Comments:Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force

Latest comment: 15 years ago by in topic Validity of CCMDF

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

How do you feel about the deployment? Was it illegal? Is it needed?


I for one am rather scared. Paranoid? Probably. But it's suspicious. And it was obviously uneeded and illegal. --Poisonous (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This pisses me off, Bush is just screwing over our laws like they aren't even there thank god Obama will be president soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obama is STILL sponsored by corporations. Why do you think you hear so much about John McCain and Barack Obama, but so little about (ie) Ralph Nader? Because the coprorations pick who they WANT you to hear about. Obama wont be much "better" than Bush. Sure, he'll do some things that might seem better. But it's basically corrupt anyway (that goes for all our current systems and nations). What is the BET that the "withdrawal" from Iraq will NOT be complete? There'll still be unnecesary US presence there. —Preceding comment was added at 09:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm still wondering when America will crawl out of the dark ages and institute universal healthcare. The rest of the Western world manages it perfectly well, the costs are less per capita, and no scumbag who already has a few million in the bank is profiting off other people's misery.
In some regards the reported move by Bush is a good idea - the military will know how to manage a police action on home soil; there will be less cracked ribs and broken jaws from rednecks with a rifle butt. Yet, is this not what the national guard is supposed to be for? Surely the US' founders intended any standing army to be for the purpose of repelling invaders or dealing with enemies abroad? Why regular troops on their own soil? Are they better brainwashed, and thus more able to think of those corralled into a "free speech zone" as 'the enemy'? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why do you claim to care what the founders thought when you're so up on socialized healthcare? Why should Bush take advice from the founders if you're not willing to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Where does it say in the Constitution that socialized medicine is illegal? Did they even have a concept of healthcare back then? Don't think so. Did they ever imagine that a car would exist? Very doubtful. And yet with the elastic clause there are programs in place for both of those, among many other things. Get over it -- 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing Neil is being sarcastic. Fephisto (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really


Scarred that Bush did this, but I am surprise as hell. But too me the Unit(s) involved are for in case of natural disaster/riots. But it did violate the Posse Comitatus Act (which is from 1878). But at least if something bad happens their is a someone that can respond, just hope it won't turn out like New Orleans.--KDP3 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

and on a side note these is one of the few reason i love wikinews even thou it been very BIAS lately--KDP3 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Naomi Wolf on this one...


She laid out ten steps used to close open societies and has said again and again what will happen, why, and how it's a mirror image of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Commie China, etc. She was very correct. Mass arrests, peaceful protesters listed as terrorists (like the nuns!), more power being given to the president, congress being overrided, troops on the ground, US as a battleground (Bush made a legal claim that the entire world is a battleground), etc, etc, etc, etc. --Poisonous (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poisonous Bush will never would become a dictator, some journalist are just overreacting.
He probably wont become a dictator. But, what he is doing is still bad. Politics needs to go. The corporations are what direct them. Im not going to speculate on anything. Cant be bothered. —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You people need to realize that it is legal in every aspect. Theres something called the Insurrection Act that allows the President to employ federal forces in such a way.

I'm not actually familiar with the insurrection act, but based off the name I'd assume it would deal with portions of the US rebelling? Who's doing so right now to warrant the deploying of the military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Obama voters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The insurrection act was in the 2007 National Defense Act or whatever, mentioned in the article, I believe, which was repealed as mentioned in 2008 but Bush said he was not bound by the repeal. So... --Poisonous (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ask questions, but don't be alarmed


Whether we like to admit it or not, the world is a changing place, and so is the world of warfare. For centuries wars have mainly been waged by well-funded, professional military organizations, and that is what we've come to expect. Within the last thirty years, however, guerrilla warfare has become both a more sophisticated and less expensive option of engaging in war. t be Al Qaeda, the Tamir Tigers and Earth Liberation Front are just a few examples where inexperienced civilians who would normally be unfit for a professional military can be transformed into an effective underground or guerrilla fighting unit. The firefight has moved from literal fields of battle to villages and even urban streets. Professional militaries have to learn how to fight in these situations if the expect to defeat such enemies.

