The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 24, 2012, 03:54 PM   #1
Famas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: French, currently living in US
Posts: 126
Military to suppress Tea Party uprising - article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelp...partner=obtech

As the title implies, the writer examines two authors who have written about a theoretical scenario in which Tea Party militias instigate an armed uprising.

The writer explains that the authors try to grasp how feasible this scenario is and whether or not a government reaction would make things better or worse.

I did not bring this up to discuss rebellion or tactics of this nature. I bring this to your attention because I find it to be an unbelievably irresponsible piece of so-called "journalism". I've only read Forbes a few times for articles I've found relating to my line of work, but I honestly cannot believe this adolescent tripe is even considered worthy, let alone allowed in print.

Maybe this is an aspect of American journalism I'm not aware of. I realize the freedom of speech issues here, and I'm not aware of Forbes political leanings enough.

Your thoughts?
Famas is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 04:29 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,046
According to the article the author quotes:

Quote:
Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.
We've already got credibility problems here. The Insurrection Act wasn't a piece of Reconstruction legislation; it was written in 1807. Furthermore, the idea has nothing to do with "bad feelings" as it does the Founders' suspicion of standing armies.

Quote:
Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.
If that's the case, then there would be some real questions about the will of the local people, and we'd have an interesting 10th Amendment case study. It doesn't automatically entail a military response.

The idea that "Tea Party" keeps getting mentioned as opposed to a generic insurrection scenario is somewhat telling.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 05:45 PM   #3
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 16,593
Agree with Tom. It's rather disingenuous to prepare orders against a group that is virtually a non threat as opposed to the forty-seven million strong Free Stuff Army. When their EBTs run dry because JP Morgan's computer has another glitch that won't be fixed soon, they'll riot (or as the media politely phrases it, flash mob) and take whatever they want.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 07:17 PM   #4
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,516
I did not bother to read the article.

As I recall,the Tea Party was about the folks being dissatisfied with the actions of both parties regarding irresponsible spending and over reaching government

They made a point of saying so to their representatives when they returned to the districts.

The Tea Party played a very significant roll in taking the House back in the 2010 election.Without that Tea Party effort,today one party would control thje Presidency,the Senate,and the House.

IMO,those projecting demonic images upon the Tea Party to discredit them are far more sinister than citizens who engage to support the Constitution and responsibility.

I hope folks will become familiar enough with Alynski's "Rules for Radicals" to recognize when these techniques are being used and then disspell the effect.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 08:24 PM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,046
We won't be getting into broad Tea Party politics, but the fact that they, of all people, were singled out is telling.

I've seen official scenarios involving "extreme right-wing militias" and white nationalists, but that's a bit more broad. Specifying a specific and diverse group with no history of threatening violence, stockpiling weapons, or conducting paramilitary exercises smacks of having a petty political ax to grind.

I don't imagine the powers that be will be taking this very seriously.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 08:39 PM   #6
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Forbes is justifying martial law

That's good.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 08:41 PM   #7
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
The Political elite of both parties are deathly afraid of the Tea Party. I am not surprised that Forbes, Republican establishment, would publish such an irresponsible piece.

For some years now, I have been concerned about the military exercises which are being conducted in our cities.

Frankly, I do not wish to see a repeat of the 1967 Detroit riots. For those of you who do not remember, LBJ dispatched a Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. The Brigade, newly rotated from Vietnam, used the same tactics they employed in Vietnam. This included firing 106mm recoil less Rifles into apartment buildings.

At the same time I understand that the NG was poorly trained and unable to cope with the uprising.
ltc444 is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 08:57 PM   #8
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 627
Tom Servo: "The idea that "Tea Party" keeps getting mentioned as opposed to a generic insurrection scenario is somewhat telling."

Could you elaborate some more, please? I think it is just part of the demonization of the Tea Party (a loosely coordinated group) that both parties seem to fear at some level.

If you don't want to do it publicly, I'd love to see your response in any form.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old November 24, 2012, 09:06 PM   #9
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,010
I believe the view from the top is that your only value to society is the profits you are making for business and the taxes you pay to Government.

If you don't pay your taxes and get to be so troublesome that business profits are effected, they will call out the military on you.

The US Military was called out and killed strikers in all sorts of labor disputes in the nineteenth century. No reason to believe that they won't do the same now days.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 03:40 AM   #10
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Tom Servo, I didn't read the Forbes article, and I didn't look up the Insurrection Act.

I just want to point out that the law restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement, resultant from resentment of Reconstruction, was "Posse Commitatus."
MLeake is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 07:04 AM   #11
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
I am surprised that anyone has taken the secession petitions as serious attempts to secede rather than what they actually are, protests against the way the federal government is being run. To see that Forbes, a purported reputable publication, published such an article is somewhat disappointing, to say the least. It appears Forbes was either "scraping the bottom of the barrel" for material or having "amateur hour" in the publishing department.

