Skip to main content

View Diary: Georgia Republican called on the National Guard to 'take a pass' on Boston Marathon duty (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Its the Nat'l Guard, not the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lenzy1000, gramofsam1, dewtx

    Marines.

    and am I not mistaken that those Guards would all be from that same State?

    -8.25, -7.13 "Well, on second thought, let's not go to Camelot -- it is a silly place." "Right"

    by leathersmith on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 01:47:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  military is military is military (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, divineorder
      Hidden by:
      Aquarius40

      And we don't need (and shouldn't WANT) military in the streets.

      •  Not even close. (7+ / 0-)

        The National Guard was never intended to be just another Army Reserve. Sure, it has that function in time of war, but it is the State Militia at other times. Yet another problem with the increasing militarization of America is the emphasis now placed on the Guard's federal role, to the detriment of it's traditional local, community roles.

        Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

        by rhonan on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 02:16:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what it was "intended" as, is irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          What it indisputably IS, is military.  It has military-issue equipment; it trains in military tactics and missions; it deploys regularly to war zones as military frontline combat troops. It is military.

          Yet another problem with the increasing militarization of America is the emphasis now placed on the Guard's federal role, to the detriment of it's traditional local, community roles.
          Exactly.  I got no problem with NG handing out water bottles at earthquake scenes or whatever.  I have ENORMOUS problems with military people policing our streets. The dangers of having the military policing the streets are so great and so obvious that it baffles and saddens me to see people defending the idea.

          I fear greatly that, as a nation, the Boston bombing is about to make us as a nation lose our minds all over again.  Have we learned NOTHING from 9-11 and our massive collective over-reaction to it?

      •  No, military is not all the same. (4+ / 0-)

        The statement "military is military is military" is simplistic and incorrect. Different branches fulfill different roles. The Army is not a Navy, for example.

        The National Guard's state mission is an integral part of its purpose and National Guard and its predecessor militia have ALWAYS been used for helping maintain the public order during disasters, disturbances and major events. Nothing wrong with it -- it's what they are FOR. Your prejudice notwithstanding.

      •  why the hell did this get an HR . . . . ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        Please remove your abusive HR.

      •  I disagree w/ you and th bullshit HR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 03:23:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you disagree with which part . . . . (0+ / 0-)

          :)

          that the National Guard is military?  Or that we should not want military in our streets?

          I think both of those statements are trivially true, and if there hadn't been a bombing yesterday that is causing the whole US to lose its goddamn mind all over again, we would not even be debating the issue.

          Right after 9-11, I was telling everyone in sight that treating terrorism as a military matter rather than as a law enforcement matter was a sure path to disaster--and everyone jumped all over me for it. I was right, though. We've now become a militarized national security state, where people can even be executed without trial based solely on military considerations.

          And if we decide to upgrade the domestic police role of the US military as a response to the Boston bombing, that too is a sure path to disaster.

          I remember when progressives used to OPPOSE the militarization of our society, rather than encourage and cheer for it.  What a nation we have become . . . . .   (sigh)

          •  Well, the reply I posted from my phone disappeared (0+ / 0-)

            I guess I'm a "civic nationalist." For the most part I loathe the idea of states' rights. And yet we have a republic that is a hybrid of civic nationalism and confederacy.

            IMO, the NG is an analogous hybrid that fits pretty well in the gap between each state's State Police and the U.S. armed forces. (Its existence is also authorized by the Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.) With a few godawful exceptions -- Kent State springs to mind -- the NG has overall performed admirably IMO, in theaters of war (and even as horribly misused as they have been in the last 12 years) but especially at home, working like yeomen on disaster relief, fighting wildfires, escorting black children into white schools, etc., etc., etc., etc. They have an authorized and defined role that gives citizens a handle on their control (if we will collectively grab the handle).

            What bothers me is our freestyle, no-holds-barred surveillance culture, our government's dalliances with mercs and torture, our prison industrial complex, and the interplay between some of these elements -- they are dancing ghosts well outside of authorization and defined roles.

            We demilitarized society after the Civil War and to some extent after WWII, so it can be done. But can we "de-surveil"? It will require the education of a very ignorant populace, demoralized into what I think is listlessness rather than genuine apathy.

            Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

            by raincrow on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:11:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site