Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’ in USA

[rambone]

Aside from the fact that we both know you dislike this with or without justification simply because it means power in the hands of the feds, rendering the argument that you find "vagueness" in the language largely moot, is there language that would satisfy you to the point that you could live with the existence of such a directive because is spells out exactly when, where, and how the military may exercise this power?

It would depend. If this were about fending off a foreign invasion, then very few people would raise an eyebrow. But no, it discusses “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

There is no need for the government to "ready" anything for any purpose. It is the government. If it wants to go Full Tyranny, it simply does. It doesn't need a bunch of laws paving the way just to make it legal.

Well, I think this is debatable. The great tyrannies of the 20th century didn't happen overnight. Most of them required years of societal upheaval, successive laws enhancing government power, economic turmoil, increasing racism/classism, currency inflation, and a growing base of people willing to oppress their neighbors for whatever reason. And it usually grew under multiple leaders. Plus, there is often a legal framework that needs to be subverted in order to get there. "Enabling Acts" or “Writs of Assistance,” are examples of that.

The "Boiling Frog" analogy works both outside and inside the government. People have to get used to exercising tyranny just like they have to get used to accepting it. Incrementalism. The American dream can't be crushed overnight. Our public servants need to be conditioned that there are terrorist threats everywhere, the Feds get to be involved in everything, rights are secondary to safety, checkpoints are as American as apple pie, and that it is commonplace for the military to police Americans. We are already quite a way down the path of the police state. And when the monetary house of cards collapses, or some larger-scale terror event occurs, the means and the justification will both exist to move America into a darker age.

You are wasting your time. There is a cohort of INGOers so committed to the cause of libertarianism that they have convinced themselves that the Republic in its infancy was just a hotbed of libertarianism, and that it was libertarianism that guided all the decisions about government. I guess they didn't get the memo: anti-federalists lost.

It would depend on what aspects of government we were discussing and at which level. But I gave up my idealized visions of history back when I called myself a conservative.

 

[88GT]

It would depend. If this were about fending off a foreign invasion, then very few people would raise an eyebrow. But no, it discusses “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

Aside from "domestic violence," I think all of those are rather specific. What is it you want? How would it be made more specific? Without running the risk of hobbling a response if one of the non-specified actions were to exist.

Well, I think this is debatable. The great tyrannies of the 20th century didn't happen overnight. Most of them required years of societal upheaval, successive laws enhancing government power, economic turmoil, increasing racism/classism, currency inflation, and a growing base of people willing to oppress their neighbors for whatever reason. And it usually grew under multiple leaders. Plus, there is often a legal framework that needs to be subverted in order to get there. "Enabling Acts" or “Writs of Assistance,” are examples of that.

The "Boiling Frog" analogy works both outside and inside the government. People have to get used to exercising tyranny just like they have to get used to accepting it. Incrementalism. The American dream can't be crushed overnight. Our public servants need to be conditioned that there are terrorist threats everywhere, the Feds get to be involved in everything, rights are secondary to safety, checkpoints are as American as apple pie, and that it is commonplace for the military to police Americans. We are already quite a way down the path of the police state. And when the monetary house of cards collapses, or some larger-scale terror event occurs, the means and the justification will both exist to move America into a darker age.

Government will always trend toward tyranny. Always. Your argument presupposes that the movement toward more tyranny is indicative of an end goal of Super Tyranny. While circumstantially that may be true, the mere movement of government toward more tyranny is not proof of that.

In the case of the USofA, I have a hard time believing there's a big prize at the end for someone who completes this journey because to date, they've all voluntarily left their position of power. Who benefits from this Super Tyranny? The lucky bastard who just happens to have been in the White House when the transformation was complete?

I'd be more inclined to agree if one individual held the reins without a transference of power and was simply using the boiling frog approach to make his efforts easier on himself. But that's not what we see. And if someone really were intent on becoming authoritarian, he'd have no use for the laws by definition and would see no purpose in abiding by them.

If you want to argue that this movement is a directed creep, you have to show that someone specifically benefits. Who is it?

It would depend on what aspects of government we were discussing and at which level. But I gave up my idealized visions of history back when I called myself a conservative.

Except that it really doesn't. You've opposed local/state government actions as frequently as you've opposed federal. A point I've taken you to task for by pointing out that the people have a right to determine their own governance and to deny them is essentially a denial of liberty as well.

 

[HenryWallace]

Aside from "domestic violence," I think all of those are rather specific. What is it you want? How would it be made more specific? Without running the risk of hobbling a response if one of the non-specified actions were to exist.



Government will always trend toward tyranny. Always. Your argument presupposes that the movement toward more tyranny is indicative of an end goal of Super Tyranny. While circumstantially that may be true, the mere movement of government toward more tyranny is not proof of that.

In the case of the USofA, I have a hard time believing there's a big prize at the end for someone who completes this journey because to date, they've all voluntarily left their position of power. Who benefits from this Super Tyranny? The lucky bastard who just happens to have been in the White House when the transformation was complete?

I'd be more inclined to agree if one individual held the reins without a transference of power and was simply using the boiling frog approach to make his efforts easier on himself. But that's not what we see. And if someone really were intent on becoming authoritarian, he'd have no use for the laws by definition and would see no purpose in abiding by them.

If you want to argue that this movement is a directed creep, you have to show that someone specifically benefits. Who is it?


Except that it really doesn't. You've opposed local/state government actions as frequently as you've opposed federal. A point I've taken you to task for by pointing out that the people have a right to determine their own governance and to deny them is essentially a denial of liberty as well.

Are we to believe that we can get away with the same sort of 'operations' on the .gov that they are cunducting on the American people (Spying, IRS probing, Fast and Furious)? I'd call that tyranny.

Are we to believe that we can openly tell people that we 'lost' $6.6 billion of their money, and no one is to blame.... or no one is to blame for the constant misappropriations of money in war, and misguided stock market suggestions turning into basic ponzy schemes?? I'd call that tyranny.

Are we really to believe that the playing field is set to an equal oppertunity for us citizens vs the .gov? I'd call that Tyranny.

 

[kalboy]

To me.... What seems to be so overly pointed about the type of commenting and arguing that goes on at this site is that it's always started by a person basically saying "Nothing to see here, go on about you business"...

It's actually worse than this, in my case I just didn't do anything of substance. When the tyranny came my barrel stayed cold.

 

[rambone]

Aside from "domestic violence," I think all of those are rather specific. What is it you want? How would it be made more specific? Without running the risk of hobbling a response if one of the non-specified actions were to exist.

“Wanton destruction of property,” could easily cover a protest getting out of hand or a riot. A natural disaster. Enter soldiers.

“Adequate protection for Federal property,” could mean a whole lot of things too. Soldiers protecting mail carriers? Soldiers patrolling national parks? The Feds own 650 Million acres of land, and that's a lot of property to adequately protect. From what threat, we don't know.

“Conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” could mean anything from a state refusing to enforce Obamacare, to a compound of religious people refusing to submit to the ATF. Who knows?

And the recurring theme is that all these potential military "emergencies" do not involve foreign threats.

Government will always trend toward tyranny. Always. Your argument presupposes that the movement toward more tyranny is indicative of an end goal of Super Tyranny. While circumstantially that may be true, the mere movement of government toward more tyranny is not proof of that.

In the case of the USofA, I have a hard time believing there's a big prize at the end for someone who completes this journey because to date, they've all voluntarily left their position of power. Who benefits from this Super Tyranny? The lucky bastard who just happens to have been in the White House when the transformation was complete?

I'd be more inclined to agree if one individual held the reins without a transference of power and was simply using the boiling frog approach to make his efforts easier on himself. But that's not what we see. And if someone really were intent on becoming authoritarian, he'd have no use for the laws by definition and would see no purpose in abiding by them.

If you want to argue that this movement is a directed creep, you have to show that someone specifically benefits. Who is it?

We're probably going to disagree on this but the power structure of this country goes well beyond the president. He is a figurehead that gets to take all the heat and then gets replaced after a few years. His agenda is laid out to him by his handlers. His speeches are written for him. His executive orders are certainly not crafted by his own hand. He poses for photo-ops and eloquently recites his party's talking points. He gets to be world famous and live in a palace, but he serves at the pleasure of others. If he goes rogue, there will be a reprisal coming from a grassy knoll.

The beneficiaries of the coming police state are the same beneficiaries of the bailouts, the subsidies, the monopolistic regulations. They are the international mega-banks and mega-corporations that have purchased control over government for decades. They depend on the preservation of the status quo. Their representatives gather in groups like the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations to steer the status quo. Every presidential administration since the 1920's has been jam packed with CFR members. They are a club of insiders fleecing the public for all they are worth.

For as long as possible they will perpetuate the illusion of freedom and a solvent system. Invisible control over a hijacked system is their ideal situation. The police state is necessary to preserve the power structure when political unrest happens. When the illusion of freedom begins to crumble, and the people become restless with the status quo, a police state will be ready to suppress activism and quell dissent.

Is it a conspiracy? Yes, I think it is.

Except that it really doesn't. You've opposed local/state government actions as frequently as you've opposed federal. A point I've taken you to task for by pointing out that the people have a right to determine their own governance and to deny them is essentially a denial of liberty as well.

I vividly remember our conversations but I recall that they ended abruptly. Here is the last one. I never got your reply when you took me to task.

It is absolutely true that I opposed anti-liberty actions by governments at every level. Bad laws should always be opposed, even if the majority wants it, and even if it happens to not violate any parts of the particular constitution. Lots of terrible things could be considered constitutional, or Democratically approved of.

Freedom means having a society that (1) is self-governing, and (2) protects individual rights. I'm not going to endorse something unless it passes both tests. One or the other does not produce freedom.

As an example, the people of Uganda democratically decided that homosexuals should be put to death. They are self-governing, but do not respect individual liberty. Democracy by itself is not an end-all, be-all guarantee of freedom.

 

[traderdan]

I believe that the oligarchy has already chosen the replacement for Barry...And he or she is in perfect knowledge of the upcoming puppet term,and will be obedient.