Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dc_dux · 10-13-2008, 11:32 AM

I think we just need to be very careful how we proceed down that slippery slope.

In the 80s, the military was authorized by Reagan (and again by Clinton) to participate (with state/federal law enforcement) in drug interdiction on the border. More recently, the 2006 amendment of the 200 year old Insurrection Act and the creation of NORTHCOMM have expanded the mission of the US armed forces and redefined and expanded the meaning of insurrection, allowing it to be broadly interpreted by the sitting president.

Passive support by the military (logistics, command and control, etc) is one thing...active participation within the borders of the US by the standing army is another.

10-13-2008, 11:32 AM	#130 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think we just need to be very careful how we proceed down that slippery slope. In the 80s, the military was authorized by Reagan (and again by Clinton) to participate (with state/federal law enforcement) in drug interdiction on the border. More recently, the 2006 amendment of the 200 year old Insurrection Act and the creation of NORTHCOMM have expanded the mission of the US armed forces and redefined and expanded the meaning of insurrection, allowing it to be broadly interpreted by the sitting president. Passive support by the military (logistics, command and control, etc) is one thing...active participation within the borders of the US by the standing army is another. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-13-2008 at 11:44 AM..