As for the US military using force against American civilians, the thought is somewhat frightening that the federal government would see the need to hold power so important that it would kill its own citizens. We have seen it before in this country, and if you watch the news you can see it any day of the week.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine.

I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC!
KMAX is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 11:59 AM   #12
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
We are going off the rails quickly. I just deleted a post suggesting an insurrection. Sigh.

Armed force has been used against citizens quite a bit. However, some folks think it is ok if it isn't their insurrection.

Don't go there.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old November 25, 2012, 01:03 PM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Could you elaborate some more, please? I think it is just part of the demonization of the Tea Party (a loosely coordinated group) that both parties seem to fear at some level.
I agree. It's like drafting up such a scenario in case "Bob Dole Voters" or "Fox News Fans" should start a militia. It smacks of political bias on the part of the writers.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 02:18 PM   #14
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Well, it was usually the militia that was called out to supress strikers and that was well into the 20th century. They were still being called the militia, too. Federal troops were called out when the militia couldn't handle things, same as in the 18th century.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 05:25 PM   #15
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BlueTrain, the National Guard, per se, is NOT the militia, though you do love to argue such in any number of threads, despite the legal definition of the militia having been cited in any number of those same threads.

The National Guard, when not in a mobilized (IE Federalized) status, does not fall under the restrictions of Posse Commitatus, because the Guard is considered a State level organization when it is not mobilized.

This is why we often see Guard units called up to deter looters after a natural disaster, but we do not see Regular or Reserve units (which are always considered Federal troops).

Note that Posse Commitatus does not apply to non-domestic law enforcement actions, which is why the US Navy can assist the US Coast Guard in drug enforcement actions in international waters.
MLeake is offline  
Old November 25, 2012, 08:58 PM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
Weren't Federal troops and federalized Guard units used to enforce desegregation orders in the South?

Where are we going - if there was a armed insurrection - federal forces would respond. So what?

If Forbes wants to write articles about hypothetical responses to nuts - Yawn.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:13 AM   #17
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Glenn, Federal troops can't be used in a domestic law enforcement role without a lot of hurdles being jumped. Guard units can be mobilized by the governor of the state in which they are based. There is a major difference.

Also, in the desegregation cases you are talking about, the Army had to be called in because the state's Guard units were being mobilized to thwart Federal law. That created a very different set of circumstances.
MLeake is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:20 AM   #18
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
Glenn E. Meyer Weren't Federal troops and federalized Guard units used to enforce desegregation orders in the South?
The Arkansas National Guard was drawn into the conflict when Governor Orval Faubus ordered them to "Preserve the Peace" by turning away the black students who were attempting to integrate into Little Rock's Central High School. President Dwight D. Eisenhower reacted to this use of the Guard to foil the court-ordered integration by federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard and using it to protect the nine black students integrating Central High School.
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef

Country don't mean dumb.
Steven King. The Stand
egor20 is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 08:05 AM   #19
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
"Federal troops can't be used in a domestic law enforcement role without a lot of hurdles being jumped."

If there is a general "armed insurrection," by an organized group, and depending on its size and its scope, it may well rise above the level of a law enforcement matter and into the scope of military response required.

At that point, posse commitatus is a moot point.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 08:06 AM   #20
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
The legal definition of the militia includes the organized militia, known as the National Guard. It is public law. It has been that way since 1903. There is also the unorganized militia. It also further defines it as consisting of those at least 17 years of age and under 45.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 12:12 PM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
Ike also sent the 101st Airborne, according to a search. Also doesn't the new version of the Insurrection Act allow the use against the Tea Party or whomever tries to lead an insurrection?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:18 PM   #22
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BlueTrain, including the National Guard is not the same as being limited to the National Guard, but you frequently seem to imply that.
MLeake is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:20 PM   #23
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Mike, my original reference to Posse Commitatus was in response to Tom Servo, who didn't seem to realize that one of the domestic limitations on the military WAS a reaction to reconstruction.

I based that assumption on his reference to the Insurrection Act of 1807, and dismissal of any impact of Reconstruction on military employment.

Armed rebellions are a different ballgame, starting with Shay's Rebellion (suppressed by Army troops under Washington, IIRC).
MLeake is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:38 PM   #24
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Mike, my original reference to Posse Commitatus was in response to Tom Servo, who didn't seem to realize that one of the domestic limitations on the military WAS a reaction to reconstruction.
I was speaking in the context of the original article, which seems to tie the Insurrection Act to Reconstruction.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 02:40 PM   #25
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
Um, what difference, if any, is there between an armed rebellion and an insurrection?
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14068 seconds with 9 queries