09-08-2004, 21:34
|
#16
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
I think both. And I agree.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
09-08-2004, 21:54
|
#17
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,691
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roycroft201
TS,
I am not sure I understand your comment.
Do you mean a military solution as a response to a terrorist takeover of a school on US soil or do you mean a military solution to the GWOT worldwide, before it can threaten our children in schools here at home ?
RC201
|
I believe he is talking about a certain group of individuals who are trained to handle this SPECIFIC situtation.
Just my interpratation. 
|
|
Smokin Joe is offline
|
|
|
09-08-2004, 22:37
|
#18
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Currently FT. Bragg
Posts: 622
|
Just my .02
But i think if this type situation happens there will be a delay by the terrorist to get maxium news coverage AQ seems to want large scale to show their power.The reaction of killing 300 adults vs 300 kids isnt even comparable.
as for the Teachers packing alot of schools already have armed LEOs on site atleast at my highschool did and that was back in 95.
Training is the key
__________________
There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
|
|
Jgood is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 09:26
|
#19
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
|
What I was saying is that the US military is the only “force” trained, equipped and prepared to deal with heavily armed terrorists.
We cannot train civilian swat teams to take on terrorists. It’s not feasible.
I propose we stand up three military "domestic" counter-terrorist units. One in Iowa, Central Calif. and South Carolina with an “Executive order” (green light) to deploy in minutes anywhere in the United States to resolve any “domestic” terrorist situation.
I further propose that once a domestic terrorist situation is identified a media blackout is automatically enforced and if broken a mandatory 5 year prison sentence imposed on any breaking this order.
swat teams and FBI HRT is not the answer when dealing with terrorists.
TS
|
|
Team Sergeant is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 09:41
|
#20
|
|
Consigliere
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,767
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
What I was saying is that the US military is the only “force” trained, equipped and prepared to deal with heavily armed terrorists.
We cannot train civilian swat teams to take on terrorists. It’s not feasible.
I propose we stand up three military "domestic" counter-terrorist units. One in Iowa, Central Calif. and South Carolina with an “Executive order” (green light) to deploy in minutes anywhere in the United States to resolve any “domestic” terrorist situation.
I further propose that once a domestic terrorist situation is identified a media blackout is automatically enforced and if broken a mandatory 5 year prison sentence imposed on any breaking this order.
swat teams and FBI HRT is not the answer when dealing with terrorists.
TS
|
I like the first idea. The second probably violates the First Amendment. I think that's an interesting policy discussion, though.
|
|
Roguish Lawyer is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 09:48
|
#21
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I like the first idea. The second probably violates the First Amendment. I think that's an interesting policy discussion, though.
|
I’m not going to debate constitutional law with an attorney as I am merely a soldier, but, anything that aids or furthers a terrorist’s cause should be against the law. Providing media coverage during a terrorist’s siege is providing assistance and support to the terrorists.
TS
|
|
Team Sergeant is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 09:58
|
#22
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,780
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
I’m not going to debate constitutional law with an attorney as I am merely a soldier, but, anything that aids or furthers a terrorist’s cause should be against the law. Providing media coverage during a terrorist’s siege is providing assistance and support to the terrorists.
TS
|
Concur. Less publicity defeats the terrorists purpose.
You have my vote.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 10:13
|
#23
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I like the first idea. The second probably violates the First Amendment. I think that's an interesting policy discussion, though.
|
Clearly - however, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 10:27
|
#24
|
|
Consigliere
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,767
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
I’m not going to debate constitutional law with an attorney as I am merely a soldier, but, anything that aids or furthers a terrorist’s cause should be against the law. Providing media coverage during a terrorist’s siege is providing assistance and support to the terrorists.
TS
|
We both only get one vote. 
|
|
Roguish Lawyer is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 11:46
|
#25
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,691
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I like the first idea. The second probably violates the First Amendment. I think that's an interesting policy discussion, though.
|
So what, if we are lifting Posse Comitatus. Do you really think we are gonna worry about someone's 1st Amendment?
