Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: USA CIVILIAN FEDERAL POLICE FORCE FOR USE IN THE USA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf



    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.aspA Stability Police Force For the United States
    Submitted by: Larry


    There is 1 comment on this story
    PostComments | ReadComments




    "This project investigates the need for a U.S. Stability Police Force, the major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed. In doing so, it considers options based in the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State. The project was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI). Its purpose was to make recommendations to PKSOI, the Army, and the community of rule-of-law researchers, practitioners, and policymakers on the need for (and characteristics of) a U.S. Stability Police Force." ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    OH MY HEAD

    Where to begin? The Rand Corp. is a "think tank" hired to knock around ideas (something like we do on this forum, but for money). The Army hired them to knock around this lunacy.

    Notably the "Stability Police" proposal is compared to Spain's La Guardia Civil, which in the days of Franco was a feared hand of oppression (I am a fan of the poetry of Federico Garcia-Lorca; who was murdered by La Guardia for his opinions). While they were at it, they might have also mentioned the OrdnungPolizei (Order Police or ORPO) of Nazi Germany who served much the same function.

    Also notable is how little talk there is about the Constitution (although one diagram puts everything under a nebulous entity called "Rule of Law")

    Frankly this study, like Obamacare, "Cap and Trade" (and the recent EPA announcement of intention to implement it by bureaucratic fiat) and "commn sense gun control" is not about enssuring stability anymore than Obamacare is about providing health care or "cap and trade" is about "climate change" or "Sensible" gun control is about ensuring public safety. At least the study makes no bones about it. Unlike these other idiot perversions of government, the study candidly admits that the goal is the control of the populace.

    How refreshingly f&(kingly honest.

    (edit for clarity bolded and itlicized)


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote: Like these other idiot perversions of government, the study candidly admits that the goal is the control of the populace.

    How refreshingly f&(kingly honest.

    But this study seems to be focused on controlling a foreign populace in a small country where civil society has broken down -- something our military has tried to do with mixed success. They are not cops.

    Seems like this proposal is fraught with problems -- but would not as much threaten US civil liberties as existing federal police forces that focus on the domestic arena.

    Personally, never much liked the idea ofa centralizedDepartment of Homeland Security: glad that the FBI have a home outside of that agency.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I never much liked the idea of a centralized "Homeland".

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I never much liked the idea of a centralized "Homeland".
    Yep when Bush announced his "homeland" security, made me shiver, too much like "fatherland" etc.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    I never much liked the idea of a centralized "Homeland".
    Yep when Bush announced his "homeland" security, made me shiver, too much like "fatherland" etc.
    This makes me curious. I know that certain countries tend to be associated with those terms--Germany with "fatherland," Russia with "motherland," etc. But I've always viewed it as simply those cultures' way of expressing patriotism.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    I never much liked the idea of a centralized "Homeland".
    Yep when Bush announced his "homeland" security, made me shiver, too much like "fatherland" etc.
    This makes me curious. I know that certain countries tend to be associated with those terms--Germany with "fatherland," Russia with "motherland," etc. But I've always viewed it as simply those cultures' way of expressing patriotism.
    It is also a way of putting your country's interest above your own or what is even right.

    If we look at history, the modern notion of patriotism wasn't really instilled until WWI.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Idaho Cowboy:
    8) General: No shouting in All Capital Letters. Use "substantially proper" capitalization, punctuation, and grammer as best you can. Use of abbreviations and acronymns shold be minimized and always defined.

    And jpierce: you misspelled grammar, acronyms, and should
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    This sounds more like the MVD than the French Gendarmerie.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...mvd-su0537.htm

  11. #11
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Posse Comitatus means nothing apparently.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote: But this study seems to be focused on controlling a foreign populace in a small country where civil society has broken down
    Maybe, maybe not. I see it as something the beltway marxists would use here anytime there's so called"civil disturbances', like "TEA parties".

    There's absolutely nothing good about this.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote: But this study seems to be focused on controlling a foreign populace in a small country where civil society has broken down
    Maybe, maybe not. I see it as something the beltway marxists would use here anytime there's so called"civil disturbances', like "TEA parties".

    There's absolutely nothing good about this.
    Donkey wrote that, not me. This study is clearly aimed at the feasability of creating a national "ordnungspolizei" right here in the USA; and although it is just a bunch of eggheads in a think tank spouting goofy ideas, these eggheads were comissioned to mull this particular goofy idea by the U.S. Army.

    Where Donk got the idea that the study was focused on "foreign populations" I don't know. It is very clear on even a cursory reading that it is aimed at analyzing the feasability of controlling United States Citizens in the - ahem - Homeland.

    In any case, Huck ol' buddy; please don't attribute Donkey's words to me.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    Posse Comitatus means nothing apparently.
    < sarcasm >

    Posse Comitatus? we dont need no stinkin posse comitatus.

    < /sarcasm >



    my country, right or wrong and etc.

  15. #15
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    So I understand this right, the government is going to empower common citizens, to ride roughshod over common citizens?!
    And this is different how?

    [flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/yeYg0qCn11U&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

  17. #17
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    In any case, Huck ol' buddy; please don't attribute Donkey's words to me.
    Sorry 'bout that Alex!
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    In any case, Huck ol' buddy; please don't attribute Donkey's words to me.
    Sorry 'bout that Alex!
    My mistake: I was a bit too heavy on the delete button, and deleted the bubble for Alex.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Huck wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote: But this study seems to be focused on controlling a foreign populace in a small country where civil society has broken down
    Maybe, maybe not. I see it as something the beltway marxists would use here anytime there's so called"civil disturbances', like "TEA parties".

