US Army monitoring civilians ..... again!


PDA






WT
June 15, 2004, 04:00 PM
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
June 21 issue -

Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants.

Ever since the 1970s, when Army intel agents were caught snooping on antiwar protesters, military intel agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States. But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: "Current counterterrorism operations," the report explains, which require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States." DIA officials say they mainly want the provision so they can more easily question American businessmen and college students who travel abroad. But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman concedes the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States. "It's a new world we live in," he says. "We have to do what is necessary for force protection." Among those pushing for the provision, sources say, were officials at northcom, the new Colorado-based command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to oversee "homeland defense." Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic "law enforcement." But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming "mission creep." "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night."



WT comments - I remember this happening in the 1970's. One of my buddies was drafted into the Military Police Corps. After training he was sent back to college and posed as a graduate student, reporting on the activities of campus activists. This was during Vietnam and things were kind of strange back then. Anyway, my buddy got his masters out of the deal.

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army monitoring civilians ..... again!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
7.62FullMetalJacket
June 15, 2004, 04:34 PM
I believe that this activity is strictly prohibited by law. A committee in the Senate can not change that fact. Both houses of congress must approve, and the President must approve, for a change like this to become law.

MrAcheson
June 15, 2004, 04:39 PM
The regular military is strictly prohibited from acting as civil law enforcement by the Posse Commitatus act. Exceptions can be made for National Guard though so there are loopholes. On the other hand I don't believe they are explicitly forbidden from operating inside the US the way that the CIA is, but I am not an expert on this.

Destructo6
June 15, 2004, 06:12 PM
Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill
Did they pull the Jedi mind trick or point to the sky, saying "What's that!?" while they dropped the provision onto a pile of paperwork, unseen?

It had to be a congressman doing the slipping. Whose name is associated with this, assuming it is true?

R.H. Lee
June 15, 2004, 06:24 PM
Once again, it is (or should be) a matter of nationality. Non-citizens are not (or should not) be entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens. If you are a visitor to this country you may be subject to extraordinary scrutiny. If you don't like it, go home.

Standing Wolf
June 15, 2004, 07:10 PM
Non-citizens are not (or should not) be entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens. If you are a visitor to this country you may be subject to extraordinary scrutiny. If you don't like it, go home.

Amen!

stevelyn
June 15, 2004, 10:26 PM
Non-citizens are not (or should not be) entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens.

Well...so much for all men being created equal and being endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator.:scrutiny:

burbanite
June 16, 2004, 12:53 AM
My perspective as a "non citizen".

Regardless of how many feel about this situation, (me included), I really have to accept extra scrutiny as part of being foreign. I would hope and expect that the government is doing all in its power to combat terrorism here in the US and, unfortunately for those of us that are yet to be citizens, that may entail a tap on the shoulder now and then. So be it.

cropcirclewalker
June 16, 2004, 01:06 AM
Non-citizens are not (or should not) be entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens. Wow! Does that mean that slavery is legal again?

Perhaps a reevaluation is in order.

Ellery Holt
June 17, 2004, 07:59 AM
WT Writes:
...posed as a graduate student, reporting on the activities of campus activists. Anyway, my buddy got his masters out of the deal.

Not for free, he didn't. I say he paid a very high price for that degree.

TarpleyG
June 17, 2004, 08:38 AM
Well...so much for all men being created equal and being endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator.
All fine and dandy until those in question want to eradicate you and every one you know based on some far out religious belief. Then it becomes 'survival of the fittest' and 'all's fair in love and war.'

Greg

atek3
April 13, 2005, 11:38 PM
stevelyn: what you said.

atek3

Solo
April 14, 2005, 12:01 AM
All fine and dandy until those in question want to eradicate you and every one you know based on some far out religious belief. Then it becomes 'survival of the fittest' and 'all's fair in love and war.'

So, basically, anything goes, no basic moral principals worth upholding?

EghtySx
April 14, 2005, 12:06 AM
So, basically, anything goes, no basic moral principals worth upholding?

Well, we are at war right?

ajkurp
April 14, 2005, 12:22 AM
George the Younger says so. But congress has never declared war. First, it was over "WMD". When it was proved beyond any doubt that WMD were not possessed by Saddam, the reason was given, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy." And, "We're spreading Democracy to the Middle East."