In my opinion, that is exactly what is going on with this situation, an active duty unit is being brought back home to train in a comprehensive course on dealing with these types of fights, and learning how to use the latest equipment and weapons to do it. This isn't new, armies train all the time. Our military has been regularly used to assist in domestic situations, such as Hurricane Katrina. The key is that, in the past, they have always worked in secondary support roles under the direction of state governors, local police, etc.

In my opinion, it isn't as if there's going to be some strange coup and declare of martial law tomorrow. Could it possibly happen in the future? Sure, it will probably happen under extraordinary circumstances, if it does. It is unlikely that we'll ever see roaving military units in our cities and suburbs acting as a police state, simply for the fact that it alarms and upsets too many civilians. Also, since the United States military is an all-volunteer organization, there will never be enough active military to carry out such a task. Sure, there's the draft, but most Americans do not have the stomach to carry out such military maneuvers against their fellow American, nor will you ever likely see Congress re-institute the draft in order to quell American-based insurrections.

Ask questions, demand good, solid answers, don't let government and military officals blow you off. However, don't get into a panicked state, either. By and large, there is a strong independent and democratic streak that runs through most Americans, and that includes the officials that we elect to office and the men and women who are tasked with maintaining law and order. The last thing they would ever desire or support is oppression of their friends and neighbors. Kamnet (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

These sorts of deployments of U.S. troops domestically should be limited to the absolute minimum possible. 200+ years of history has shown us that civil liberties prosper when troops are not utilized--barring active emergencies--on domestic territory in peacetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

They know more than letting on


It's because they are trapped, he's about to lose his power, what happens when you take candy away from a baby? Something big is about to go down, the US government knows about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's absolutely illegal


Corporate USA governs the US now and this is an ominous development. The 'meltdown' of the economy is the prime shock situation that the big money guys use to destabilise countries even further. So far they've done it in South America, Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe. Now they're about to do it on homeground.

What happens next is that Barack Obama is elected on his progressive ticket. More companies will go bust as the present cycle is nowhere near over. There will be 'emergency measures' to 'stabilise' the situation in the country as prices rocket etc. People will be angry and scared, so they will bring in the Army to contain it's own citizens. Once people have been killed or imprisoned for being 'terrorists', the population will eventually be so scared and cowed that they'll accept this situation. All public services will vanish, food will become scarce and the big money guys will rake in more billions from the 'restructuring' that is so desperately needed to rebuild the economy. Barack Obama will be demonised.

I can see the same thing happening in the UK if the powers that be remain comatose in their present positions. I think its the last violent throes of excessive capitalism that we're seeing here; they're not going to let this opportunity go by. The main difference is that the US and Europe (the last frontier) are in stronger positions to defend themselves because of the strong democratic traditions that exist. The next few years will be a test of how strong those traditions really are.

-birgitte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birgitte (talkcontribs) 11:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Posse Commitatus No Longer Exists


There is no question of legality here because Bush's Unitary Executive philosophy claims that no law applies to the Office of the President.

Bush indemnified himself by decree via a signing statement attached to House Resolution 4986, section 1068 on 28 January 2008 which would have repealed the Executive Branch's unlimited power to use military force anywhere at any time for any reason as mandated in the Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Bush's claim to exemption was that such restrictions would "...inhibit the ability of the President to execute the authority of the Commander In Chief."

In effect, Posse Commitatus has been repealed by the Executive Branch because it has determined that the President needs to conscript the Armed Forces of the United States for his own protection. Illegal for everyone else BUT the Unitary Executive.

All of this information is available on-line for anyone interested enough in protecting their way of life, but "Dancing With The Stars" and "Joe Six Pack Hockey Mom" blather gets higher ratings on television.

Why do you think the Chinese restrict Internet use? Mark my words: Bush's Federal Communications Commission chairman will shortly be out of a job as his Justice Department gauleiters begin to eliminate access to public records and news organizations. It's only a matter of time.

And you all voted for him - twice.

Adlai Stevenson said it best (paraphrasing): "All too often in a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakai (talkcontribs) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, at least...


It was only training at this point and not actual combat. But why do we need these deployments, this is the National Guard's job, always has been and always will. Yes, it's part of the US military, but it's been the Guard's job to repsond to natural disasters and really, really serious crowd control. --TUFKAAP (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Question is...


Will the next administration (McCain or Obama) undo this? McCain most likely won't, and I'm unsure about Obama. 15:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

this is illegal, another reason to hang bush —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

These sorts of deployments of U.S. troops domestically should be limited to the absolute minimum possible. 200+ years of history has shown us that civil liberties prosper when troops are not utilized--barring active emergencies--on domestic territory in peacetime.

Why I Believe CCMRF Is Needed


I do believe this action is legal, to the point the CCMRF is used for riots that domestic law enforcement is not able to control themselves, and terrorism. I do believe this action will be frowned upon those critical of the Bush Administration and people who would view this as a pure rejection of the Posse Act. This action President Bush has taken is needed do to the fact that terrorism is always on the rise and the way the economy is moving. If this Recession turns into a Depression then riots will occur, crime rights will rise to unseen highs as people steal and murder each other just to feed there families. I believe CCMRF will be needed. Hopefully they will never be needed but would you want to take the chance that they might be needed near you. --Locke (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(I fixed your formatting as it was unreadable, sorry) I disagree. First, it will violate Posse Comitatus if CCMRF is used for what you suggest, not really any way to get around that. However, you're forgetting that each state has it's own military, basically, via the National Guard. His private army is not needed. And how exactly does keeping a military in the streets illegally fight terrorism? And even if it does, is it worth a direct violation of our Constitution? --Poisonous (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

martial law —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Screw Bush


Martial law anyone? Watch Star Wars 1-3 to see what happens after this is enabled. McCain/Palin is just more of the same crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You think Obama can save us? "Master Anakin, thank goodness you're here!" A bit populist perhaps? 05:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Somehow I think it depends on what 50% or more of their base thinks about the matter... -- 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Posse Comitatus was already suspended, behind closed doors


On March 13th, 2008, Congress met for a secret session, we assume to be briefed on new information regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is designed to monitor terrorists, foreign enemies of the state within America. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) passionately excused himself from this meeting on three grounds: 1) that the rules of the House which permit such a secret meeting are an offense to the spirit of the First Amendment, which by asking members to swear secrecy, they were in effect making a law upon its own body to limit free speech, and thus members must 'check their conscience at the door' 2) that there was no citable precendent for debate on a bill on a floor within such a secret meeting, which was suggested would occur and 3) that his previous experience with such meetings (there have been I believe six) were that they were occasions for Congress to be deceived without any accountability. Thus the House was given a security sweep, and C-SPAN replayed clips of Kucinich and showed shots of the Capitol lit in darkness for an hour. FISA is a wiretapping law also concerned with electronic correspondence, by the way.

Soon thereafter, verifiably as late as May, but arguably the next day, a leak emerged, unverifiable as to original Congressional source, from questionable sources such as WorldNewsNet at the most reputable. This leak is not notable for its sourcing but its prescience. It predicted the "imminent collapse" of the US economy September/October 2008 (depending on the source) as well as the collapse of government finances in February or late 2008 (also depending on where you heard it) as well as civil war, the employment of REX 84 camps, the necessary merger with Canada and Mexico and the economy reborn under the Amero.

Basically a period of suspension of posse comitatus. Martial law.

