General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

17. That's brazenly untrue, that nothing is new. Of course it's something new.

Wed May 15, 2013, 06:42 PM

May 2013

We are discussing a change in the code.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

You are the one defending the change here. So why the need for it?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over �Civil Disturbances' [View all] appal_jack May 2013 OP

It is distrubing and people even here were cheering this on......you have no rights. bowens43 May 2013 #1

+1000 ! nt snappyturtle May 2013 #26

The article confuses the USC with the CFR: struggle4progress May 2013 #33

Thanks for this useful info, s4p appal_jack May 2013 #34

The link in the article is to US Code as of January 2012. Three things wrong with this: leveymg May 2013 #2

See response #4 appal_jack May 2013 #5

You must have missed this part... Ikonoklast May 2013 #3

Right, because the gov't NEVER oversteps its authority. appal_jack May 2013 #6

Please show one, ONE time in this nation's history that the military arbitrarily decided to Ikonoklast May 2013 #8

Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. n/t appal_jack May 2013 #9

You are correct. Ikonoklast May 2013 #14

Then why do they need this? woo me with science May 2013 #15

There have been emergency plans in place that deal with a catastrophic event such as this since the Ikonoklast May 2013 #16

That's brazenly untrue, that nothing is new. Of course it's something new. woo me with science May 2013 #17

OFFS. The military cannot *grant* itself anything. Ikonoklast May 2013 #18

When you don't have an answer, cry "libertarian." woo me with science May 2013 #19

There have ALWAYS been plans that included the military in case of catastrophe. Ikonoklast May 2013 #22

No, you are absurdly attempting to defend a change woo me with science May 2013 #23

Read up on the history of the COG plans first. Ikonoklast May 2013 #24

Your arguments here should embarrass you, but especially that last gem of a post. woo me with science May 2013 #35

Well, if we get hit by an asteroid cluster... aquart May 2013 #31

Before posting this, I investigated whether it was nuttery or not. I think it's legit. appal_jack May 2013 #4

You're on the right track and thanks for posting. The militarization of the local police function is byeya May 2013 #12

+1 woo me with science May 2013 #20

+1 nt snappyturtle May 2013 #27

The Pentagon issued the regulation pursuant to a federal statute geek tragedy May 2013 #7

The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register 4/12 with effective date of 5/13/13 pinboy3niner May 2013 #10

Here's what appears to be the gist of it. Authorizes local commanders to take action without orders leveymg May 2013 #11

The author of the article is wrong. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #13

I agree that the author's second paragraph is awkward. appal_jack May 2013 #25

another heaven05 May 2013 #21

Succinct and to the point. I think that is exactly what has happened. nt snappyturtle May 2013 #28

At what times in modern history defacto7 May 2013 #29

We shouldn't even have a standing army mwrguy May 2013 #30

I think we can date this back to 1994, at least muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #32