Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 10-07-2008, 11:03 AM

DC Dux, I only quoted you because you wrote the he raised a valid point. I actually agree that we need a 21st century understanding and reworking of the laws around the use of our police and military forces. You weren't included in the "people" in my post, that was directed at The Dunedan and Willravel.

The Dunedan actually writes that he's not aware of what the Act actually states and is factually wrong on his assertions about the legality of the use of federal troops on domestic soil.

Willravel is wrong on his working definition of what constitutes Martial Law.

It's annoying when people not only post something out of ignorance, but to steadfastly hold to their previous incorrect assertions rather than looking it up for themselves or revising their position in light of new facts.

EDIT: of course, DC Dux, as you know, the constitutionality of this isn't whether soldiers can be used on domestic soil. The problem is that Congressional support was given for the use of forces, but then repealed. The challenge is the constitutionality of presidential signing statements.

But if people run around without a clear understanding of what the Act restricting the use of federal forces on domestic soil actually says, or what Congress has allowed or disallowed, and then worse, employ hyperbolic statements about what is actually happening on the ground, then that not only makes people who have a better grasp of the situation shake their heads at such claims but also makes it very difficult to reach some kind of rational discussion about what needs to be done in light of terrorist and catastrophic threats to our nation.

10-07-2008, 11:03 AM	#96 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	DC Dux, I only quoted you because you wrote the he raised a valid point. I actually agree that we need a 21st century understanding and reworking of the laws around the use of our police and military forces. You weren't included in the "people" in my post, that was directed at The Dunedan and Willravel. The Dunedan actually writes that he's not aware of what the Act actually states and is factually wrong on his assertions about the legality of the use of federal troops on domestic soil. Willravel is wrong on his working definition of what constitutes Martial Law. It's annoying when people not only post something out of ignorance, but to steadfastly hold to their previous incorrect assertions rather than looking it up for themselves or revising their position in light of new facts. EDIT: of course, DC Dux, as you know, the constitutionality of this isn't whether soldiers can be used on domestic soil. The problem is that Congressional support was given for the use of forces, but then repealed. The challenge is the constitutionality of presidential signing statements. But if people run around without a clear understanding of what the Act restricting the use of federal forces on domestic soil actually says, or what Congress has allowed or disallowed, and then worse, employ hyperbolic statements about what is actually happening on the ground, then that not only makes people who have a better grasp of the situation shake their heads at such claims but also makes it very difficult to reach some kind of rational discussion about what needs to be done in light of terrorist and catastrophic threats to our nation. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2008 at 11:12 AM..