Our founders gave us a constitutional republic because they knew that democracy was nothing more than mob rule.

Well it seems that America's founding principles and Constitution be damned, we've got a mission.

RevDisk
April 14, 2005, 12:30 AM
WT comments - I remember this happening in the 1970's. One of my buddies was drafted into the Military Police Corps. After training he was sent back to college and posed as a graduate student, reporting on the activities of campus activists. This was during Vietnam and things were kind of strange back then. Anyway, my buddy got his masters out of the deal.

Indeed. Your buddy might have gotten an education. But he lost something very important when he turned on his own citizens. It is not the job of the US Army to police Americans. It is doubly so not the job of the US Army to actively spy on Americans. The fact that your buddy did not question this likely illegal order says much about him. But he got his 30 pieces of silver...

We have an FBI. It's the FBI's job to investigate federal crimes.


Once again, it is (or should be) a matter of nationality. Non-citizens are not (or should not) be entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens. If you are a visitor to this country you may be subject to extraordinary scrutiny. If you don't like it, go home.

Increased scrutiny, sure. Also, equal rights. Sorry, Constitution says all are equal before the law. If you dislike this, you can attempt to amend the Constitution.

Jeff White
April 14, 2005, 01:06 AM
Don't believe everything you read...even in a publication like Newsweek. As late as 2003 when I retired, EVERY Army organization in CONUS that had ANY kind of organic intelligence capability (and this was interpreted by the local IG to mean every battalion staff that had an S2 {intellegence} section) had to maintain a progam that ensured that NO information was gathered and recorded on anything that was going on in the civilian community or anyone. Failure to maintain and conduct this program which consisted of breifings of all personnel on the requirements of the law and inspection of the files to ensure that the law was complied with would cause you to fail that part of the compliance portion of an Organizational Readiness Inspection. Not a good thing for the commander.

So I have to wonder if this incident really happened or it's something the author made up to dramatise his actual point, that there was pending legislation to change the law to allow this activity.

Jeff

Vernal45
April 14, 2005, 01:40 AM
So, basically, anything goes, no basic moral principals worth upholding?


War, which we are involved in against terrorism, begins when moral principals are not followed. The Terrorists do not follow any moral principals at all. SO, why should we. If you fight a war, you fight it to win (which I think we are not doing, but thats another discussion). If you are a foreign student, tourist, worker, you do not, IMO, have the protections of a US citizen.

c_yeager
April 14, 2005, 03:36 AM
Non-citizens are not (or should not be) entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens.

Actually they are, and they should be. Legal citizens have the very same constitutional rights and protections as everyone else. Only when it comes to the right to vote is citizenship required by the constitution. Thats just one of those sticky things that came about when we decided that our rights came by virtue of our humanity rather than our social standing.

odysseus
April 14, 2005, 03:47 AM
Thats just one of those sticky things that came about when we decided that our rights came by virtue of our humanity rather than our social standing.

Well said. Rousseau would smile...

RevDisk
April 14, 2005, 03:57 AM
War, which we are involved in against terrorism, begins when moral principals are not followed. The Terrorists do not follow any moral principals at all. SO, why should we. If you fight a war, you fight it to win (which I think we are not doing, but thats another discussion). If you are a foreign student, tourist, worker, you do not, IMO, have the protections of a US citizen.

You should learn the phrase "Pyrrhic victory", Vernal45.

If the key to winning the "War on (some) Terrorism" is gutting the Constitution, destroying our border defenses, treating all citizens as "guilty until proven innocent", detaining people with no trials or evidence, etc etc... Have we won?


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Gee, silly me. I thought 'all men' meant all men (and women). Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to everyone according to the folks that set up our country. America has a right to screen foreign students, tourists, workers, etc. We have a right to increase scrutiny. However, foreigners are still accorded human rights. They have a right to a fair trial and due process. If you don't like this, you're welcome to try to rewrite the Declaration of Independence.

Careful what you wish for, Vernal45, you might just get it.

Leatherneck
April 14, 2005, 07:49 AM
If this did indeed happen, then the question is whether the Army spooks were acting in a LEO capacity or a counter-intelligence capacity. The latter is legitimate if your enemies have infiltrated your homeland. The former should be left to the FBI.

In the age of global terrorism aided by world-wide instant communications and essentially unbounded international travel, these actions become a matter of self-defense for the guys who will pay the ultimate price.

TC

Fred Fuller
April 14, 2005, 09:45 AM
http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2004/aas/200403/20040316utarmy.html

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Request for names from UT conference was inappropriate, Army says
Intelligence personnel to get refresher training, officials say

By Erik Rodriguez

Military intelligence agents acted inappropriately when they requested a roster of people attending a conference on Islamic law at the University of Texas, an Army investigation has found.

In a statement issued Friday by the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, officials said they would provide refresher training for all U.S. Army intelligence personnel as a result of the investigation after a Feb. 4 conference entitled "Islam and the Law: A Question of Sexism" at the UT Law School.

An Army commander dispatched the agents to UT on Feb. 9, after two Fort Hood-based Army lawyers who attended the conference said they were persistently questioned by another participant about their identities.

The Army lawyers reported that the "tone and repetition of the questions" made them suspicious, according to the investigation.

The lawyers, who had attended the conference to prepare them for deployments in Southwest Asia, acted appropriately in reporting their concerns, said Deborah Parker, an Army spokeswoman. But the decision to deploy agents to get information about the attendees was made without consulting the Virginia-based Army intelligence command, she said.

"They should have reported the incident to their higher headquarters," Parker said Monday. "That is where the lapse occurred."

With few exceptions, Army agents do not have the authority to investigate civilians, Parker said. The matter has been forwarded to the FBI, which has jurisdiction, she said.

The agents went to the Law School and properly identified themselves, officials said. When event organizers refused to give information to the agents, they left and stopped pursuing the matter.

Organizers reported the incident to The Daily Texan, the UT student newspaper, saying the agents had been intimidating. Within two weeks, several groups had come forward to condemn the Army's actions, including event organizers, the National Lawyers Guild and the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Parker said investigators believed the agents acted in a professional manner.

"Our counterintelligence people are very serious about what they do," she said. "Their job is very important."

Army investigators had not decided whether any of the agents or the commander involved would be reprimanded or disciplined, Parker said.

On Monday, UT officials and students praised the action by Army officials.

"I think that this event and its aftermath sent a strong message to the military that while we, as citizens, take matters of national security very seriously, we will not respond to bullying," said Jessica Biddle, a UT law student and co-editor of the Texas Journal of Women and the Law.

Law School Dean Bill Powers said, "We obviously support academic conferences for our students and the public, and this conference was a very effective and appropriate conference on the role of women in Islamic law."

DMF
April 14, 2005, 10:12 AM
The regular military is strictly prohibited from acting as civil law enforcement by the Posse Commitatus act. Exceptions can be made for National Guard though so there are loopholes.Not exactly true. The Army and Air Force are restricted by 18USC1385 (Posse Comitatus Act) from conducting civilian LE, BUT that statute does allow Congress to create exceptions. 10USC375 of the US Code has prohibited direct participation by all active duty military personnel (not just Army and Air Force) in search, seizure and arrest of civilians. However, Title 10 also has several sections which allow active duty military personnel to participate in civilian LE in support roles only, under specific circumstances. As mentioned earlier 18USC1385 allows for those exceptions.

The National Guard, when under the control of the state, is not restricted by 18USC1385, and therefore we have seen many occasions where Governors of various states have used Guard troops to assist in civilian LE.

WT
April 14, 2005, 10:23 AM
There have been many cases where the regular armed forces of the US enforced civilian law. Off the top of my head I can remember a brigade of the 101st Airborne Division being sent to Detroit as well as regular Marines being used in South Central Los Angeles.

The use of the regular military for law enforcement goes back a long time, to the Whiskey Rebellion if I remember correctly.

I am sure that during the Vietnam War thousands of US soldiers were in undercover roles at US college campuses, infiltrating radical organizations.

rock jock
April 14, 2005, 10:28 AM
Wow! Does that mean that slavery is legal again?
He didn't say they weren't entitled to any rights. :rolleyes:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 14, 2005, 11:28 AM
Well...so much for all men being created equal and being endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator

Aliens shouldn't have the same rights as citizens since they don't have the same responsibilities.

Different treatment for aliens is natural and justifiable. Let them go home if they don't like it.

Delmar
April 14, 2005, 11:33 AM
But congress has never declared war.

No, they did not declare war-Congress handed the President a blank check with which to prosecute the war. That way, they could puff out their chests if it went right, or condemn the President if it went against public opinion. For background information and precedent-see Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Lots of backbone in Congress, don'cha know!

The sitting Presidents have involved America in more undeclared wars than you may know. A lot more.......

Although the War Powers Act passed in the 1970's limited the President's ability to keep troops on the ground past 90 days without advise and consent from the congress, every President has had the power to initiate war, starting with George Washington, before advising congress.

When the constitution was written, Congress was given the power to declare war, and the President was given the power to prosecute and command it as Commander in Chief.

Funny story about Washington the President-he once went to the Senate to gather advise and consent as to a particular treaty. Apparently, there was a whole lot of gum-flapping and not much was getting done, to the point where the President stormed out of the conference, muttering that he would be damned if he ever went to the congress before acting on his authority. Thus, the President has never been required to go to the congress prior to committing troops.

Gee, what do you suppose Gen. George would do if he had to talk to the likes of Teddy Kennedy? WWF would have some serious competition, me thinks :D

President Washington virtually set every precedent for every future commander in chief this country has ever elected. He's a good read-too bad they don't teach the depth of the man these days.

Sam
April 14, 2005, 11:38 AM
Pretty inept work by the Intel tyopes on this in any case. Any idiot in Intel stupid enough to ask instead of just scamming a copy of the attendee list ain't bright enough to have the job.

Any bright 14 year old could have got a list if he wanted it without asking anyone and without breaking any laws.

Sam

Delmar
April 14, 2005, 11:41 AM
Sam-they didn't use their secret decoder ring, did they?

Ezekiel
April 14, 2005, 11:50 AM
All fine and dandy until those in question want to eradicate you and every one you know based on some far out religious belief.

You mean, like Christianity? :evil:

You've got to love Manifest Destiny, history, and our own self-righteousness! Now, if I could only locate some innocent Japanese to "detain"...

I can't help it, I'm just SO not surprised that this "went down" involving the US Army.

Sean Smith
April 14, 2005, 12:18 PM
As somebody who actually was an Army CI officer (MOS 35E), here is my $0.02...

If the described incident actually happened as stated, it is unambiguously illegal. And incredibly stupid.

Army CI Special Agents have a very narrow jurisdiction. This incident isn't even a gray area, it is a moron area. With the exception of investigating service members, and maybe some narrow exceptions I forget, domestic CI is entirely owned by the FBI. Hell, Army CI's scope for operating on overseas deployments in hostile 3rd world hell holes is pretty limited.

This is so basic that I can't believe that the lawyers AND the CI folks could be so completely idiotic as to even get near this thing. And of course, since this incident is public, they poisoned any opportunity for the FBI to do a real investigation now. Morons.

itgoesboom
April 14, 2005, 12:30 PM
C_Yeager said: Actually they are, and they should be. Legal citizens have the very same constitutional rights and protections as everyone else. Only when it comes to the right to vote is citizenship required by the constitution. Thats just one of those sticky things that came about when we decided that our rights came by virtue of our humanity rather than our social standing.

I think that deserves being repeated.

I.G.B.

Crikey
April 14, 2005, 01:19 PM
Aliens shouldn't have the same rights as citizens since they don't have the same responsibilities.

Please do let me know what responsibilities I don't have. I'm hoping I don't have to pay taxes but I'll settle for not having to obey the speed limit.

Ironically, your sentiment fits in better with many foreign countries laws than with the Constitution of the USA.

Cheers,
Mike.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 15, 2005, 04:26 AM
Please do let me know what responsibilities I don't have. I'm hoping I don't have to pay taxes but I'll settle for not having to obey the speed limit.

Registered for the draft and to vote are you?

No? I guess you were too busy serving on jury duty.

You're not even required to say the pledge of allegience.


http://www.sss.gov/FSaliens.htm

c_yeager
April 15, 2005, 04:41 AM
Registered for the draft and to vote are you?

It suprises a lot of people that resident aliens have the same problems that we do, while enjoying all the pleasures of being deportable or having a vacation at guatanamo.

Yep aliens have to register for selective service just like everyone else, and they get called to juries too, with the same obligation to appear.

