Could this be the reason for the 2nd Amendment....

[michaeledward]

and is it the beginning of a police state? If the government does not trust itself, shouldn't we start to get worried?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7019975/

The Pentagon is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there, administration officials familiar with the plan said.
The plan would weaken the long-standing "chief of mission" authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president's top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations.
The Special Operations missions envisioned in the plan would largely be secret, known to only a handful of officials from the foreign country, if any.

When the military is attempting to usurp authority from the the President, in any other nation, that is called a coup. Is that what we are dealing with?

 

[Cryozombie]

Thats... just... wrong.

 

[PeachMonkey]

When the military is attempting to usurp authority from the the President, in any other nation, that is called a coup. Is that what we are dealing with?

This is more likely a move by the Pentagon and the President to be able to have direct authority over special operations without any checks or balances. Given the close ties between the Pentagon and the current President, I doubt this plan happened without his approval or authority.

Your concerns are no less valid, however, nor is such a plan any less likely to lead to usurpation of executive (or Congressional) authority.

 

[loki09789]

and is it the beginning of a police state? If the government does not trust itself, shouldn't we start to get worried?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7019975/

When the military is attempting to usurp authority from the the President, in any other nation, that is called a coup. Is that what we are dealing with?

This would speed up the response process in a situation that might involve American lives/interests....humanitarian issues in general. Besides, the POTUS is not being bypassed as the final authorization, the Ambassador is.

It is a coup, when these types of overthrows occur internally. When it is foriegn troops it is not a coup.

The POTUS has been able to deploy military forces under limited time frames without congressional by your leave for a while now.

THink about it this way: There are American hostages being transported from Iraq to Palestine or somewhere else. The intel is hot and confirmed...but the time window is limited. If the administrative process takes too long, the intel will be outdated and useless...

 

[OUMoose]

THink about it this way: There are American hostages being transported from Iraq to Palestine or somewhere else. The intel is hot and confirmed...but the time window is limited. If the administrative process takes too long, the intel will be outdated and useless...

Yes, because the whole world has seen how good of an idea it is to "knee-jerk" military agress... ehem.. action when the intel is "hot and confirmed".

Or is that only if they're transported with WMD's?

 

[ginshun]

Personally, I think that you are pretty naive if you think that the CIA/NSA/wahtever doesn't already do stuff like this.

I'd be willing to bet that the US government has opperatives or teams in countries right now that the President and that country's ambasador know nothing about.

Maybe not, but I'd bet on it.

 

[Tgace]

Plain old interagency bickering match...and turf war.

 

[Ray]

Who da thunk that ambassadors have a real function?

 

[Gray Phoenix]

These are reasons for the 2nd Amendment (the one that makes all others possible):

A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. Our forefathers knew this to be true..... Why do so many of us question their wisdom? ​

-D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996​

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi​

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 4/20/94​

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788​

"The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it." ​

-- James A. Donald ​

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford ​

"Liberalizing concealed carry laws won't lead to a return to the Wild West. ... in 19th Century cattle towns, homicide was confined to transient males who shot each other in saloon disturbances. The per capital robbery rate was 7% of modern New York City's. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown." David Kopel - quoted in the WSJ 28 Feb 1994 ​

`Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting "gun control". Why then, only recently, has this become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history? It is not because weapons are more powerful -- 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force-per-round than today's "assault rifles". It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic -- rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century. It is not due to a lack of laws -- we have more "gun control" laws ​

than ever. It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on "gun control" instead of crime control or "thug control." It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society.'

- Kevin Langston, Tuesday, 29 October, 1991 ​

"A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia." --Charlie Reese, syndicated columnist ​

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (1960) ​

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." Samuel Adams ​

Seen on a pickup in Arizona: China has gun control. Afghanistan doesn't.​

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. -- William Burroughs ​

Prohibiting law-abiding people from owning guns because they might be stolen by criminals is like prohibiting women from going out at night because they might be raped. - Unknown​

Lt. Lowell Duckett: "Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed." Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.​

"I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don't wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them." ​

-- Hugh Downs, veteran ABC newsman ​

If the Government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs? - Unknown​

 

[Gray Phoenix]

And the crown jewel:​

​

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935​

How many died after they disarmed? It must never happen again.

 

[MA-Caver]

My question is when will they start "following" the second part of the traditional military oath... "protect and defend the Consitution against all invaders foreign and domestic? Or maybe they already have... Ruby Ridge, Waco and others; squelched against media. Oh yes, they were done by ATF and FBI...
Aren't they akin to the SD of 1939 Germany?

 

[michaeledward]

These are reasons for the 2nd Amendment (the one that makes all others possible)

So Gray Phoenix, are you arguing that the United States Military should be able to undertake covert actions anywhere in the world without informing the Presidents' highest representative in the area?

It might have been nice if you read the post, rather than just the title.

 

[ginshun]

How is this connected to the 2nd amendment?

I am honesty not trying to be a prick or anything, I just would like to know how the connection works in your mind?

Are you saying that it is good that we have the 2nd amendment in case the military tries this stuff here?

 

[Ray]

How is this connected to the 2nd amendment?

I am honesty not trying to be a prick or anything, I just would like to know how the connection works in your mind?

Are you saying that it is good that we have the 2nd amendment in case the military tries this stuff here?

Good question. There are a couple of ways to look at it...one is that if the gov't oversteps its bounds and will not withdraw, then "the people" (having arms) can take control and re-establish the constitutional gov't of the US.

I think the other way to look at it is, everyone can go hunting for the weekend and have a good time while the gov't oversteps its bounds. But I'm not sure.

 

[michaeledward]

How is this connected to the 2nd amendment?

I am honesty not trying to be a prick or anything, I just would like to know how the connection works in your mind?

Are you saying that it is good that we have the 2nd amendment in case the military tries this stuff here?

I don't think this question is 'picking a fight' at all.

First, the disclaimers ...

I support the principle of Gun Control. I think reasonable limits on the types of weapons citizens can own is not an insurmountable burden. I think reasonable limits on the number of weapons a citizen can own, or purchase at one time, is sensible. I think far too many citizens in this country die from firearms.

One of the arguments put forth by the 'No Gun Control' crowd is that an armed citizenry will keep the government 'in-line'; ensure that the government does not take from the citizens that to which it is not entitled. An armed citizenry is protection against an authoritarian government.

If the military takes for itself the privilege to operate anywhere in the world, without notifying, and receiving authorization from the civilian authorities, has the military begun down the path of 'authoritarian government'?

The U.S. Ambassador is the President's reprsentative in a foreign country. Can (and should) the military undertake covert operations without notifying and receiving permission from that authority.

Examine this hypothetical:

A terrorist cell is operating in Canada. Under good intelligence, Secretary Rumsfeld dispatches a Special Operations team to assassinate the members of this cell. Secretary Rumsfeld does not notify Ambassador Celluci. During operations, several members of the terrorist cell escape and cross the border into the United States. Could the Special Operations complete their assassinations within the United States without notifying the President? Isn't there a law against the US Military undertaking operations on United States soil?

In our government, civilians are in charge of the military. This proposed information seems to weaken that supervision. How far would these actions need to go before the 'Second Amendment' supports recognize it as a power-grab?

I hope that makes sense. If I think about it more, I can perhaps be more cogent on the topic. But, it scares the hell out of me.

Michael

 

[loki09789]

Yes, because the whole world has seen how good of an idea it is to "knee-jerk" military agress... ehem.. action when the intel is "hot and confirmed".

Or is that only if they're transported with WMD's?

And it was SOOO wrong to rescue a certain female US soldier that had been taken hostage based on current and 'hot' military intel..... If the rescue attempt had failed because, hypothetically, she had been transported to another country and the administrative 'permission' progress made the intel outdated there would be just as many screams and criticisms about 'red tape' that made for a failed rescue.

 

[ginshun]

I guess I see what you are saying, and I think it is perfectly valid to ask if the policy on not notifiying Ambassadors is a good policy or not. And also to raise th question of what happens if that situation should flood back over into the US inself.

I also however think that it is a bit of a stretch to connect those questions with the 2nd amendment. An interesting idea, but a bit of a stretch nonethe less.

personally I don't have any problems with the gun control laws that are on the books right, now. I would like my state to have a right to carry law (or to get rid of it, whatever. I don't know that I would probably carry a gun around anyway, but I would like to have the option. I think that government should work a little harder at enforcing the current laws, as opposed to making new ones.

 

[loki09789]

I guess I see what you are saying, and I think it is perfectly valid to ask if the policy on not notifiying Ambassadors is a good policy or not. And also to raise th question of what happens if that situation should flood back over into the US inself.

I also however think that it is a bit of a stretch to connect those questions with the 2nd amendment. An interesting idea, but a bit of a stretch nonethe less.

personally I don't have any problems with the gun control laws that are on the books right, now. I would like my state to have a right to carry law (or to get rid of it, whatever. I don't know that I would probably carry a gun around anyway, but I would like to have the option. I think that government should work a little harder at enforcing the current laws, as opposed to making new ones.

I'd say the 2nd Amendment link is more than a stretch, but a flat out leap. The Ambassador issue is about the administrative power of an appointed official... I really don't see the connection myself.

 

[OUMoose]

And it was SOOO wrong to rescue a certain female US soldier that had been taken hostage based on current and 'hot' military intel..... If the rescue attempt had failed because, hypothetically, she had been transported to another country and the administrative 'permission' progress made the intel outdated there would be just as many screams and criticisms about 'red tape' that made for a failed rescue.

Most likely. It's hell living with the fact you can't make everyone happy all the time, isn't it?

 

[michaeledward]

Guys ... It seems you are seeing a negative where I am applying a positive, or vice versa.

Isn't the second amendment supposed to protect the citizenry from a military that reaches across the political bounds granted. When the military can act whenever, and where ever it wishes, without civilian authority ... isn't that the reason the Second Amendment folks claim the second amendment is so important? Or am I listening to too many Militia types?

I thought in our country, the civilians held authority over the military.