English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Are you prepared to do this in the name of your government?
Please read the entire text!
What exactly is an "undesirable"?

2007-02-02 16:16:44 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

There are some situations where the population is so out of control that there are not enough civilian police to keep them from harming others and others property without severe risk to themselves. Instances such as the L.A. riots and the widespread crime and looting in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina got way out of hand because of this. In those situations, the military is best suited to regain control. Whereas police have their hands tied for the most part and have all kinds of restrictions on the amount of force that they can use, the military doesn't have this, and most everyone knows that. As in L.A., the military didn't have to do much other than show up. People realized that the Marines and soldiers weren't messing around and pretty much straightened up without much incident. Most of the time, martial law mostly consists of enforcement of curfews and normal laws already set in place such as don't kill, steal, or vandalize, the only difference is the ones enforcing it are the military who have more people and can, if the situation dictates, use more force than the local civilian police. Most everyone knows this and usually don't try to push the limits too much. Martial law is more of a show of force to people who would try to break the law. Sometimes, force is the only thing people understand. And yes, as a military member, I would deploy wherever I was told to and do whatever mission I was ordered to do. My oath states, "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, and obey all the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me." That pretty much sums it up. Quit digging for insignificant crap to support your whiny, liberal, bleeding heart agenda. Nobody with a brain is buying it, so you might as well quit wasting your time.

2007-02-02 18:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by Marine08 3 · 0 0

National Guard troops have been Federalized on a good many occasions, including at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1958, which was distinctly not a natural disaster.

I'm not thrilled about the text of the Act mentioned in the question, but it's nothing new. The problem is whether we can trust the Executive to act in the interests of the nation, and the military to act responsibly, and Congress and the Courts to monitor the situation properly.

2007-02-03 00:28:01 · answer #2 · answered by 2n2222 6 · 0 0

Your Question is Moot!

All Members of the military have taken an oath
"To Protect and Defend the United States against all enemies Foriegn and Domestic"

I guess your question is answered with the "Domestic" portion of the oath.

Or are your asking indirectly that our Armed Forces stage a Military coup and oust our Civilian Elected Government?

If you don't like the presidential proclamation then You Should be directing your venom towards your congressman. CONGRESS IS THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. If there is a shady law then they are the ones ultimately responsible.

2007-02-03 00:42:29 · answer #3 · answered by Dr. Ackmadia 2 · 1 0

An undesirable is anyone causing or participating in "public disorder"(as mentioned in the first paragraph). Did you know that a form of martial law was put in place in post-Katrina New Orleans. It was the only thing that pulled the place back together.

Why must you libs try to make everything into sinister, diabolical plans. Looks like no one answering up to this point is buying into your little conspiracy theory.

2007-02-03 01:01:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

An undesirable is anyone we don't want around.

If I read that correctly, all it really did was remove the penalty for such an action, which was a two year jail time, which the President could self-pardon...

The defense of citizen's rights wont come from a piece fo paper, and anyone that believes words alone will protect their rights is deluded. Physical involvement (and I'm not advocating violence or illegal activities) is necessary to protect our rights.

2007-02-03 00:22:57 · answer #5 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 0 0

Military personnel obey the orders of the President of the United States and those officers appointed over them. Please note the 2007 Defense Authorization Act was and was amended and agreed upon by vote of the US Congress (House and Senate) prior to presentation to the President to make it law. The President (as is alluded in the article to which you refer) did not author or come up with this Act. It was written by a Senator (John Warner), and as it was passed by a congress of democrats and republicans alike. That means it must have met the approval of the representatives that you and other citizens have installed in office in order to make decisions and create laws for our country. If you, as a citizen, disagree with the action, you have the right to contact those who represent you, and bring it to their attention. You also have a right to vote for someone else in the next election if your current representative does not accurately depict what you believe. What a great country!

2007-02-03 02:04:40 · answer #6 · answered by Mangy Coyote 5 · 0 0

"undesireable" is anyone whose presence is undesired by any authority figure at any level of government. It could be the crazy old cat lady with 90 cats, or the guy who never mows his yard, or the person who dares work on their own car OUTSIDE, they devise laws and codes to take their property, harass them into doing something they can be arrested and gunned down by police for, the supreme court has already ruled it's okay to use eminent domain to take land away from one person, to give to another person, and if anyone claims you said something to offend them, they can accuse you of a "hate" crime. I believe the first government plan to "phase out" problematic citizens actually dates back to JFK's administration, "aurora" or "pheonix", something like that? Ever read "1984"? We'll all gather at the oak tree for "re-education", if we don't get "phased out" first :P

2007-02-03 00:29:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sounds good to me. It was probably passed as a result of Katrina and the lessons learned. I would have easily capped some of the undesirables in that example.

2007-02-03 00:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by Fearless Leader 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers