U.S. Mulls Military's Domestic Role

[Fires of History]

Ridge: Terror Threat May Force Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement

President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil.

Full Story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1086&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/homeland_security_6)
__________________________________________

I would comment more right now, but I'm still vomiting...

[peaccenicked]

To quote myself.
''There seems to be no limits to the US admins ''full spectrum domination'' ''

[vox]

Enough is enough.

The gov't already has too much authority. The Patriot Act alone expands power to a frightening degree. Now there's a need to review the military's role in domestic law enforcement?

vox

[I Will Deny You]

Where are those anti-"big government" Montana/Idaho militiamen when you need them?

Lindsay

[Fires of History]

The American strategy is flawed. They are allowing the terrorists to win, period.

One of the definitions of terrorism is, obviously, to create terror. And what could possibly cause more fear that to deploy the military on your own soil? What kind of message is this sending?

And what is Bush saying between the lines about his faith in the FBI and domestic police agencies by this? Is he saying that he has faith in their ability to do their job? No. And what does this also say to the American people? That the FBI and police can't do their job? Now how is that decreasing fear and terror?

And let's not forget, why deploy domestically? To root out 'terrorism.' But, in the end, this is nothing but a deployment of the US' own military against its own citizens. There might be some foreign nationals targeted, but in the end this measure inevitably targets American citizens with their own military.

To me, this does nothing but set the stage for the creation of a military police state. Perhaps in the near future, after some terrorist event yet to come, new powers will be handed down to the military already in place at home. Unless you trust Bush to finally stop then, but I surely don't.

And you have to ask, when will these new domestic military measures finally be put to an end? Not anytime soon. And with the vagueness this 'war on terror' is already running on, I would expect such a military presence to be around indefinitely.

Like I said, Bush is foolishly letting terrorism win. I don't think Bin Laden could have imagined a better result.

[marxistdisciple]

How come no one ever assasinates the really BAD presidents?

[Conghaileach]

Because the really bad ones are puppets to the corporations and military-industrial complex.

The bad (but not really bad) ones, who do get assassinated, get assassinated because they try to think for themselves and apply their own measures to running the country.