    There's absolutely nothing good about this.
    Donkey wrote that, not me. This study is clearly aimed at the feasability of creating a national "ordnungspolizei" right here in the USA; and although it is just a bunch of eggheads in a think tank spouting goofy ideas, these eggheads were comissioned to mull this particular goofy idea by the U.S. Army.

    Where Donk got the idea that the study was focused on "foreign populations" I don't know. It is very clear on even a cursory reading that it is aimed at analyzing the feasability of controlling United States Citizens in the - ahem - Homeland.

    In any case, Huck ol' buddy; please don't attribute Donkey's words to me.

    I get it from the executive summary where the authors talk about the advisability of using the force exclusively in countries with populations of 20 million or less.


  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Still no reason we have the armed forces already. Plus we need to stop being the world police.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Good video Tomahawk. And, your right.

  22. #22
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I am certain that the "Anointed One" made reference to this sort of force when he stated during the campaign (of course he's never quit campaigning) that there was going to be a 750,000 person force as well funded and trained as the Armed Forces for securing our country?? Did anyone else hear that or am I the only one?
    Can anyone else say Brownshirts?? I knew that you could. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood,,,
    Keep your powder dry!

    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    A little experiment in this direction is fixing to be carried out by a government agency, and soon; and no I am not kidding. The EPA as you may know just declared its intent to make war on carbon dioxide, and it was announced yesterday that they would begin "aggressive regulatory enforcement" tout le suite.

    The fanatical btch who heads that agency is completely off her damned rocker. It is no longer a question of if government intervention will push us to Concord Bridge II but - unless this madwoman is stopped - when. The draconian cuts in CO2 emissions she envisions will require government monitoring of everything you do that produces CO2 short of - for now - breathing; which means pretty much evrything you do, period. People in trnsportation (like me) could be required toobtain special "emissions permits", even get our vehicles replaced entirely, etc;and face fines if we do more driving than the government thinks is permissible. Hot showers could be outlawed (yes, these nuts advocate cold showers. Personally I think the nuts need a cold shower, a nice long one in a strait jacket) and rationing of fuel could be in the cards for ordinary folks. And it is not likely that people would sit still for Federal shower monitors unless the police power of the State forced them to.

    This is the attack on the Second Amendment: since it is political suicide to launch an all-out frontal assault, one way is to gradually destroy all the OTHER liberties the 2A was designed to defend, and leave the Minuteman as pitiful and ridiculous as a Japanese soldier holed up on an island after his war has been lost.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    A little experiment in this direction is fixing to be carried out by a government agency, and soon; and no I am not kidding. The EPA as you may know just declared its intent to make war on carbon dioxide, and it was announced yesterday that they would begin "aggressive regulatory enforcement" tout le suite.

    The fanatical btch who heads that agency is completely off her damned rocker. It is no longer a question of if government intervention will push us to Concord Bridge II but - unless this madwoman is stopped - when. The draconian cuts in CO2 emissions she envisions will require government monitoring of everything you do that produces CO2 short of - for now - breathing; which means pretty much evrything you do, period. People in trnsportation (like me) could be required toobtain special "emissions permits", even get our vehicles replaced entirely, etc;and face fines if we do more driving than the government thinks is permissible. Hot showers could be outlawed (yes, these nuts advocate cold showers. Personally I think the nuts need a cold shower, a nice long one in a strait jacket) and rationing of fuel could be in the cards for ordinary folks. And it is not likely that people would sit still for Federal shower monitors unless the police power of the State forced them to.

    This is the attack on the Second Amendment: since it is political suicide to launch an all-out frontal assault, one way is to gradually destroy all the OTHER liberties the 2A was designed to defend, and leave the Minuteman as pitiful and ridiculous as a Japanese soldier holed up on an island after his war has been lost.
    For years I have written that most of the "laws" and "restrictions which affect you on a daily basis are through the concept of "acts and agency". Our beloved EPA has once again proved this to be true in just the past week.

    The thing is, states do not have to adhere to this. All they need do is simply refuse to abide by any sort of requirements by the EPA. What's the federal government going to do if half of the states tell them basically to put it where the sun doesn't shine?

    If the Founding Fathers were alive and saw all of this unfolding, we never would have gotten anywhere near this far towards the abyss. They would have stopped this monster just like they did in 1775.

    Interestingly, the spark which ignited the American Revolution was... Gun control. One wonders if history could repeat itself.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Good points, Southernboy. However what the Feds do in cases where resistance is likely is threaten to withhold Federal funding for politicallly popular State programs (highways, etc.). This is to extortion what taxes are to robbery. And of course there is the usual rathole of the "Interstate Commerce" and General Welfare clauses which are viewed as "loopholes" in the Constitution by the Feds. (LOOPHOLES IN THE CONSTITUTION??:what

    In the same vein there is an effort being mounted by some DemonRat backbencher to eliminate the "navigable" part of "navigable waterways" in Federal law so as to give the Government control over every single drop of water in the country. Proverbs says there are three things that are never satisfied but always want more: the Fire, the Grave, and the Barren Womb. Solomon evidently never got to Washington DC.

    Dealing with these vermin is like playing 3 dimensional chess in a mirror with the Devil. God help us.











Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •