Scary stuff

[ILoveReptiles]

Check out these articles:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=23062
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1280.htm

There are no words. Ugh. (Pay close attention to the Israeli company that's contracted to expedite construction of modular internment (concentration) camps. Israeli Prison Systems, Ltd.)

[DJFyrewolf36]

That IS scary but sadly I expect this sort of thing. Hopefully we, as free citizens can stand up and retain our rights as we have done in the past.

[ILoveReptiles]

Well all I can say is we better do something soon, because those rights? They're being eroded little by little every day.

[Lady's Human]

Just to bring a little historic perspective to this.........

When TB was the demon we were battling on the public health front, people were routinely confined to sanitariums for treatment. Given the state of medicine at the time, this meant being kept comfortable until you died of the disease or you were one of the lucky few whose body fought off the infection.

The articles referenced are at best loosely based on the truth. In quoting 1980's era laws regarding FEMA, the authors ignore the many changes that have been made since then, and also ignore Posse Comitatus, which prevents federal troops from being used in law enforcement duties. Neither article is balanced in any way, and both are allowing their views of the current administration to override the facts of the situation.

[DJFyrewolf36]

I do agree that the first artcle does reflect bias. (I don't think any news agencency can be completely non-biased...humans will always be humans) and after reading the second more closely I doubt that the policies outlined would be put into place hastily. The policies outlined are accurate though, for a very sirious national emergency.

I should have said in my earlier post that if something that required the implementation of martal law were to happen, it would be scary to see these policies implemented.

The US is the pinicle of human rights. I don't think that people will be placed in detention centers for no justifiable reason any time soon. It's scary to think about them being there, though.

[Lady's Human]

The second article is either poorly written, poorly researched, or poorly edited, more than likely a combination of all three. Considering that the REX 84 exercise that it continuously references was 21 years ago, and federal law regarding FEMA and the military has changed enormously in the intervening years, one would expect a bridge between the two, detailing the changes. The is no bridge of any sort in the article. It just jumps from REX 84 (if REX 84 was so secretive, how did the author find out about it, and some of the theoretical assumptions of REX 84 as listed are unconstitutional at best) then to present day in one leap. Laws, military regulations and court decisions have changed much in the last 21 years. The reason I mention the unconstitutionality of some of the premises of REX 84 is very simple. United States Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen swear an oath to UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We do NOT blindly follow orders, and are briefed on a yearly basis on what constitutes a lawful order vs. an unlawful order.

Another piece of the article which shows poor research is the following quote....

" Waco, where Army tanks equipped with flame throwers were involved in the final conflagration."

The "tanks" in question were CEV's, combat engineer vehicles. They do NOT mount flamethrowers, the US hasn't had a flame thrower in inventory since the Vietnam era. That quote alone also eludes to the writer's bias on the issue at hand.

Yes, it is eminently possible to keep your personal opinion out of your writing. It's called journalism, as practiced by SOME publications in the current media era, but not many. My mother routinely kvetched at reporters and editors at the newspaper where she once worked, and HATED what passes for jounalism now.The Wall Street Journal (it routinely takes issue with politicians on both sides of the aisle), and The Economist are two examples of publications which have editors who do not let the reporter's bias twist the article. Opinions have a place, and that place is on the editorial page, not the front page.