They don't get to vote though. It would really suck to get drafted and have to serve and still not even be allowed to vote for your CIC.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 15, 2005, 04:50 AM
Yep aliens have to register for selective service just like everyone else,

Not in all cases. Many don't have to register, as the link I provided indicates.

and they get called to juries too, with the same obligation to appear.

No they don't, this is incorrect. Every jurisdiction I know of excuses them upon a showing of their alien registration card.

Resident aliens may be called, and have an obligation to appear, but they cannot serve on a jury.

California for just one example:

""A. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, 203, all persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except the following:

1. Persons who are not citizens of the United States;""


http://www.cc-courts.org/jury.htm

c_yeager
April 15, 2005, 05:12 AM
Not in all cases. Many don't have to register, as the link I provided indicates.

Strange, since the first sentance of your link reads thus; U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System.*

SOME resident aliens, and in fact some citzens are excluded from military service for a wide variety of reasons. The only real catchall that applies to aliens is that they must have been in this country for a full year prior to service. A lot of natural born Americans arent qualified for military service either, and they still have to register as well.

You may be right about jury duty though. I don't really know how being excempt from jury duty somehow nullifies all the other rights enumerated in the constitution but what the heck.

auschip
April 15, 2005, 08:52 AM
Not in all cases. Many don't have to register, as the link I provided indicates.

Did you read the link you provided at all?

"U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System.* Most are also liable for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces if there is a draft. They would also be eligible for any deferments, postponements, and exemptions available to all other registrants."

It goes on to say "During a draft, any claims for exemptions based on any of the above categories would be granted or denied by a man's Local Board."

Thus, they would need to register with Selective Service and would need to make any exemption claims at their local board.

Crikey
April 15, 2005, 08:55 AM
Wow, talk about a free ride!

I can't vote (that's a right that you enjoy, not a responsibility by the way).

I *do* have to register for selective service (assuming I am not yet 26) - "Federal law requires that men who are at least 18 years old, but not yet 26 years old, must be registered with Selective Service. This includes all male non-citizens within these age limits who permanently reside in the United States. Men with "green cards" (lawful permanent residents) must register. " per USCIS http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/faq.htm#q27

And apparently I'm not *required* to say the pledge. Well, guess what, just as I chose to come to the US, I choose to say the pledge. Plus I stand and sing the national anthem as well. (to become a citizen I am required to state the Oath of Allegiance of course). Question - are *you* really *required* to say the pledge - what happens to you if you refuse to say it? I see plenty of surly teens who don't say the pledge or stand for the anthem.

News Flash: Legal Aliens get pretty much the same stuff as citizens except for voting and the fact that we can be deported if we commit a crime. Also my wife had to sign a petition of support meaning that she must support me because the US government will *not* pay me benifits that I might ordinarily be elligible for due to my immigrant status (I still get to pay taxes & SS though - indeed I'm in trouble if I don't).

For a list of the responsibilities of resident aliens see http://uscis.gov/graphics/citizenship/rights.htm#Your%20Rights%20and%20Responsibilities

Do you fill out a form if you are leaving the country for 12 months?

Note - I don't disagree with any of the restrictions or requirements placed on me, I am after all an imigrant. But, I do think that one of the greatest strengths of this nation is it's constitution which grants rights to all of us here based on our being human. If we have to round up the dang furriners in an effort to feel safer then I think this country becomes a little less like America. One of things that makes me want to puke in my home country is hearing people shout "Asians go home" as if that would solve the woes of that country.

One more thing then I'll get off the box :)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I find it telling that the Constitution recognizes that the ultimate responsibility (that is to alter or abolish new government) rests upon the same "The People" as have the other rights. I like to think I am one of The People. After all, I have the right to keep and bear arms.

No offense taken by me, none is meant by this post.

Thanks & Cheers,
Mike.
Australian by birth,
American by choice,
Texan by the grace of God!

Augustwest
April 15, 2005, 09:35 AM
And it's worth repeating again...

Actually they are, and they should be. Legal citizens have the very same constitutional rights and protections as everyone else. Only when it comes to the right to vote is citizenship required by the constitution. Thats just one of those sticky things that came about when we decided that our rights came by virtue of our humanity rather than our social standing.

Sean Smith
April 15, 2005, 11:56 AM
Actually, the Constitution does NOT guarantee the same rights for non-citizens as it does for citizens. Close, but no cigar. Read the 14th Ammendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Citizenship defined. Note that it excludes... visiting foreigners, for instance, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, etc.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

And thus it logically follows that states CAN abridge the "priveliges or immunities" of non-citizens. So non-citizens do NOT, per the text of the Constitution, receive the same protections as citizens. Due process of the law is still always required to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property, however, per the same ammendment.

Bear Gulch
April 15, 2005, 11:56 AM
Posse Comitatus didn't become law until 1876, which makes the Whiskey Rebellion a gimme.

I pose another view. Had a bomb gone off at UT wouldn't folks be clamoring to know why the army was watching these folks?

We are at war. We know that there are sleeper cells here. It is a legitimate MI function to look for them.

Hey if all the 19 911 hijackers were of Irish ancestry, I'd be willing to be looked at a little harder when I board a plane. But they weren't So maybe it is time for some Islamic groups to help instead of sitting on their hands and b****ing about how their rights are being trampled.

RevDisk
April 15, 2005, 06:30 PM
Posse Comitatus didn't become law until 1876, which makes the Whiskey Rebellion a gimme.

I pose another view. Had a bomb gone off at UT wouldn't folks be clamoring to know why the army was watching these folks?

We are at war. We know that there are sleeper cells here. It is a legitimate MI function to look for them.


If a bomb had gone off at UT, I imagine most people would be asking why the Army screwed up and why the FBI wasn't handling the investigation. Domestic counterintelligence is an FBI function.

It is NOT a military function, MI or otherwise. The military can provide technical assistance. Trust me, you don't want the US military policing US citizens. Nor does the US military want to do so anyways.



Hey if all the 19 911 hijackers were of Irish ancestry, I'd be willing to be looked at a little harder when I board a plane. But they weren't So maybe it is time for some Islamic groups to help instead of sitting on their hands and b****ing about how their rights are being trampled.

Question. If Islamic groups WERE cooperating with the FBI with on-going investigations, would they be advertising this fact?

Reality, some groups are fully cooperating, most are doing nothing, and a very few are intentionally blocking investigations. I suppose the worst case of a group blocking investigation would be the White House interfering with investigations of Saudi Arabia. But that's not a politically correct thing to say these days.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 16, 2005, 12:54 AM
I can't vote (that's a right that you enjoy, not a responsibility by the way).

I think you made my point as to why aliens shouldn't have the same rights as citizens. You and many others haven't "been around" in America long enough to pick up on the Jeffersonian ideals of an informed electorate. If you had you'd realize that voting is a right that one has an obligation to undertake (that includes a refusal to vote if need be) and a responsibility to use wisely and in an informed manner.


One more thing then I'll get off the box

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

And as the Constitution was originally written, excluding blacks, women, indians, and aliens. The part about aliens still makes sense.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 16, 2005, 12:59 AM
Did you read the link you provided at all?

Do you really think I would have posted it here on THR if I hadn't?

As I said, not ALL aliens are required to register: (from the website):

ALIENS ** REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

Lawful non-immigrants on visas (e.g., diplomatic and consular personnel and families, foreign students, tourists with unexpired visas (Forms I-94, I-95A), or those with Border Crossing Documents (Forms I-185, I-186, I-444). No

Permanent resident aliens. Yes

Special (seasonal) agricultural workers (Form I-688). Yes

Special agricultural workers (Form I-688A). No

Refugee, parolee, and asylee aliens. Yes

Undocumented (illegal) aliens. Yes

c_yeager
April 16, 2005, 03:55 AM
And thus it logically follows that states CAN abridge the "priveliges or immunities" of non-citizens. So non-citizens do NOT, per the text of the Constitution, receive the same protections as citizens. Due process of the law is still always required to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property, however, per the same ammendment.

Yes, and how many of the rights enumerated by the constitution specifically state a requirement for citizenship? Only ONE, the right to vote. Clearly our founding fathers knew the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen and yet, they make no distinction between the two in the bill of rights. So, either they hideously screwed up and FORGOT to make that distinction, or those rights arent requisit upon citizenship.

DRZinn
April 16, 2005, 09:38 AM
Your rights you have by virtue of being a human being, but there are many privileges you have only by being a citizen. Let's not confuse what is and isn't a right, and then we won't have to argue who does and doesn't have them.

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army monitoring civilians ..... again!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!