U.S. Civilians Can Face Military Trials

[Autolykos]

NewsDaily: TopNews -- U.S. civilians can face military trials

With the addition of just five words, the provision sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was signed into law by President Bush, and makes civilian government employees and journalists eligible for prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Washington Post reported Monday. "Right now, you have two different standards for people doing the same job," Graham said. "This will bring uniformity to the commander's ability to control the behavior of people representing our country."

"People representing our country"?! Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Note that this has already been made law.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Blatant fascism is now showing its head.

Anyone starting to feel like a Jew among Nazis yet?

Is the Reichstag fire out yet?

[Praxius]

lol.... WWII comparisons, lol.... three weeks ago when I made one, everyone jumped on me, now it's common practice.

Meh.

But yeah, everyday that goes by, I see more and more BS coming out from the US government.

[Osborn F Enready]

You let your nationalism affect you too much Prax.

Canada is equally as corrupt my friend, as are just about everyone affected by the World Banks.

Look at my signature link about Canadian Banks.

[Praxius]

Oh I never said our government was perfect by any means, lol. But I feel we have a slight bit more of a thumb on our government then what you guys have.

We have methods in our system where we can haul out the party in power, if they seem to get too out of hand.

Granted, I would still like to see a whole new system and revamp the government into something that is actually "Democratic"

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Oh I never said our government was perfect by any means, lol. But I feel we have a slight bit more of a thumb on our government then what you guys have.

That is perception, and the reason you still have that perception is because they are doing a better job of managing it within their borders.

Prax said: We have methods in our system where we can haul out the party in power, if they seem to get too out of hand.

Short of armed revolt, there is no such thing. Once the nation uses its army without the will of the people, it is one step away from using it against its own people, since their will is no longer a factor in the equation.

Your nation has been substantially disarmed, enough to remove a lot of the threat of tangible revolt, which is all that would remove the burgeoning global pervasive tendency to grow authoritarian systems at the National Level.

Prax said: Granted, I would still like to see a whole new system and revamp the government into something that is actually "Democratic"

I am anti-direct democracy.

[Praxius]

I can't really see our military being used against us civilians...... it just wouldn't happen.... even during a revolt, I can't see the government having enough influence over the military as opposed to the citizens...... the government is already at a borderline tolerance.

Could you really see your military fighting its citizens?

[brien]

Could you really see your military fighting its citizens?

When those in the citizen population, and in the political arena, continually attempt to alienate the military from themsleves by marginaizing them in words and deeds, yes. Witness John Kerry, Barney Frank, and others who call those who join the military stupid. You can argue that Kerry was "joking" but this is not the manner in which the regular military perceived these remarks. This, then trickles down to the general populace who look up to their political leaders.

It is fine to condemn a policy of war, but to create and establish the idea of an elite who knows better than those who join the military is dangerous. People who condescend to the military in words and actions, run the risk of fomenting resentment of those with the firepower.

That said, those in the military must first be convinced that the general population is dangerous to the welfare of the government for them to take up arms against their fellow citizens. The same is true for the citizens to take up arms against their military. Currently, in the state of affairs in the US, I think there is the danger of both situations coming to pass because of the deep division in this country between the Democrat and Republican electorate.

There is a deep hatred between certain members of both parties like I have never seen before in this country in all of my 40 years of observing politics. It is this hatred which breeds the seeds of violent upheaval.

[RickSp]

The issue is not whether the military will fight the citizenry as a group but whether the government will use the military as just another tool to control and pacify the country.

The Attorney General recently spoke out against the rule of law in favor presidential fiat. The drift toward dictatorship is unmistakable.

Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases. In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Brien, as well as the political divide of politics that carries right through to the individuals that are IN the military.

If the polarization becomes so strong as to divide the active military, as well as the population, political flavored authoriatarianism will develop, like during our Civil War in the U.S.

[Gods_Mercenary]

This is a truly unnacceptable breach, I'll agree with Osborn, the Government must be reigned in. We must vote in a president who will not abuse his powers and who will recognize that a U.S. citizen's rights cannot be alienated, no matter how desperate the situation. The question is, where to find such a person?

[Scribbler1]

You won't find such a person under the current government. The traitors in power will never allow it. That's WHY they're traitors.

The gutless cowards that make up the majority of this country will just do like the Iraqis used to do. We will just learn to live under the rule of our own Saddam, while singing the praises of the ones who take away our rights while they "protect" us.

Deal with it.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The question is, where to find such a person?

Oooooo OOOoooooo...... *Raises Hands*

[Gods_Mercenary]

Nah, from what i've seen, you're just a backboneless canadian:)

Now, I on the other hand, would be a perfect candidate, a self proclaimed military strategist who might just have the combination of arrogance, ruthlessness, and competance to pull such a rebellion off, of course, you or someone else might need to keep me from establishing my own empire, so you'd all have to have a position of power to limit me.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Scribbler1 You won't find such a person under the current government. The traitors in power will never allow it. That's WHY they're traitors. The gutless cowards that make up the majority of this country will just do like the Iraqis used to do. We will just learn to live under the rule of our own Saddam, while singing the praises of the ones who take away our rights while they "protect" us. Deal with it.

You've just described humanity, not a particular nation or people.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You've just described humanity, not a particular nation or people.

That's why the comparison to Iraq. But, since we ARE part of humanity I thought it appropriate to my point.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary This is a truly unnacceptable breach, I'll agree with Osborn, the Government must be reigned in. We must vote in a president who will not abuse his powers and who will recognize that a U.S. citizen's rights cannot be alienated, no matter how desperate the situation. The question is, where to find such a person?

He's called Ron Paul, and he's thankfully decided to run. He is one of the few people to have a consistant record of opposing anti-constitutional actions and more general expansion of government.

[Autolykos]

I will register to vote as a Republican so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Lovely.

What should really scare you guys is some of the gems in the UCMJ.

Once you really understand what types of extremities exist in that legal system and process, then give your opinion on the government that is applying it to civilians.

Because I don't think any of your reactions are strong enough.

Seriously.

If you understood the weight of the UCMJ you would avoid government employment and journalism like the plague.

After living under the UCMJ for such a long time, if this sort of thing rolls over to state government jobs, and not just federal, I would quit.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Fonce, this should be the last step to revolt.

People should be marching in the streets to Washington right now.