During the Republican National Convention, numerous verifiable primary video sources captured startling and brutal scenes depicting everything from the deployment of tear gas on peaceful crowds, herding them in fear from one police line to the next, the targeted detention of members of the press, and outright brutality. This is a matter of record, you can see it on YouTube any time you care to. Someone cynical might suppose from the peaceful footage of protesters captured by that some of the more mainstream reports of violent rioting may have arguably been a result of agents saboteurs to assist the police in creating a subtext for suppressing a public uprising, which the protests did represent in numbers but obviously not in intent. They dragged the producer of Democracy Now! by the face. Complete brutality, and excused under the pretext of a 'National security situation.'

During the final debates over the economic emergency and the 700, strike that, 810 billion bailout, which by the way were refuted as a true emergency by over one hundred economists, the words "martial law" came out explicitly on the floor. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said members were threatened with it; Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said the Speaker told him they were indeed already under martial law. Mainstream news sources declared this was figurative. So why then are our soldiers coming home in a seeming violation of posse comitatus? It's all evidently legal under current contingencies. Perhaps there's a perfectly rational explanation. Congress could release the minutes of the March 13th meeting; the President could even say, "We're not under martial law (yet)." If he can say in jest he prefers a dictatorship if he's the dictator, he could say something as hilarious as this. But currently there's no reason to say anything. If it doesn't make the Drudge report, it isn't news. 05:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You all are all overreacting


Bush is not going establish himself as a dictator, Martial law is not going to be put in place. So semi down.--KDP3 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

/\_____ What he said. This is troops training for an emergency situation, not nazis training to kill nosiy civilians. If worse comes to worse and open warfare breaks out in the US, which is entirely possible, the military needs to be equipped to deal with it. Most people probably dont know the vast difference in fighting styles between domestic police forces and the miltary. Put an Army sniper and a police sharpshooter in the same room, and youll find they they have totally different skills despite both using a sniper rifle. Even their rifles are greatly different.

They are training, not going on a rampage through cities...--MasterRyu (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Didn't we create a National Guard for this occasion? Re-deploy it from Iraq/Iran and use it here.

Simple, Easy, like Hot Pockets.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axostech (talkcontribs) 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let the soldiers trained for combat take care of combat, let the soldiers trained for civilian support activities do that. Whatever that involves now, since many of the latter have been sent to boost the numbers of the former, recall them. 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 'deployment' is [Italic text[provisional]]. Obviously someone believes it is needed. I don't know why. It is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrijo (talkcontribs) 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bush continues to give himself all sorts of new powers and now he's using them, what ever happened to that whole balance of power checks and balances thing? This is bad news and it makes me wonder what "national crisis" might come up and give Bush an excuse to unleash the military against civilians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) God Forbid the President of the USA have his troops redeploy, for real it like you guys want Bush to turn into a dictator.-- 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

These forces are being deployed to "maintain law and order" when the Republicans once again take power in the White House after massive illegalities during the upcoming election.

Republican coup!


These forces are being deployed to "maintain law and order" when the Republicans once again take power in the White House after massive illegalities during the upcoming election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Prelude to stealing the election


Imagine this: Obama wins the popular vote, but another 2000 Florida happens in a swing state. The conservative supreme court once again installs conservative McCain as president but this time there is civil unrest. The troops are called out to "restore order" and never leave. 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Before or after Obama has ACORN steal the election? -- 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

1984 Here we come!


This is a very dangerous action and is just one more step down the road toward Totalitarian government like the old Soviet Union. If the Administration was allowed to do all that it wanted to, that's just what we'd have now. And, the more important question is; can we expect anything different in a McCain administration? 07:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)~~

Validity of CCMDF


The CCMDF is illegal according to the Posse Comatitus Act, and unneccessary according to U.S.C 501.3(c) which speaks of an unorganized milita, which is every male (depending on the state, females are included) who from (roughly, again state decides) 16-45 years old, one is expected to equip and train themselves.

We the People, should -technically- be called up by local police, to serve as back-up for things like drunk driving check-points, and parking tickets, if required; this frees up forces for the heavier stuff that professional trained personnel can handle. 2008-11-01 T21:51 Z-7 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply