If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Militias everywhere saying 'Told you so' as Ridge suggests using military to enforce domestic law   (news.tbo.com) divider line 260
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

7333 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2002 at 2:32 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

260 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
2002-07-22 04:55:35 PM  
Dear Terrorists:

Congrats! You have acheived one of your objectives! America's government has started to fear its own people, who in turn have started to fear their government (even more so then usual). And all you had to do was steal a few airplanes.

Oh, don't worry. We're still going to bomb the living tar out of you, and you havn't, nor will ever win, but your small victory can afford you a few moments of smugness while your waiting for the bombs to drop.
2002-07-22 04:56:16 PM  
#6 we want information.
2002-07-22 04:57:26 PM  
2002-07-22 04:58:56 PM  
No links?



Sorry about that.
2002-07-22 04:59:19 PM  
Quick, close the border into Canada, before all the smart americans escape! Again.
Heil Bush!
2002-07-22 05:03:30 PM  
2002-07-22 05:04:05 PM  
Since people keep bringing it up, TIPS is still set to go. The gubment has changed their site to one a little less specific, and the volunteer sign up button has been removed. But, the TIPS site still says:

"Industries that are interested in participating in this program will be given printed guidance material, flyers and brochures, about the program and how to contact the Operation TIPS reporting center. This information can be distributed to workers or posted in common work areas. Operation TIPS is scheduled to be launched in late summer or early fall 2002"

So, i guess us TFH folks haven't changed anything.

BTW, i really hope that all the conservative righties are correct, and that everything is going to be just fine. I just don't know why someone would have such a fanatical devotion to that ideology. Just doesn't make sense to me.
2002-07-22 05:05:27 PM  
Bill Hicks was the man.

some of you scream and hollered at anything that was reported/attributed/mumbled/rumored/rumored-to-have-been-mumbled/reported-to-h ave-been-attributed-of-a-rumor-of-a-mumble of anything that happened during the Clinton era.

Then the Bushiates {chosen because I know the filter mill massacre it} raised that Clinton was satan.

Now that they and the rest of us are calling it on PB&J, you call us wacky.

The pendulum swings...
2002-07-22 05:06:47 PM  
2002-07-22 05:10:17 PM  
2002-07-22 05:13:28 PM  


2002-07-22 05:16:33 PM  
Bill Hicks - last of the great prophets. He warned us.
2002-07-22 05:17:25 PM  
Those are just the tip ... the uhuh.com link actually just points to the collection of executive orders. I found FEMA as part of a paper six years ago on the impacts of the Oklahoma City Bombing. There is another scary story. The New American(www.thenewamerican.com (potential asshats)). had info from Air Force General saying that we were lied to about the nature of the explosion there (NOT A TRUCK BOMB). The paper was a hypothetical scenario in which the tin foil faction was 100% correct. First WTC bombing was a genuine terrorist action(maybe). Failed to produce sufficient American outrage to permit increased LEGAL police powers. One year later thereabouts... OKC. BATF were paged that morning and told not to come to work (verifiable), bomb squad on the scene two hour before explosion (eyewitness accounts), evidence of high explosives well inside the building (middle third floor). There was a lot of crap there. Tenuous connections between McVeigh and suspected CIA operatives. Bomb goes off, people die, strong new "anti-terrorism" legislation deemed necessary. FBI shown to be lying. They publicly announced they manufactured conclusions on truck bomb without evidence. I'm abbreviating what I found. Info should still be available and taken with big long licks off a salt block.
2002-07-22 05:17:45 PM  
This too shall pass. Bush will probably manage to cause a lot of damage before this is over, but hopefully nothing too serious.

Just make sure you guys get rid of these super-sleazy retards when you get the chance. Oh... and read the ballots carefully this time for Kristsakes!
2002-07-22 05:21:12 PM  

You sound as someone who has never read the Patriot Act. Why would the government announce these things? So they can be seen as doing things to "help" the situation.

Why did Bush essentially order National Guard troops into the airports (asked the states to do it, but paid their salaries with Fed. money. Semantics) when the "security" breaches took place in the air? The show of force was to make people feel "safer".

Why would Bush support putting troops out in active police duty? Because
1). It would give the Fed. government de facto police powers (something they DON'T have now).

2). In someone dillusional mind, more force = safety.

I hope to never meet the person who feels safer with fully armed troops on the streets.
2002-07-22 05:24:43 PM  
I guess we should all start to get with the times...sigh...HEIL BUSH!
2002-07-22 05:26:15 PM  
"The terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms."
-G.W. Bush

Now we are limiting our freedoms.

Ergo: The terrorists have won.
2002-07-22 05:26:29 PM  
"Damn the soldier that turns his weapons against his people"
2002-07-22 05:27:58 PM  
Oompaloompa #6 we want information...

2002-07-22 05:30:26 PM  
... was it over when the germans bombed Pearl Harbor??
2002-07-22 05:31:47 PM  
I can't help but wonder what JWest, Bilbo, et al who are defending this crap would have said had Clinton tried implementing the policies?
2002-07-22 05:33:45 PM  
Welcome to the 1st American Reich.
2002-07-22 05:35:55 PM  
2002-07-22 05:37:37 PM  
There is a fundamental difference between a military force and a police force. The most obvious of course is that one is designed to arrest, detain, maintain order, etc. The other is trained to kill.

Militaries over the past 10 years don't have a good history when it comes to police powers (see Bosnia, Kosovo, Hati, Samalia, etc).

Not to sound like a tin-foil type here, but a military's mere presence puts a population on edge. So it's important that we ask ourselves a serious question here:

What possible good can come by using the military to police the U.S. (or any!) civilian population? And I'm not talking about looting control or the national guard stuff. I'm talking about full-time military troops acting as local law-enforcement.
2002-07-22 05:37:50 PM  
Losing freedoms?

Hackers and wiretaps:
2002-07-22 05:38:04 PM  
I'm hoping our soldiers realize that they are loyal to the constitution above president cocknocker.
2002-07-22 05:38:31 PM  

I am turning all of us into TIPS so I can get my free TIPS t-shirt and baseball cap. Thoughtcrimes are punishable by law now....

2002-07-22 05:38:56 PM  
i read one very amusing opinion written here that the US would invade canada were it to achieve fascism. fortunately canadians are total wusses when it comes to fisty cuff's but they are very scary when real blood is involved. read up some military history and you'll see that canadians are always among the most highly decorated soldiers of whatever conflict they fight in.

if i were the First American Citizen, i would make sure i had no other pressing conflicts before moving into a vast territory with a sparesly spread population which is mostly armed, with brutal winters (navy seals freak out at weather ordinary infantry men train in) and a huge porous border.

in other words there is no way in hell america would ever attempt an invasion, canada isn't some tiny dirthole in the middle of nowhere, incapable of putting up a fight. canada is the quiet big guy who stands in a corner and belts any asshole that fvcks with him.
2002-07-22 05:46:19 PM  
Why doesn't the gov't just invest in a crystal ball to see the future? bunch of farkin' morons.
2002-07-22 05:47:46 PM  
I think it's ironic that we are all pretty much unanimous in not wanting the US military running around policing us.

Does anyone now see why other countries might not like us sending our troops over there to do the same? And these are our own troops.
2002-07-22 05:51:47 PM  
Well, on the up side, this may finally be a compelling reason to go into politics. If ya can't beat 'em...

"canada is the quiet big guy who stands in a corner and belts any asshole that fvcks with him."

Whoo... that was a good one. Best line I've read all day.
2002-07-22 05:58:18 PM  
We are now all protected!

1) Get a five foot sheet of aluminum foil (standard one foot wide Reynolds Wrap brand will do nicely.)

2) Fold the sheet four times into five equal segments so that you end up with a 1x1 foot square, making sure that you fold over the dull side of the foil leaving the square shiny on both sides.

3) Use scissors to cut from one corner of the square to the center, making a straight line.

4) Bend the foil from one side of the cut under the other, making a slight cone. Again, make sure that the outside of the cone has a shiny side of the foil; this is VERY important.

5) Place the cone on your head and squash the top and sides to make it fit snugly.

6) Apply Scotch tape liberally making sure to secure the cut in the foil and any form-fitting creases made in step 5.

7) Use more tape to secure the tin foil hat to your cranium.


2002-07-22 05:58:34 PM  
Um, if we invaded Canada, the US would be screwed because so many of our resources and trade are there. It's not like Canada's one of our best allies or anything.
2002-07-22 06:02:18 PM  
the frickin' terroists have already won.....
2002-07-22 06:12:27 PM  
Corn-bread, you asked this question:
Why would Bush support putting troops out in active police duty?

You neglected this answer:
Because, as commander in chief of the armed forces, he would have complete authority over the police. Say something Bush doesn't like? Off you go. War zone. No freedoms. Shut your yap or you're next.
2002-07-22 06:12:36 PM  
Cornbread I'm not against anyone being concerned or worried about increased Federal power. I'm a Southerner who has family members who are still unreconstructed. But if the tin foil hat types believe that the military is going to join this "fascist" takeover willingly are sadly mistaken or deluded. Extreme Federal authority has been used from the Civil War onward without totalitarian regimes being placed in charged. And in my honest opinion, when UBL can be proven to be not with us any more and this becomes known publicly, the enthuiasm of the War on Terror will fade quickly and the Patriot Act put into a limbo. The public's apetite for it will ebb. If there is another large incident like 9-11, the country will go to whatever extremes are necessary to end these attacks as has happened in the past. This country has gone go to great extremems to protect itself and the public has said "fine with us". My .02
2002-07-22 06:14:37 PM  

The program allows legal resident aliens (who would be eligible for citizenship five years after receiving permament resident alien status) to become citizens more quickly if they have served in the military during a period of armed conflict. Anyone who opposes this is a prick.

One last attempt:

Bush has not said that he supports the concept under discussion. Ridge has said that it is "highly unl;ikely" that the Posse ComitatusAct will be recommended for repeal. Bush has asked that the domestic role of the military in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack be studied, which includes, according to Joe Biden, repealing Posse Comitatus.

Executives want to know what their options are. If my coastal governor want to know what his options are in the event of a serious hurricane, he will be told that they include declaring a state of emergency, which carries with it the power to order deadly force against looters. Does that mean that my governor is planning to declare open season on the citizens of my state? No. It means he wants to be prepared before all hell breaks loose. Options are assembled and decisions are made. You can't make good decisions if you don't know what your options are.

It would be a serious dereliction of the Presidents duties to fail to consider these matters now. Anyone who doesn't understand this concept is a fool.
2002-07-22 06:14:47 PM  
OK, done lurking:

The Bush apologists keep referring to the loss of individual liberty (or lack thereof) as indication that we Americans have not been stripped of our "rights". To this we must ask what then they consider to be a "right". Once the government disobeys it's highest law and willfully infringes upon the liberties of a single individual, then we have all lost that "right". A right is a right because it is guaranteed to us, and is not open for negotiation.

The Bush doctrine is clear about one thing, "rights" are for those who agree with the administration. The moment the Government arrested Joe Padilla, an American citizen, and concocted a plan to keep him in detention indefinitely, without trial, or even the pretense that he would ever be tried, the administration declared itself to be above the constitution of the United States.

In this thread it has been stated that historically, in times of war, American citizens have been tried in military tribunals. In fact, since the conclusion of the civil war the civilian courts have challenged the legality and authority of such military tribunals brought upon American civilians. Many convictions have been overturned thusly.

Here is a list of constitutionally guaranteed rights that every single American citizen has lost. (some before 9/11, some after):

The right to privacy/protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right to due process

The right to a trial by jury (military tribunals can be however the executive decides to form them)

The right to a speedy trial.

Why would the executive do all of these things? Simple, to tighten his grasp on power. He has no mandate to power and is in charge only by a fluke of an electoral system that has no provision for a run off. He is well aware (vis a vis his father) that times of crisis provide for incredible boosts in popularity, diminished criticism, and lessened opposition from the legislature.

The truth is Bush is holding an empty hat. He's got nothing to wow us with, and he will not win another term. Except for the fact that "we are at wahrr". A sustained period of crisis is just what the doctored ordered. He is using the "terrorists" as a means of quelling the populace into feeling blind patriotism and a child-like longing for paternal guidance through a crisis that is baffling to the average American.

The problem is that these things tend to fizzle out. Eventually the distraction of even commonplace suicide bombings is not enough to distract from a failing economy and erosion of liberty. All that needs to occur is for an organized opposition to gather momentum and begin getting air time. The lemmings in congress will follow the talking heads in search of free PR, and rally behind any cause gaining momentum. Now is the time to shift their focus to the cause of liberty and stop the cascade of tyranny.

Remember,no one gains power by announcing that they are a tyrant. Their justifications always sound reasonable enough at the time.
2002-07-22 06:16:24 PM  
For everyone talking about the Washington Times article and how it's all Joe Biden's fault while Tom Ridge is dead set against this, you might want to actually read the article. Sure, Biden supports it, but the article clearly states:

"The Biden proposal and the Ridge "knockdown" - not necessarily a "knockout" - may have been coordinated and calculated to measure public reaction."

I.e., Biden agreed to take the PR hit for Ridge, so Ridge could feign indignation while actually supporting the idea. Not to defend Biden, he's a jerk for going along with it. Biden brings it up, Ridge calls it a terrible idea, but something they have to look into. Actually, pretty smart. And remember this is the Washington Times, not exactly one of your liberally biased media.

This is a lot like what happened in "The Siege" with Bruce Willis as the army guy protesting military intervention. Not that I actually think anything like that will happen, just weird how similar the two scenarios are.
2002-07-22 06:17:34 PM  
Here is the missing /.


You know better. You shouldn't encourage the children that way.
2002-07-22 06:22:04 PM  
FarkRavingMad The Supreme Court admonished Lincoln's abuse of the Writ of Haceus Corpus after the Civil War was over. The 1917 laws the same and Roosevelt's Executive Orders for Japanese internments after the perceived threat was over. The courts will act after the threat has ended, not during because there is a consenses of Congress and the President on these matters. Rarely do Courts go proactive during "wartime" if ever.
2002-07-22 06:26:26 PM  
07-22-02 06:12:27 PM

You neglected this answer:
Because, as commander in chief of the armed forces, he would have complete authority over the police. Say something Bush doesn't like? Off you go. War zone. No freedoms. Shut your yap or you're next.

Didn't neglect. I was hoping for something a little less tinfoil-hat like.

Surely even BUSH knows that hardcore conservatives (the NRA types. You know, his bread and butter) would never go for this.

Then again, I've been (much to my despair) wrong about what the public would tolerate up to now.
2002-07-22 06:27:48 PM  
If anyone is interested, this is a pretty comprehensive article on the subject. It ought to make the hysterics among you feel a bit better, and that's important to me. Really.
2002-07-22 06:29:29 PM  
Jwest:Rarely do Courts go proactive during "wartime" if ever.

The courts are aware of their limitations and tend to wait until their actions will not be seen as undermining a major initiative such as a war effort. One does not need to be pro-slavery in order to disagree w/ Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, nor does one need to be pro-fascist in order to disagree w/ Roosevelt's use of internment camps.

My point was in demonstrating that use of tribunals against the civilian populace is hardly historical justification. The final resolution (read: after the fact) is usually the courts intervening on behalf of those whose rights were infringed upon by the overzealous executive. I expect we will see the same thing in a few years re: the Patriot Act and detention of American citizens.
2002-07-22 06:34:09 PM  
Sorry, HappyDaddy, I realize the kids are already riled up enough as it is!

In a way, it is interesting that this has been brought up for consideration. We've had time to reflect since 9/11 and (many) realize that this is an unacceptable infringement on our rights. This is valuable reflection time that could have been used in the flurry that resulted in the ill-conceived USA Patriot Act and its provisions of questionable constitutionality.
2002-07-22 06:35:46 PM  
"Scary" is not a strong enough word.

The experts agree:

Emergency powers work!
2002-07-22 06:37:49 PM  
07-22-02 06:12:36 PM

But if the tin foil hat types believe that the military is going to join this "fascist" takeover willingly are sadly mistaken or deluded.

As a former Officer Candidate I want to believe that this would happen. However also as former a Officer Candidate, I'm sorry to say that I know too well the training focus is on "following orders" from the chain of command.

The tin foil types do have a way of crying military chicken little though, don't they?

Extreme Federal authority has been used from the Civil War onward without totalitarian regimes being placed in charged. And in my honest opinion, when UBL can be proven to be not with us any more and this becomes known publicly, the enthuiasm of the War on Terror will fade quickly and the Patriot Act put into a limbo. The public's apetite for it will ebb.

Thus we come to the legacies left to us from every major conflict. And that is that "emergency" powers granted during trying times have a way of becoming permanate fixtures.

Did you see the article a few months ago by Chief Justice Reiquist? It layed out the conflicts and powers that arose from them.

It also made a very scary conclusion: In times of "trouble" the judiciary is not likely to strike down measures by the executive that otherwise would be unconstitutional.

Great read. I highly recommend searching the archives and reading it.

If there is another large incident like 9-11, the country will go to whatever extremes are necessary to end these attacks as has happened in the past.

This is cause for big concern. If (unfortunately when) more terrorist attacks occur, the public again will show this unreasonable fright. More laws will be passed. And people will feel "safe" again by giving the government more control.

And in the end if we're not careful, I don't see much to stop us from winding up like Isreal: a society with heavy security, few freedoms, and still plagued with terrorist attacks.
2002-07-22 06:40:54 PM  
FarkRavingMad: "I expect we will see the same thing in a few years re: the Patriot Act and detention of American citizens.

I don't diagree but the American public historically has shown great tolerance in overstepping constituional guantees in protecting themselves. I just do not believe that a permanant changes aka Nazis, camps, Gestapos (not uou) like many here have professed will occur. And the military would not support it.
2002-07-22 06:46:03 PM  

Is the proposed department of Homeland Security a temporary measure? What about the socialization of business and "temporary" measures of welfare and social security that were enacted in the great depression (the last one, that is)? On the contrary, I think these things stick like dog crap on the sole of a nike, and only get worse with time.
2002-07-22 06:49:39 PM  
Jesus H.....looks like we need to be getting ready to start acting out some serious civil disobediance, in the tradition of RW Emerson.

And that is seriously what we all must do, if things like this ever become enacted. Remember the lawsuit filed by EFF founder John Gilmore? Doesn't seem so silly now does it?

Good grief, even talk of this is pretty disheartening, even though I fully expected some outlandish crap from some government people as a result of the bombings.
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.