Subject:
|
Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:41:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
341 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In the worst-case scenario that you seem to be imagining, the gubmint calls a
> > state of emergency and the president, through FEMA and the military, controls
> > the nation without the input of congress. How long do you suppose we would
> > support such a thing? Ultimately they'd need our support and even the normally
> > passive Americans would not let that go.
> >
> > Chris
>
> I guess I'm not quite so optimistic. The fact The People have allowed tanks
> at a public event at all is disturbing.
Not really. It would be disturbing if this were standard procedure in peace
time (let's not forget "W" declared war against unknown targets). Or if it
kept occurring forever, under the excuse "The war is long, and the end is
unforseeble (sp?)".
There is more to worry in the vague declarations of the President than in
the mere presence of tanks - the tanks were visibly sitting there, but one
knows *nothing* of what goes on in Pennsylvania Avenue.
> Of course, there have probably been
> situations like this before, but these security measures seem to occur more
> frequently...even without the 9/11 excuse.
Maybe a possible explanation is the increased military devices: if a
situation like this occurred in, say, the '30s, there would probably be less
tanks to show off in a similar event. Because it *is* show off, noone in his
right mind would believe a tank would fire to the middle of the crowd!
> As for how long would we support such a thing? So long as the majority
> remains ignorant about the facts, I believe it could go on for quite some
> time. After all, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax are for the
> benefit of The People right? So why not add some military security for the
> general public's safety?
It depends on the way you view the Police force. If it is too heterogenous
(i.e., differs from county to county), one may argue the military is needed
as a homogenous, reliable force. Federal, therefore. And since it is up to
the federal government to assure public security against *foreign* threats...
I do get your point, I think. However, the general public tends to think of
military protection as too expensive on the long run (see Israel). It is not
to say it is or not needed, just to say the relation "cost-benefit" is too
weak. And no government can fight the public oppinion/"purse" forever.
If this situation remains unchanged in the future, THEN you have plenty of
reasons to suspect.
> I've read/heard from various news outlets, some more mainstream than others,
> that Bush intends for local authorities and emergency response to be better
> equipped and have faster response time. I'm curious as to what exactly he
> intends. Emergency units already have siginificant authority during an
> emergency, and I don't think the authoities need any further power.
Pure rhetoric?
It would not be the first time one thing is said and another is done. Bush
may re-organize his policies at any time, and still say the same about the
intentions.
There is some contradiction, however: to increase the power of local
authorities is to lose power - is Bish ready to give up some powers? Puzzling.
Pedro
(BTW, who won the superbowl?)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
| (...) I guess I'm not quite so optimistic. The fact The People have allowed tanks at a public event at all is disturbing. Of course, there have probably been situations like this before, but these security measures seem to occur more (...) (22 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
