2002 8:42:45 AM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Joe Hadenuf; wardaddy; Sabertooth; harpseal; Squantos; Tancredo Fan; Marine Inspector; ...

A non-citizen who joins the military today can immediately apply for naturalization.

!Here's the fast track to citizenship amigo! Sign on the line, get your uniform and rifle, and in no time you can be pulling highway checkpoint duty, searching gringos for illegal weapons.

Just follow orders Pepe, and !Ay Caramba!

!It's Even easier than crossing the border was!

60 posted on 07/22/2002 8:46:42 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson