The Domestic Spying Renaissance

"John Ashcroft's decision to unshackle the FBI's domestic surveillance powers seem perfectly reasonable... if you forget why the bureau was shackled in the first place.
By Mark Rasch Jun 24, 2002

Earlier this month, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that he was essentially removing the shackles from the FBI, and permitting agents to engage in surveillance -- including certain Internet surveillance - - of political, social or ethnic groups, without either probable cause or reasonable suspicion that any of these groups had been or were likely to be engaged in any form of criminal activity."

Rest of article here: http://www.securitynewsportal.com/index.shtml . Pete

 

Pete

It looks like you started another eye opening thread here

Does Aschcroft really think that sort of thing wouldn't be met by
anti-evesdropping techniques?
The Militia was formed in the early American days to prevent the government from taking the peoples rights away.

Viva Cyber Militia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

RIGHT ON, controler! (Is the Militia the same as the National Guard?)

 

Equal rights I guess, Americans should be allowed the same level of surveillance from the US gov that the rest of the world enjoys

 

But we the people are not going to let them

 

lol

But what surveillance are you talking about? I don't see any...

-javacool

 

Working off the top of me head here, so I'll probably get some of it wrong.

No, the militia is not really the same as the National Guard (as it exists today).

When the U. S. Constitution (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation) was first written and even when the first ten amendments (our Bill of Rights) was subsequently added, there was considerable antipathy to the idea of a standing, professional Army.

With apologies to my many friends in the UK, there was considerable antipathy towards the concept of a professional standing Army (guess who that would have been! )and even towards that of professional soldiers (ummm, Hessians, if you will).

The alternative proposed (and subsequently adopted) was that of a standing militia under the control of the individual States. And in this context, I believe the state militias were originally construed to represent all able-bodied males of good standing between the ages of about 17 and 45, IIRC. That's what the Second Amendment was all about, regardless of what the NRA would now like for you to believe. Specifically, it was intended to ensure that neither the Federal nor the State Governments could pass laws that would effectively negate the concept of a militia (and note the reference to "well-regulated").

Nice idea, but it went down the tubes during the War of 1812 (oh, those Brits! ) Shortly thereafter, the U. S. adopted the concept of a small, professional National Army, trained and equipped to deal with the realities of the nineteenth century. (At this time, around 1835? I think) the State militias continued to exist in terms of the original concepts, but they were then understood to exist to deal with the context of civil emergencies within the individual States.

Then we went through this thing called (alternatively) the Civil War or the War Between the States. When the dust settled, we had a real (but still relatively small) professional National Army. The effectiveness (and efficacy) of the State militias further degenerated. They simply weren't capable of dealing with these issues. Somewhere between 1835 and 1935, the State militias degenerated into nothing more than an armed rabble, untrained, under-equipped, and of dubious dependability. See the many stories dealing with the posse comitatus.

Even the individual States then went to the idea of a formal State Militia, with identifiable members, a chain of command, and appropriate military training.

At some point (and I believe this was after World War II), the National Guard was formed as an agglomeration of the various State Militias. It then became the 'reserve' for the Active and Reserve National Armies. Nominally, the National Guard (in peacetime) remained under the control of the various State Governors, but they were subject to call-up if required by the National Government. (See the Nationalization of the Guard detachments in Arkansas and Alabama during the 1950s and 1960s in response to civil rights issues. This was primarily used to prevent the Guard from being used to enforce State-level judgments that had already been rejected by the National Government and the National Courts, but you get the idea, I suspect.) In essence, at this point, the National Government could remove the state militia from the control of the State Governor, if this was felt to be necessary.

For the most part, that got us through the 1970s and 1980s, but then we got to the 1990s. And at this point, the Guard really, truly became the 'reserve' for the National military services. They were used, as required, in the Gulf War and now again in the response to 9-11.

Now, there are several issues that need to be recognized here. First, the Nation rejected the idea of vigilanteeism (so much for those lynchings made so famous in early Clint Eastwood films). If we were to be a nation of laws and not of summary justice, that had to go. (I might note that the Ku Klux Klan tried to pass itself off as a militia in those areas in which it operated. And I happen to know a bit about that.) There weren't going to be any Star Chambers or Spanish Inquisitions ( an historical fact apparently mystifying to our current Attorney General Danforth, even though it was just fine with Stalin and Hitler). Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, the infamous 'red squads' in LA, Chicago, and New York City didn't have any problems with this, either. After all, they knew they were 'good' people trying to defend America (even if they have to destroy it in the process). Why, some people may even remember what the FBI and the US Army were doing during the '50s and '60s to protect us from ourselves. I don't think we need to go back there; Danforth apparently feels that's a great idea.

Secondly, you will note that the 'nationalization' of the National Guard expressly excluded the 'nationalization' of state and local (domestic) law enforcement authorities. And there've been many occasions on which the use of the FBI as a 'national police force' has been rejected -- again, for good reason, in my own personal opinion. If there's a 'national police force' (and I don't really care if you call it the Ministry of Internal Security, the KGB, or the Gestapo) with no judicial review (which seems to be Mr. Danforth's current position), then we're on the path to tyranny. Indeed, many of Mr. Danforth's arguments remind me quite vividly of these arguments and those made by the early Roman Caesars as they explained why they needed such powers -- powers which, when granted, effectively destroyed the Roman Republic. In time, I suspect we shall discover whether the American people prefer a tyranny to the representative democracy that we currently enjoy. I suspect our experience (in the event of the former decision) will largely parallel those of the Roman Republic.

 

The 34th Red Bull Division had the most combat days of any other
divisions in WWII. Some had as many as 600 days.
Can you imagine continuous fighting for that many days.
I think the Red Bull goes all the way back to George Washington.
And I believe they were malitia at one early point.
I can also tell you the 175th Field Artillary Division were the first Americans in engage the Gernmans in WWII.
Futhermore there is a shell casing located at Fort Rippley with all the names of those that fired that first Artillary round 105 MM
I can also tell you the World Heavy weight wrestling champ was in that same battery along with his brother, which my parents named me after.
If you saw the movie Saving Private Rhyan, Then multiply what they went through in thaqt movie by 100 and that is what the 34th went through during WWII.
Oh yea one more thing, All of Darbies Rangers were composed of the 34 th Red Bull.