The President was prepared to shoot down passenger aircraft on 9/11. I don't think he will give a rat's ass about the medias 1st Amendment rights if we have a Terrorist Seige on our own soil.
Remember the media (almost) black out during Operation Enduring Freedom?
Donald Rumsfeild telling the reporters stuff like, "You don't need to know that."
|
|
Smokin Joe is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 12:17
|
#26
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,390
|
The Following is the Uninformed opinion of a Civilian:
My understanding of the whole deal is that When the word "Terrorism" is thrown into the mix, all kinds of avenues for military action are opened, at home, Abroad, whereever. I have no concrete evidence to back this up, this is just the way things have always appeared to me.
As for First amendment,what about Censorship Concerning the Military in time of War? We are at War. During WWII, there were TONS of Pics and stats not released to the Public. I've even seen Pics from Vietnam that had Blacked out places. I think the Media Blackout would have to go Hand in Hand with Military envolvement.
Just My .02
|
|
Air.177 is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 13:19
|
#27
|
|
Consigliere
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,767
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smokin Joe
So what, if we are lifting Posse Comitatus. Do you really think we are gonna worry about someone's 1st Amendment?
The President was prepared to shoot down passenger aircraft on 9/11. I don't think he will give a rat's ass about the medias 1st Amendment rights if we have a Terrorist Seige on our own soil.
Remember the media (almost) black out during Operation Enduring Freedom?
Donald Rumsfeild telling the reporters stuff like, "You don't need to know that."
|
If the terrorists are foreigners, why would Posse Comitatus apply? If we were invaded by a foreign army, I do not believe that Possee Comitatus would prevent our troops from resisting that invasion on our own soil. And how would we know the nationality of the terrorists in any event?
AL, do you know whether military CT teams are precluded from responding to domestic terrorist activity?
|
|
Roguish Lawyer is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 14:48
|
#28
|
|
Kia ora, bro
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 931
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Air.177
As for First amendment,what about Censorship Concerning the Military in time of War? We are at War. During WWII, there were TONS of Pics and stats not released to the Public. I've even seen Pics from Vietnam that had Blacked out places. I think the Media Blackout would have to go Hand in Hand with Military envolvement.
Just My .02
|
In WW2 the only way to get to a war zone to cover it would have been either by boat or by the military. There were no boats running and the military would have told them to fuck off. So easier to censor.
The world was smaller during Vietnam, but not as small as it is today. With super cheap air fares, Journos can get anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Which means there's an uncontrolled flow of journos, which didn't happen during WW2, and only seemed to happen (someone correct me on this) to a small extent during Vietnam.
So there lays the problem. Enforcing a media blackout is next to impossible, what with satellite TV and everything. IMHO, befriending the media and giving them a little bit access here and here could give the military a lot more leverage. A bit like how the White House runs things. Fuck up and piss people off, you lose your access.
Could work.
__________________
"You destroyed half a city block!"
"That block was already messed up."
|
|
Huey14 is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 15:33
|
#29
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,691
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
If the terrorists are foreigners, why would Posse Comitatus apply? If we were invaded by a foreign army, I do not believe that Possee Comitatus would prevent our troops from resisting that invasion on our own soil. And how would we know the nationality of the terrorists in any event?
AL, do you know whether military CT teams are precluded from responding to domestic terrorist activity?
|
If they were "Confirmed" Foreigners then I don't 'think' Posse Comitatus applies. But in a very dynamic situtation, I think waiting to find out one way or the other waists valuable time. Not to mention some of the most horrific Terrorist acts that have happened her in the last 25 years have been from domestic Terrorist. 
|
|
Smokin Joe is offline
|
|
|
09-09-2004, 16:38
|
#30
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smokin Joe
If they were "Confirmed" Foreigners then I don't 'think' Posse Comitatus applies. But in a very dynamic situtation, I think waiting to find out one way or the other waists valuable time. Not to mention some of the most horrific Terrorist acts that have happened her in the last 25 years have been from domestic Terrorist.
|
Roger, I agree, there's no time to argue when hostages are involved. If there is more than one armed asshole with hostages then they are terrorists, end of story.
|
|
Team Sergeant is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
