FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: walksalone11 on April 23, 2012, 12:13:34 pm
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2875169/posts
"UN To Investigate Plight of US Native Americans For First Time The UN human rights inquiry will focus on the living conditions of the 2.7 million Native Americans living in the US
Ewen MacAskill 22 April 2012
Many US Native Americans live in federally recognised tribal areas plagued with poverty, alcoholism other social problems.
The UN is to conduct an investigation into the plight of US Native Americans, the first such mission in its history.
The human rights inquiry led by James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, is scheduled to begin on Monday.
Many of the country's estimated 2.7 million Native Americans live in federally recognised tribal areas which are plagued with unemployment, alcoholism, high suicide rates, incest and other social problems.
The UN mission is potentially contentious, with some US conservatives likely to object to international interference in domestic matters. Since being appointed as rapporteur in 2008, Anaya has focused on natives of Central and South America.
A UN statement said: "This will be the first mission to the US by an independent expert designated by the UN human rights council to report on the rights of the indigenous peoples."
Anaya, a University of Arizona professor of human rights, said: "I will examine the situation of the American Indian/Native American, Alaska Native and Hawaiian peoples against the background of the United States' endorsement of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples."
The US signed up in 2010 to the declaration, which establishes minimum basic rights for indigenous people globally.
Anaya said: "My visit aims at assessing how the standards of the declaration are reflected in US law and policy, and identifying needed reforms and good practices."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ..."
-
The UN upfront is entirely useless, its value lies in the behind the scenes, backdoor dealings. The UN despises the United States and will execute any authority or decelerations or evaluations in a negative manner against the United States. Such an investigation by the UN is about as useful as a feces-flavored lollipop.
-
Maybe the UN can come stay on a reservation... soon they will start underage prostitution brothels and embezzle money like they do in every place they go. Quit whining.
-
What the heck does he un have too do with the us native americans anyway. From what i have seen on some of the resavation that is the way they prefer too live. The govt. has buillt house and they would rather live in the hogans. There is not suppose to be liquor on the res. but they go out and buy it anyway, If they are so poor how can they afford liquor. A lot of them drive new cars with no insurance and get by with it. I was rear ended by an indian driving a brand new pickup with no insurance nor a license. Of course we are required to buy insurance to cover us and them if they are not insured. what a crock. Oh bye the way i am part indian.
-
Are you insinuating that the white man is not the indian's friend?Who swindled you out of Manhatten island for $24?White man.
Who turned you into wood and stood you in front of a cigar store?White man.
Who put your head on a nickel and then took the nickle away?Slot machine.
-Groucho Marx-
;D
-
"Forgotten People goes to the UN to secure
housing and water rights
Press statement by Forgotten People
Photo credit: Forgotten People
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
TUCSON, Ariz. -- Mary Lane, Glenna C. Begay, Leta O’Daniel, Leonard Benally, Marlene Benally and Norris Nez of Forgotten People presented on Land and Resources, Self-Government and the Open Forum on the Rights of Indigenous People in Tucson.
A delegation of 14 members of Forgotten People met with the UN to call for recognition of the human right to housing and water. They urged the U.S. to pass legislation that abides by the declaration they signed in 2010, which establishes minimum basic rights for indigenous people globally including the U.S.
Forgotten People appreciates the significance of this historic mission by the United Nations to conduct an investigation into the plight of US Native Americans. Forgotten People believes greater investigation needs to be conducted into the lack of housing, poisoning of water sources, and neglect by the US government in our region to identify how the standards of the declaration are reflected in US law and policy and needed reforms and good practices.
A 43-year US government imposed Bennett Freeze affecting approximately 1,500,000 acres denied Navajo people electricity, running water and adequate sewage disposal. Even though the freeze was lifted by President Obama in 2009, they cannot find any funding or plan for rehabilitation for infrastructure, housing, water and roads. Only 3% of the families have electricity. Over 90% of the homes do not have access to piped water, requiring families to haul their water from other locations. Only 24 % of homes are habitable today.
Since 1966, the population in the area has increased by approximately 65 percent, forcing several generations of families to live together in dwellings that have been declared unfit for human habitation.
A Relocation Act passed in 1974, resulted in the forced eviction of over 15,000 head of households and their families. Those that resisted relocation are under siege to this day by the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs using federal monies to confiscate livestock, bulldoze and dismantle water wells and deny people their civil and human rights. Due to a lack of infrastructure, families live in substandard homes, are forced to haul their own water, suffer negative economic and health impacts, are trapped in a circle of poverty and are still drinking contaminated water because they have no choice or have no water at all.
The U.S. Department of Energy calls Navajo land a “National Sacrifice Area” in a region at the heart of the global warming issue. Black Mesa, Big Mountain is a microcosm of the global problem. The energy is produced on our lands using our resources, yet we receive no benefits from this activity. We suffer the local costs of this production, such as environmental damage and interference with sovereignty. In addition, our traditional lifestyle hangs at the edge of survival in an arid climate, and scientists predict that global warming will cause a permanent drought and dust bowl in the American Southwest, making this life impossible.
Wars of the future will be fought over water, as they are over oil today, as water, our Blue Gold, the source of human survival, enters the global marketplace. Currently, President Ben Shelly of the Navajo Nation is working with Senator Kyl and McCain to pass legislation for the Little CO River Water Rights Settlement that gives away our water rights to Peabody Coal Company and NGS. Forgotten People believes the Settlement is a tragedy not only due to the minimizing Navajo rights but is waiving hundreds of millions of dollars in potential compensation for rights waived.
To compound the effects, the water rights settlement forever waives without redress for past present and future contamination of water sources when the U.S. EPA reports the presence of over 1,300 abandoned mines on reservation land and up to 25 % of the unregulated sources in the western Navajo Nation exceeds drinking water standard for kidney toxicants including uranium.
Forgotten People believes the US should be held accountable under the declaration and to commitments made internationally which establish minimum basic rights for indigenous people, including UN General Assembly (GA) Resolutions on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and a commitment by the U.S. EPA at the 2002 United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development to reduce the number of its citizens lacking access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 50% by 2015.
Forgotten People believes President Obama and Navajo Nation should sign a binding version of the declaration to ensure access to clean and potable water and housing as fundamental human rights and participation in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights under the declaration and international law.
Copies of Forgotten People’s interventions are available. For more information please contact Mary Lane, Vice-President, Forgotten People at (928) 401-1777 or via email: info@forgottennavajopeople.org
Forgotten People
P.O. Box 1661
Tuba City, AZ 86045
www.forgottennavajopeople.org
info@forgottennavajopeople.org
(928) 401-1777
--------
Posted by brendanorrell@gmail.com"
-
Chief Oliver Red Cloud addresses United Nations - May 2012 - Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5I4QBNg9jM&feature=relmfu
Chief Oliver Red Cloud addresses United Nations - May 2012 - Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x65jm81wbvA
-
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/un-fact-finder--to-recommend-us-give-back-more-native-lands
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A United Nations fact finder surveying conditions of Native Americans and Native Alaskans says he will recommend in his report that some of their lands are returned.
James Anaya has been meeting with tribal leaders, the administration and Senate members over 12 days to assess U.S. compliance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He plans several suggestions in his report, likely due out this fall.
Anaya says land restoration would help bring about reconciliation. He named the Black Hills of South Dakota as an example. The hills are public land but are considered sacred land by Native Americans.
President Barack Obama endorsed the declaration in 2010, reversing a previous U.S. vote against it. It is intended to protect the rights of 370 million native peoples worldwide.
Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/un-fact-finder--to-recommend-us-give-back-more-native-lands#ixzz1u1Crdlou "
-
"WASHINGTON — A United Nations fact finder surveying the lives of Native Americans and Alaska Natives said Friday he'll recommend in an upcoming report that some of the tribes' lands be restored, including the Black Hills of South Dakota.
James Anaya, a U.N. special rapporteur, has been meeting with tribal leaders, the administration and Senate members over 12 days to assess U.S. implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He plans several suggestions in his report, which he said he likely will deliver to the U.N.'s Human Rights Council in September.
Anaya said land restoration would help bring about reconciliation. He named the Black Hills as an example. He said restoring to indigenous people what they have a legitimate claim to can be done in a way that is not divisive "so that the Black Hills, for example, isn't just a reminder of the subordination and domination of indigenous peoples in that country."
The Black Hills, home to Mount Rushmore, are public land but are considered sacred by the Sioux tribes. The Sioux have refused to accept money awarded in a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision and have sought return of the land. The Black Hills and other lands were set aside for the Sioux in an 1868 treaty. But Congress passed a law in 1877 taking the land.
President Barack Obama endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010, reversing a previous U.S. vote against it. It is intended to protect the rights of 370 million native peoples worldwide. Anaya is the first U.N. special rapporteur on rights of the indigenous to visit the U.S.
He met with several members of the executive branch and had the chance to brief members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. He lamented he was unable to get individual meetings with members of Congress, noting that he usually meets with members of legislative bodies of countries he is visiting.
Anaya said he heard universal cries from the Native Americans and Alaska Natives for the federal government to protect their tribal sovereignty and for more ability to control their own affairs.
He added provisions in the Violence Against Women Act, recently approved in the Senate, give tribes the ability to prosecute people who commit violent crimes against Native American or Alaska Native women, even if they are not native peoples. That provision has been opposed by some Republicans in Congress. The House is expected to move on the act as soon as next week, with Republicans possibly drafting and pushing their own version.
Anaya said he met with tribes in Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota and Oklahoma both on reservations and in urban areas.
"In all my consultations with indigenous peoples in the places I visited it was impressed upon me that the sense of loss, alienation and indignity is pervasive throughout Indian Country," Anaya said.
"It is evident that there have still not been adequate measures of reconciliation to overcome the persistent legacies of the history of oppression and that there is still much healing that needs to be done," he said."
-
What the heck does he un have too do with the us native americans anyway. From what i have seen on some of the resavation that is the way they prefer too live. The govt. has buillt house and they would rather live in the hogans. There is not suppose to be liquor on the res. but they go out and buy it anyway, If they are so poor how can they afford liquor. A lot of them drive new cars with no insurance and get by with it. I was rear ended by an indian driving a brand new pickup with no insurance nor a license. Of course we are required to buy insurance to cover us and them if they are not insured. what a crock. Oh bye the way i am part indian.
Apparently you know nothing of the plight on Native Americans. They live in the most poverty ridden areas in the country, they are monitored by the bureau of NA affairs, and the reservations have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Much as the government would have you believe otherwise, they are not living the way they want to.
-
"Dozens of Indigenous Peoples showed up at a presentation by the World Intellectual Property Organization at the 11th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues wearing t-shirts that said “World Intellectual Piracy Organization.”
The t-shirts were meant to educate Indigenous Peoples about the threats that the World Intellectual Property Organization poses to Indigenous Peoples’ genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. “It was very important to have a visual representation of what the work of WIPO actually is,” said Debra Harry (Paiute from Pyramid Lake in Nevada), who presented an intervention on behalf of more than a dozen indigenous organizations during WIPO’s presentation at the U.N. on May 10.
WIPO is a specialized body within the United Nations comprised of almost all of its nation-state members. It is “dedicated to the use of intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademarks, designs, etc.) as a means of stimulating innovation and creativity,” according to the WIPO website. WIPO services global registration systems for trademarks, industrial designs and appellations of origin, and a global filing system for patents, the site says. “Most industrialized nations have intellectual property protection systems that are centuries old. Many new and developing countries, however, are in the process of building up their patent, trademark and copyright legal frameworks and systems. With the increasing globalization of trade and rapid changes in technological innovation, WIPO plays a key role in helping these new systems to evolve through treaty negotiation, registration, enforcement, legal and technical assistance and training in various forms,” according to the website.
According to Harry and other indigenous delegates attending the UNPFII, WIPO is in the business of misappropriating indigenous knowledge, resources and aspects of traditional culture and expressions in order to commercialize and profit from them.
“There are many Indigenous Peoples’ in North America who have had a lot of their cultural traditional knowledge misappropriated. We’ve heard many stories of researchers who have come and done linguistics around Indigenous Peoples’ language and documented their oral histories and so on, and then have copyrighted that material and then the community no longer has access to that material. That’s an example of how intellectual property rights can be used to misappropriate Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge,” Harry said. Another example is the misappropriated and degradation of the Anishinaabeg’s traditional natural wild rice in Minnesota that benefits General Mills and General food.
Once the copyright protection or a patent expires, the material goes into the public domain, meaning it is available for free to anyone. “So if WIPO is successful in forcing indigenous knowledge systems into an intellectual property framework and certain aspects of our cultural heritage are usurped into that regime, it’s technically a one-way track out of our communities and out of our control and then put into the public domain. And the only reason you would do that is to commercialize it,” Harry said.
The WIPO representative at the UNPFII clearly indicated that WIPO is not interested in the protection of indigenous knowledge systems, Harry said. “In fact he said that ‘if you’re interested in protections and conservation of traditional knowledge, then WIPO is not for you.’ He actually said that. What he didn’t say conversely, then, is ‘If you’re interested in exploiting and commercializing indigenous knowledge systems, then WIPO is for you.”
Indigenous Peoples and organizations withdrew from active participation in WIPO in February. The organization meets two or three times a year in Geneva. The member states have consistently ignored the indigenous organizations’ demand over the past three or four meeting for full and equal participation in the process or to respect their rights and interests in the process, Harry said. “All our text proposals have fallen off the negotiation table and our rights to participate continue to be diminished, for instance, the amount of money available to support Indigenous Peoples to participate has continued to shrink dramatically so when it shrinks and they’re only able to support five Indigenous People from around the world to attend, that’s hardly fair representation of the worlds’ [370 million] Indigenous Peoples,” Harry said.
In her presentation at the UNPFII, Harry asked the WIPO pointblank, “nder what moral and legal authority do you presume to possess a right to impose an intellectual property rights regime upon Indigenous Peoples and Nations knowledge and resources?” The WIPO representative’s answer was not recorded.
The Global Indigenous Youth Caucus (GIYC) also made a presentation during the session. “WIPO is a contemporary monopolistic manifestation of piracy that magnifies the Doctrine of Discovery and domination. We take on the responsibilities of our ancestors’ legacy at this critical moment in history [and] call for the extinguishment of WIPO’s mandate,” the representative said.
The GIYC statement echoed the call from the organizations that endorsed Harry’s intervention that includes:
Asking the Permanent Forum to request that WIPO amend its rules of procedure to insure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in all processes affecting them and that if WIPO does not change its rules it will be in violation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recommending that the UNPFII make it clear that WIPO has no authority to regulate Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge or to access traditional knowledge and genetic resources, which remain under the control of Indigenous Peoples.
Calling on Indigenous Peoples to stand in solidarity in opposition to the Doctrine of Discovery and withdraw from the WIPO process until it changes its rules.
Recommending that Indigenous Peoples and nations set their own legal standards for the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and cultural expressions.
“We have to continue to fight this whole process by any means,” Harry said. We have to call on states to let them know that Indigenous Peoples do not agree with what they’re doing and we need to see if we can get the mandate withdrawn from WIPO. These are matters that affect indigenous rights and WIPO is not an indigenous rights or human rights body. Their mandate is to promoted intellectual property rights; their income is derived from licenses. It’s purely an economic body.”
Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/16/world-intellectual-property-organization-blasted-for-misappropriation-of-indigenous-knowledge-resources-113359 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/16/world-intellectual-property-organization-blasted-for-misappropriation-of-indigenous-knowledge-resources-113359#ixzz1vSGJ6A3y
-
The UN is impotent and lacks any authority. Generally speaking, anything it does is inept and wasteful. The use of the UN is not in what you see, but in what you don't see -- such as back channel workings. No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.
-
The UN is impotent and lacks any authority. Generally speaking, anything it does is inept and wasteful. The use of the UN is not in what you see, but in what you don't see -- such as back channel workings. No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.
So, we won't be seeing any intervening "blue-helmeted" boots on U.S. ground unless the Senate ratifies it?
-
The UN is impotent and lacks any authority. Generally speaking, anything it does is inept and wasteful. The use of the UN is not in what you see, but in what you don't see -- such as back channel workings. No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.
So, we won't be seeing any intervening "blue-helmeted" boots on U.S. ground unless the Senate ratifies it?
Not even then I don't think as I cannot image the people every tolerating that for any reason. If it gets so bad that your hope lies in the UN, then you are pretty much done for at that point anyways. That does generate some comical mental visuals trying to depict such a thing and the reasons for and the results of.
-
No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.
So, we won't be seeing any intervening "blue-helmeted" boots on U.S. ground unless the Senate ratifies it?
Not even then I don't think as I cannot image the people every tolerating that for any reason. If it gets so bad that your hope lies in the UN, then you are pretty much done for at that point anyways. That does generate some comical mental visuals trying to depict such a thing and the reasons for and the results of.
Recalling the Kent State and certain other previous incidents brought my question to the fore. Although some would wish to see "blue helmets" from other countries interposing themselves in the U.S., I remain doubtful that such would be permitted.
-
No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.
So, we won't be seeing any intervening "blue-helmeted" boots on U.S. ground unless the Senate ratifies it?
Not even then I don't think as I cannot image the people every tolerating that for any reason. If it gets so bad that your hope lies in the UN, then you are pretty much done for at that point anyways. That does generate some comical mental visuals trying to depict such a thing and the reasons for and the results of.
Recalling the Kent State and certain other previous incidents brought my question to the fore. Although some would wish to see "blue helmets" from other countries interposing themselves in the U.S., I remain doubtful that such would be permitted.
I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre. The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur. While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal. I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control. The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.
You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner. I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.
-
I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre. The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur. While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal. I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control. The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.
If your remarks refer to The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm), then I mostly concur - even in regards to the proviso in dealing with looters. Oddly enough, my initial MOS included military police training as well and I've had to consider whether or not I'd fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians if so 'ordered'. Would you have?
You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner. I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.
Before any assumptions are made regarding 'urban warefare training', bear in mind that recent conflicts have emphasized a military need for additonal training in that respect, (and training would reflect combat needs of recent combat operations),
-
I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre. The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur. While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal. I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control. The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.
If your remarks refer to The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm), then I mostly concur - even in regards to the proviso in dealing with looters. Oddly enough, my initial MOS included military police training as well and I've had to consider whether or not I'd fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians if so 'ordered'. Would you have?
I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho. If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?). The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.
You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner. I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.
Before any assumptions are made regarding 'urban warefare training', bear in mind that recent conflicts have emphasized a military need for additonal training in that respect, (and training would reflect combat needs of recent combat operations),
That much I had factored in, but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians. That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself. I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.
-
I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho. If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?). The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.
Coincidentally, I voluntarily enlisted when I was also 17, (had to get a waiver for being under 18, did you?). While I too received such training regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice as you did, for some reason, the Billy Jack movies sprang to mind when another 'boot' asked about having to follow "illegal orders".
That much I had factored in [re: Posse Comitatus Act], but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians. That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself. I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.
You'd just mentioned a scenario, (looting), in which the use of deadly force by the U.S. military against U.S. citizens would be authorized. Another such instance where it is authorized is on 'sensitive' military installations, (in the CONUS and off-shore). Maybe it's just me however, there seems to be a none-too-subtle difference between Posse Comitatus being applied to looters and the same Act being applied to 'quell a domestic rebellion'.
-
I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho. If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?). The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.
Coincidentally, I voluntarily enlisted when I was also 17, (had to get a waiver for being under 18, did you?). While I too received such training regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice as you did, for some reason, the Billy Jack movies sprang to mind when another 'boot' asked about having to follow "illegal orders".
I know I had to get parental consent to join, but I don't actually remember signing up (I think they shocked a year of my memory from me on that first day off the bus -- oh I still remember that though).
That much I had factored in [re: Posse Comitatus Act], but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians. That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself. I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.
You'd just mentioned a scenario, (looting), in which the use of deadly force by the U.S. military against U.S. citizens would be authorized. Another such instance where it is authorized is on 'sensitive' military installations, (in the CONUS and off-shore). Maybe it's just me however, there seems to be a none-too-subtle difference between Posse Comitatus being applied to looters and the same Act being applied to 'quell a domestic rebellion'.
I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties. This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus. Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about. You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives). It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military. That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders. I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air. Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.
-
I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties. This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus. Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about. You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives). It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military. That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders. I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air. Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.
Unless you're insinuating that Obama is such an "ideologue" as you are concerned about, it may be that such a 'threat' is more likely to emanate from a repubulican, (or ultra-conservative), executive office. Be that as it may, there are at least some checks and balances in place to avert such a scenario, (even with a preceding "national emergency/martial law" declaration).
-
I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties. This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus. Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about. You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives). It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military. That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders. I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air. Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.
Unless you're insinuating that Obama is such an "ideologue" as you are concerned about, it may be that such a 'threat' is more likely to emanate from a repubulican, (or ultra-conservative), executive office. Be that as it may, there are at least some checks and balances in place to avert such a scenario, (even with a preceding "national emergency/martial law" declaration).
I don't think Obama would do it as he likely knows it wouldn't get him any votes and that is all he seems to be concerned about at the moment. If he has a second term I could easily see him doing that though as he is one of those "greater good / ends justify means" types and a true ideologue. I don't see any Republicans that would cause me concerns at the moment, but I have in the past, but generally speaking I see the bigger threat coming from Democrats.
Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw. Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?
-
....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?
-
Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw. Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?
There's no such thing as coincidence ... er, I mean - yeah, it's purely a synchronistic happenstance, that's it. After all, why would Elon Musk or anyone associated with him be posting to an FC forum? What are the odds? Nonetheless, I remain interested to see if the "Dragon" sucessfully docks with the ISS.
http://fca.sh/18je3
-
....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?
That's exactly the u.c.r., (ultra-conservative republican), who sprang to mind in regards to the possibility under discussion.
http://fca.sh/18je3
-
....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?
He is more of a RINO than a Republican and he is certainly not a conservative. There are loads of Democrats in front of him on my concern list though.
-
Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw. Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?
There's no such thing as coincidence ... er, I mean - yeah, it's purely a synchronistic happenstance, that's it. After all, why would Elon Musk or anyone associated with him be posting to an FC forum? What are the odds? Nonetheless, I remain interested to see if the "Dragon" sucessfully docks with the ISS.
http://fca.sh/18je3
I don't know, I am friends with some people that most would consider well above my station. I hope it goes off flawlessly, and hopefully you will not be known as the guy with the moniker of the vessel that ripped a big holed into the ISS.
-
I don't know, I am friends with some people that most would consider well above my station. I hope it goes off flawlessly, and hopefully you will not be known as the guy with the moniker of the vessel that ripped a big holed into the ISS.
Flawless would be preferable to flawed, aye. The moniker was mine decades before the 'Dragon' spacecraft however, I did wonder what happened to "falcon1-9" briefly ... let Elon Musk pay for any damages until I start making multiple-millions from FC. :-X
http://fca.sh/18je3